Dead Wild Roses

Alberta’s Bill 25 and the Misuse of “Welcoming”

April 4, 2026 in Alberta, Canada, Education | Tags: Alberta, Bill 25, Critical thinking, Education Policy, Institutional Neutrality, Parental Rights, Political Ideology, Public Education, School Governance, teachers | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

The attack on Bill 25 has settled into a familiar script. Critics say it will make schools less welcoming, by which they mean that restricting ideological flag displays, limiting board activism, and requiring neutrality in certain forms of programming will make some students feel unseen or unwanted. It is an effective line because it hides a political claim inside the language of care. Nobody wants an unwelcoming school. The trick is that welcoming is being made to mean more than safety, decency, and respect.

A school should be safe, orderly, and humane. It should protect students from bullying, enforce standards of conduct, and make it possible for children to learn without fear or humiliation. What does not follow is the larger claim now being pushed by Bill 25’s opponents: that a public school must also visibly signal allegiance to a particular moral framework, and that if it stops doing so it has somehow become hostile.

“Protection is not the same as endorsement.”

That is the switch.

On the actual text, Bill 25 does not erase students, ban disagreement, or outlaw difficult topics. What it does is narrower, and more defensible, than its critics pretend. It pushes Alberta’s education law back toward institutional restraint. The bill revises parts of the Education Act’s language around school climate, requires courses and instructional materials to encourage a wide range of perspectives and foster critical thinking, says boards must refrain from taking political, social, or ideological positions unrelated to their duties, and requires certain non-approved programming to be impartial, fair, neutral, and free of personal bias. It also restricts school flags by default to the Canadian and Alberta flags, subject to later regulatory exceptions.

That is not a purge. It is a correction.

Now, the strongest version of the other side’s case is not hard to state. Some vulnerable students really do experience explicit symbols of affirmation as reassuring. Some will feel more at ease in an environment where support is made visible rather than merely promised in policy language. And because Bill 25 uses broad terms like “political, social or ideological” and refers to “common values and beliefs of Albertans,” it is fair to ask how those phrases will be applied in practice. A sloppy implementation could create confusion where schools need clarity.

Those are real concerns. They still do not settle the argument.

A public institution cannot make emotional reassurance the test for what it is allowed to endorse. The fact that some students feel comforted by visible institutional alignment does not mean the institution should align itself with a contested worldview. In a pluralistic public school, there will always be students who feel affirmed by one framework and alienated by another. The institution cannot solve that problem by choosing a side and calling the choice kindness. Its job is to protect students, maintain order, teach well, and show restraint in the use of its authority.

A public school is not a campaign office, a therapeutic identity space, or an activist workshop with a literacy block attached. It is a public institution. It belongs to families who do not agree with one another about politics, morality, religion, sex, identity, or the kind of society they want their children to inherit. Such an institution cannot remain trustworthy for long if it begins signaling that one contested framework has acquired official moral status.

This is why so much of the criticism of Bill 25 feels dishonest. It starts from a true premise and then quietly expands it. Some students are vulnerable. Fine. They deserve protection, dignity, and ordinary decency. But from that narrow duty of care, critics jump to a much broader demand: that the institution must visibly ratify a particular set of assumptions and display them as part of the school’s moral atmosphere. Protection becomes affirmation, affirmation becomes endorsement, and endorsement begins to drift into instruction.

“A school can protect a student without acting as a billboard for a worldview.”

That is the real dispute.

A teacher can treat every child with dignity without using classroom authority to suggest that contested beliefs about sex, identity, and society have already been settled beyond argument. A board can meet its legal obligations without issuing statements on every political controversy fashionable adults feel obliged to perform opinions about. Bill 25 does not solve all of this, but it does attempt to restore some institutional discipline where that discipline had plainly weakened.

As a teacher, that part is hard to ignore. I am not in the classroom to advertise my politics, recruit students into a moral sensibility, or drape school authority over my own preferred social vision and call the result compassion. I am there to teach. That means helping students read carefully, write clearly, listen seriously, and argue without slogans doing all the work for them. It also means knowing where my job ends.

