You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2025.
Amy Hamm, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience, was recently fired by Vancouver Coastal Health following a ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that deemed her guilty of “professional misconduct.” Her termination stemmed from her public advocacy for sex-based rights, including her co-sponsorship of a 2020 billboard stating “I love JK Rowling” and her statements asserting that biological sex distinctions matter, particularly in contexts like women’s private spaces. This decision has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that her firing represents a severe overreach by her professional organization, punishing her for exercising free speech rather than any failure in her nursing duties.
The BCCNM’s investigation, which spanned over four years, focused on Hamm’s off-duty comments made in articles and a podcast where she identified as a nurse. The disciplinary panel labeled her statements about transgender issues as “discriminatory and derogatory,” claiming they undermined trust in the nursing profession. However, Hamm and her supporters contend that her views—rooted in the belief that biological sex is immutable—were not only unrelated to her professional conduct but also reflect a scientifically grounded perspective. The panel’s ruling, followed by her immediate dismissal without severance, raises questions about whether the BCCNM prioritized ideological conformity over fairness and evidence.
Hamm’s mistreatment highlights a broader issue of professional organizations stifling dissent under the guise of maintaining public trust. Her case suggests that nurses and other regulated professionals in Canada may face severe repercussions for expressing personal opinions, even outside their workplace, if those views clash with prevailing social narratives. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported Hamm legally, decried the ruling as a blow to free expression, arguing that it sets a chilling precedent for others in similar positions. This punitive approach effectively silences debate on contentious issues, forcing professionals to self-censor or risk their livelihoods.
The decision to fire Hamm also appears disproportionate when considering her exemplary record as a nurse. No evidence was presented that her views impacted her patient care or professional performance; instead, the BCCNM focused solely on the perceived social implications of her statements. This disconnect between her job performance and the punishment meted out underscores a troubling trend: professional bodies acting as arbiters of personal belief rather than guardians of competence. Hamm’s termination without severance after 13 years of service further amplifies the perception of vindictiveness, suggesting an intent to make an example of her rather than address any tangible harm.
In the aftermath, Hamm has vowed to continue speaking out, supported by figures like JK Rowling and a growing chorus of advocates for free speech and women’s rights. Her case exposes the fragility of individual rights within Canada’s regulatory frameworks and the potential for professional organizations to wield unchecked power against those who challenge orthodoxy. As Hamm faces a possible appeal, her ordeal serves as a stark warning: the mistreatment she endured—being fired for her convictions—may foreshadow a future where intellectual freedom is sacrificed for institutional control, leaving professionals vulnerable to ideological purges.
The media in Canada often frames voting Conservative as a dangerous shift toward regressive policies, economic stagnation, and social division. This narrative frequently highlights fears of cuts to social programs, environmental neglect, and a rollback of progressive values, as seen in coverage of leaders like Pierre Poilievre or past figures like Stephen Harper. However, this portrayal overlooks key facts: Conservative governments have historically presided over economic growth—Harper’s tenure saw Canada weather the 2008 global financial crisis better than most G7 nations, with a GDP growth rate averaging 1.8% annually from 2006 to 2015, compared to the OECD average of 1.2%. Moreover, claims of slashed social programs are exaggerated; Harper’s government increased healthcare transfers to provinces by 6% annually, reaching $