That professional boundary now seems strangely difficult for some people to defend. They talk as though asking an institution to remain neutral is the same thing as demanding that individual students disappear. It is not. Bill 25 does not say students cannot exist as they are, think as they do, or discuss difficult questions. What it says, in substance, is that the institution itself should exercise more restraint in the positions it takes, the programming it allows outside the approved curriculum, and the symbolic alignment it displays as a public body.

That is a long way from the apocalyptic language being used against it.

None of this means the bill is perfect. It is not. The practical details will matter, and future regulations will matter even more. But arguing over those details is not the same as falsifying the centre.

And the centre is simple. A public school should not behave like an ideological camp that happens to issue report cards. It should teach students from many backgrounds under rules that are serious, fair, and publicly defensible. It should protect the vulnerable without demanding institutional allegiance to one faction’s beliefs. It should cultivate thought rather than posture, and trust rather than theatre.

The most dishonest move Bill 25’s opponents have made is to present neutrality as though it were hostility. That only works if one has already confused institutional discipline with emotional abandonment. Once every limit on symbolic activism is recast as an attack on children, no boundary remains. The institution becomes available for endless moral capture by whichever faction is best at translating its politics into therapeutic language.

That is not a school anyone should trust.

Bill 25 does not solve every problem in education. What it does do is move, however imperfectly, in the right direction. It treats the school as a public institution rather than a stage for institutional self-display. It reminds boards and educators that restraint is part of professionalism. It suggests, at long last, that children can be protected without making ideology the atmosphere everyone is expected to breathe.

That is not cruelty. It is maturity.

References

Bill 25 (official PDF):

Click to access 20251023_bill-025.pdf

Government of Alberta overview:
https://www.alberta.ca/removing-politics-and-ideology-from-alberta-classrooms

The Intersex Ploy: A Venn Diagram

April 4, 2026 in Humour | Tags: Biology, Gender Ideology, Intersex, Medical Disorders, Queer Theory, Reality Denial, Sex and Gender | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

This image makes a simple point: “intersex” does not mean a third sex. It refers to rare medical disorders affecting sexual development. The criticism here is that queer theorists often use those rare exceptions rhetorically to blur or deconstruct the basic reality that sex is male or female.

The Alberta NDP’s Peggy Wright – This Is How Bad Policy Wins Without Public Consent

April 3, 2026 in Alberta, Education, Politics | Tags: Critical Theory, Democratic Process, Ideology, Language and Power, Media Framing, Motte and Bailey, political language, Public Policy, Rhetoric, Social Constructivism | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

Posted by the NDP’s Peggy Wright on X.

There is a recurring pattern in modern policy debates that most people sense but struggle to name. The argument presented to the public is not the policy that gets implemented. Instead, a broadly agreeable claim—something no reasonable person would oppose—is used to carry a far more specific and contested agenda into law. By the time the details become visible, the argument has already been won at the level that matters.

This is the structure known as the motte and bailey. The “motte” is the safe, defensible position: a statement so benign it feels almost churlish to resist. The “bailey” is the real position—the one with consequences, tradeoffs, and enforcement mechanisms. The move is simple. Sell the motte. Build the bailey. When challenged, retreat to the motte and accuse critics of attacking something obviously good.

You can see the pattern clearly in the recent dispute over education language. The public claim is that schools should be “welcoming,” “inclusive,” and respectful of “diversity.” No serious person objects to that in the abstract. But those terms are not operating as neutral descriptions. They have acquired specific policy meanings, often tied to particular ideological frameworks, institutional practices, and expectations placed on teachers and students. When legislation attempts to narrow or neutralize that language—shifting toward behavior-based standards like “safe and caring” environments grounded in responsibility and respect—the response is immediate: the government is “removing welcome,” attacking “diversity,” harming children. The motte is invoked as if it were the policy itself. The bailey disappears from view.

Watch the Move

In a recent legislative speech, MLA Peggy Wright provides a clean example of how this works in practice. She begins with a familiar image:

“Albertans put welcome mats in front of their doors. It means ‘come on in’ and we’re glad you are here.”

No disagreement is possible there. It is a moral and cultural baseline. But then the shift occurs. A change in statutory language becomes:

“the UCP is pulling up the welcome mat from all public schools.”

A metaphor replaces the policy. The audience is invited to react to exclusion rather than examine the legislation. The escalation continues:

“Gone are the days when schools were welcoming and inclusive places… celebrating diversity and uniqueness.”

At this point, the argument is no longer about wording. It is about intent, character, and harm. The key moment follows:

“the latest amendments… would strip words like ‘welcoming’ and ‘diversity’ from it.”

This is where the real question should be asked: does removing those words remove the underlying protections, or does it replace one framework of description with another? That question is never addressed. Instead, the speech returns immediately to moral framing:

“Diversity is a strength.”

In the abstract, yes. But the dispute is not over the abstract claim. It is over what “diversity” means in policy and practice. By collapsing the contested meaning into the harmless one, the argument avoids defending the actual implications. Criticism of the policy is recast as opposition to a universal good.

“The argument people agree to is not the policy that gets implemented.”

The most revealing line in the speech is this:

“Words are important… because they set the tone.”

That is true—and it explains the entire strategy.

This pattern isn’t random. It reflects a broader shift in how language is used in politics. Words like “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “safety” are no longer just descriptive. They function as instruments. If language helps shape how institutions operate and how people interpret reality, then controlling definitions becomes a form of power. Under that logic, you don’t need full public agreement on the details of a policy. You need agreement on the framing. Once that is secured, the content can expand behind it.

That helps explain why the motte and bailey is so effective. It allows advocates to operate on two levels at once. The public-facing level is morally attractive and broadly supported. The operational level is narrower, more contested, and often insulated from direct scrutiny. When the two are conflated, consent is manufactured. People believe they are endorsing a general principle when, in practice, they are enabling a specific program.

It works because most people are not trained to interrogate language this way. “Inclusion” sounds like inclusion. “Diversity” sounds like a mix of backgrounds and perspectives. “Safety” sounds like protection from harm. The terms carry moral weight before any definition is examined. By the time someone asks what they actually entail in practice, the rhetorical ground has already shifted. Opposition can be framed as hostility to the value itself rather than disagreement with its implementation.

The cost is not just confusion. It is the erosion of honest disagreement. If every critique of a policy can be recast as an attack on a universally accepted good, then meaningful debate becomes impossible. Language stops clarifying differences and starts concealing them. Institutions drift, not because the public has clearly chosen a direction, but because the terms of choice were never presented plainly.

This is why the technique matters. It is not just sharp rhetoric. It is a way of bypassing consent. If citizens cannot distinguish between the principle they are being asked to affirm and the policy that will follow from it, then they are no longer participating in a genuine democratic process. They are being managed through language.

If you think this reading is unfair, read the full remarks below and decide for yourself.

Appendix: Full Speech Transcript (April 2, 2026)

How to read this: Watch for the shift between general claims (“welcome,” “diversity”) and the specific policy being discussed. The argument depends on treating them as the same.

Full transcript of the video (Alberta Legislative Assembly session, ~1:57 long):

“Mr. Speaker, Albertans put welcome mats in front of their doors. It means ‘come on in’ and we’re glad you are here. And welcome to our house.

But now the UCP is pulling up the welcome mat from all public schools.

Gone are the days when schools were welcoming and inclusive places for students, celebrating diversity and uniqueness.That’s because the latest amendments to the Education Act would strip words like ‘welcoming’ and ‘diversity’ from it.

This government combed through that bill and pulled the word ‘welcoming’ out eight times.Not satisfied with making our public schools less inviting — even as they function as important community hubs for many of our communities — then they went through and chopped the word ‘diversity’ out five times.

Diversity is a strength.

It used to say so in government policy, in legislation. But I guess not anymore.Words are important, Mr. Speaker, and that’s because they set the tone.

When those in charge are threatened by words like diversity, welcome, and sense of belonging, there’s a problem. Because this is then about ideology and politics outside the classroom, not within.Instead of focusing on reducing class sizes, hiring teachers, and ensuring supports are there for all kids who need them, we get this distraction from a bill and government intent to narrow the frame so much that there is room for only one worldview: the UCP’s.And that’s the point.

Straight out of the authoritarian playbook, Mr. Speaker.But, Mr. Speaker, our kids deserve that welcome mat back. I, for one, am extremely happy to let them know that they can expect it come next election, when it’s NDP in government and UCP — not our kids — who will find themselves unwelcome.”

The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude – Bach – Sanfte soll mein Todeskummer from Easter Oratorio BWV 249 | Netherlands Bach Society

April 3, 2026 in Music | Tags: Easter, The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude - Bach - Sanfte soll mein Todeskummer from Easter Oratorio BWV 249 | Netherlands Bach Society | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

This is Peter’s aria in the Easter Oratorio, sung just after he sees Jesus’ burial cloth lying in the empty tomb. In the preceding recitative, Peter says he sees the Schweisstuch “lying unwrapped,” and the aria turns that sight into a personal meditation on death and resurrection. (Bachvereniging)

A natural English rendering would be:

“May the sorrow of my death be gentle, only a sleep, Jesus, because of your burial cloth. Yes, that will refresh me there and tenderly wipe the tears of my suffering from my cheeks.” (Bachvereniging)

A couple of small nuances matter here.
“Todeskummer” is not just “death” in the abstract, but the grief, anguish, or distress bound up with dying. “Schlummer” is lighter than full sleep: more like slumber or restful dozing. And “Schweisstuch” can be rendered as shroud, face cloth, or burial cloth; in context it is the cloth Peter sees in the tomb, now transformed into a sign that death has been overcome. (Bachvereniging)

What the aria means

The basic idea is very beautiful: because Christ has risen, the believer’s own death is no longer imagined as terror or final ruin, but as something softened into sleep. Peter is not singing triumphantly here. He is drawing consolation from the Resurrection and applying it to his own mortality. That inward, reflective quality is part of the work’s design; this oratorio is not only about Easter joy, but about what the Resurrection means for the human person at death. (The Classical Source)

Musical summary

Musically, the aria is gentle, rocking, and consoling rather than brilliant or extrovert. One critic describes it as a soft lullaby, with rippling strings and flutes and very little obvious beat, so the texture feels smooth and soothing rather than sharply rhythmic. Another listener highlights the blend of violins and recorders and hears in it “joy, comfort in and against death and suffering.” (The Classical Source)

So the emotional color is not “Easter trumpet blaze.” It is more intimate: death reimagined as sleep, grief being wiped away, and the empty tomb becoming a source of personal calm. That is why the aria feels so tender. It sits at the contemplative heart of the Easter Oratorio. (The Classical Source)

For Easter weekend, a small and lovely Bach choice: “Sanfte soll mein Todeskummer” from the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249). Not triumph first, but consolation — death softened into sleep by the Resurrection. Baroque piety at its most tender.

We’ve Been Living the Asch Experiment – “Progressive Coercion from Transactivists”

April 2, 2026 in Gender Issues, Psychology, Public Policy | Tags: Gender Ideology, Reality Denial, Social Conformity, Solomon Asch, Speech Coercion, Transgender ideology, Women’s Boundaries | by The Arbourist | 2 comments

Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments were brutally simple. One person sits with a unanimous group. Two lines of obviously different lengths appear. The group confidently gives the wrong answer. Around 75% of participants conformed at least once. On the critical trials, they went along with the false answer roughly one-third of the time. In the control condition, with no group pressure, errors were almost nonexistent.

That experiment did not stay in the lab.

We now run it as social policy.

A plainly male person enters a female space or female category, and everyone nearby is expected to override what their eyes and judgment are reporting. Not because the evidence is subtle. Because the penalty for stating the obvious has been made artificially high: bigot, transphobe, career risk, social isolation, institutional discipline.

That is the test.

The point is not that everyone believes the lie. The point is that enough people comply in public to make it feel socially mandatory. That is how conformity works: not by proving a falsehood, but by punishing dissent until visible reality becomes something people are afraid to name.

“He knew better. He gave the group answer anyway.”

And the clearer the mismatch, the harsher the demand for submission. Non-passing males are not an embarrassment to this ideology. They are its purest form. They force the conformity trial into the open. The more obvious the contradiction, the more intensely the crowd must insist that you deny it.

Malcolm Gladwell recently handed the game away. Reflecting on his 2022 MIT panel on trans athletes, he admitted he was “ashamed” because he shared Ross Tucker’s position “100%” and was “cowed.” He knew better. He gave the group answer anyway.

That is the real Asch lesson of our time. Social coercion does not need universal belief. It only needs enough fearful public compliance to make reality itself feel socially dangerous.

Call male female, or pay the price.

That is not compassion. It is organized conformity.

Sources:

Solomon E. Asch, “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American 193, no. 5 (1955). Classic summary of the line-judgment conformity experiments. Asch reports that in the critical condition, about one-third of judgments shifted toward the erroneous majority, while control-group errors were virtually absent.
OpenLearn (The Open University), “Starting with psychology: 5.3 Groups and conformity.” Useful summary of Asch’s original findings, including that 75 percent of participants conformed to an obviously wrong answer at least once.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Conformity” and “Normative influence.” Helpful for the distinction your piece relies on: conformity can involve public compliance without private acceptance, which fits your argument that the mechanism is outward submission under pressure rather than sincere belief.
For the Gladwell reference: The Real Science of Sport podcast follow-up notes confirm that Gladwell apologized for how he handled the 2022 MIT Sloan panel, and contemporaneous reporting quotes him saying he shared Ross Tucker’s position “100%” and was “cowed.”

The Morning Canada Woke Up

April 1, 2026 in Canada, Culture, Public Policy | Tags: April Fools, Canada, DEI, Free Speech, Gender Ideology, satire, Women’s Spaces | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

I woke this morning to the sort of silence one usually associates with miracles or the CBC losing funding. It was not the usual Canadian silence of people muttering “well, that’s concerning” while being mugged by ideology in a Lululemon hoodie. No. It was the silence that comes after a fever breaks.

By breakfast, the first signs were impossible to miss. Gender ideology had finally been moved to its proper shelf: comparative religion. It now sat comfortably beside crystal healing, Gnostic sects, and the more enthusiastic forms of astrology. Canadians, with characteristic politeness, agreed that adults were free to believe in innate gender spirits if they wished. They were simply no longer allowed to drag those beliefs into schools, prisons, women’s shelters, human rights tribunals, or sports governing bodies and demand that everybody else call it science.

Female spaces reverted, almost overnight, to the radical old principle that women are female. Women’s prisons once again housed women. Women’s shelters once again served women. Women’s hospital wards, changing rooms, crisis centres, rape relief services, and athletic categories all quietly recovered their original function. The country did not collapse. No one burst into flames. The sun rose, the buses ran late, and Canadian women experienced the deeply unfamiliar sensation of not having to explain why privacy, fairness, and physical safety were not hate crimes.

“They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.”

Even the sports pages improved. Men were removed from women’s competitions with so little fuss one wondered why the insanity had been allowed to continue so long. Records began to mean something again. Girls stopped being told that getting flattened by male bodies was a teachable moment in inclusion.

Meanwhile, Canada seemed to have recovered from a long and embarrassing binge. DEI offices vanished like travelling carnivals after a municipal scandal. Land acknowledgements were quietly retired from every meeting and kindergarten graduation after the public noticed they had not, in fact, altered land title or improved anyone’s life. They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.

Freedom of speech also made an unexpected return. Not the decorative kind. The real kind. The kind where one could say true or unpopular things without being marched through a moral struggle session by people whose entire personality is a lanyard.

For several glorious hours, the country seemed almost curable.

Then I remembered the date.

Happy April Fool’s Day.

The Questions Canadian Media Refuse to Ask

March 31, 2026 in Alberta, Canada, Gender Issues, Media, Politics | Tags: Canada, Gender Ideology, Media Framing, Nova Scotia, Radicalization, School Violence, Selective Curiosity, Tumbler Ridge, Youth Violence | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

Canadian media know how to do pattern recognition when they want to.

Give them the right suspect, the right ideology, or the right grievance story, and they will produce instant analysis about pathways, warning signs, radicalization, social meaning, and what the event “says” about the culture. But let violence intersect with a politically protected identity category, and the appetite for explanation suddenly disappears.

That is the real story here.

A youth in Nova Scotia is accused in a foiled school attack plot involving online coordination, handwritten plans, imitation weapons, hate symbols, and threats. Weeks earlier, Canada saw the Tumbler Ridge massacre, one of the country’s rare school-linked mass shootings, carried out by a trans-identified male with prior mental-health-related police contacts. Two cases do not prove some grand law. They do, however, justify a question. When identity disturbance, grievance, alienation, and violence begin to cluster, are we allowed to notice, or does the conversation get shut down the moment the demographic becomes inconvenient?

That question is treated as indecent when it should be treated as basic public seriousness.

The point is not that trans identification causes violence. That would be a stupid claim, and an unserious one. The point is that severe identity instability, grievance, social isolation, and moral insulation from scrutiny can form a combustible mix, and our institutions become evasive when gender ideology is somewhere in the picture. They know how to be curious. They simply become selective about when curiosity is allowed.

That selectivity matters because schools are not seminar rooms. They are places where adults are supposed to notice risk before bodies hit the floor.

Instead, the public gets the usual flattening language. Troubled youth. Mental health struggle. Isolated incident. Complex circumstances. All of that may be true as far as it goes. What is missing is any willingness to ask whether a culture that treats identity claims as sacred, untouchable, and morally beyond scrutiny might also be making honest risk assessment harder than it should be. If a young person’s entire psychic life is being organized around grievance, estrangement, fantasy, and a demand that reality ratify the self at all costs, that is not automatically a violence pathway. But it is certainly not nothing.

And yet the moment this territory appears, Canadian media go soft in the head.

“When violence intersects with a protected identity category, Canadian media suddenly lose their appetite for explanation.”

They will interrogate masculinity, whiteness, right-wing pipelines, online extremism, misogyny, colonial resentment, and institutional failure when those frames are available. But when gender ideology may be part of the unstable mix, the analysis collapses into vagueness. Suddenly nobody wants to generalize. Nobody wants to connect dots. Nobody wants to risk saying the wrong thing. The protected category gets narrative shelter that other categories do not receive.

That is not neutrality. It is selective curiosity.

None of this means most gender-distressed youth are violent. Of course they are not. But public safety is not served by pretending that every cluster of instability must be discussed in the most generic terms possible just because one part of the profile has become politically delicate. Schools, parents, and the public deserve better than ritual euphemism after every near miss or body count.

The issue is not a proven demographic pattern. The issue is that when violence and identity pathology appear together inside a protected narrative, Canadian media suddenly lose their nerve. They stop asking explanatory questions not because the questions are irrational, but because the answers might offend the wrong people.

And that is how taboo makes serious societies stupider than they can afford to be.

	tildeb on The Intersex Ploy: A Venn…
	Ginny on The Morning Canada Woke U…
	The Arbourist on We’ve Been Living the Asch Exp…
	tildeb on We’ve Been Living the Asch Exp…
	The Arbourist on The NDP Has Chosen a Movement,…

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Dead Wild Roses

Alberta’s Bill 25 and the Misuse of “Welcoming”

“Protection is not the same as endorsement.”

“A school can protect a student without acting as a billboard for a worldview.”

References

The Intersex Ploy: A Venn Diagram

The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude – Bach – Sanfte soll mein Todeskummer from Easter Oratorio BWV 249 | Netherlands Bach Society

The Morning Canada Woke Up

“They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.”

The Questions Canadian Media Refuse to Ask

“When violence intersects with a protected identity category, Canadian media suddenly lose their appetite for explanation.”

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

Like Privacy?

Need more DWR goodness?

See what is in bloom at DWR.

The best of the bouquet.

Your opinions…

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Categories

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Blog Stats

The DWR RSS feed.

Get DWR on tap!

The DWR Commentariat

Dead Wild Roses

“Protection is not the same as endorsement.”

“A school can protect a student without acting as a billboard for a worldview.”

References

Share this:

Share this:

Watch the Move

“The argument people agree to is not the policy that gets implemented.”

Appendix: Full Speech Transcript (April 2, 2026)

Share this:

Share this:

“He knew better. He gave the group answer anyway.”

Share this:

“They were replaced by the revolutionary practice of getting on with things.”

Share this:

“When violence intersects with a protected identity category, Canadian media suddenly lose their appetite for explanation.”

Share this:

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

Like Privacy?

Need more DWR goodness?

See what is in bloom at DWR.

TAG CLOUD:What is growing at DWR

The best of the bouquet.

Your opinions…

Categories

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Blog Stats

The DWR RSS feed.

Get DWR on tap!

The DWR Commentariat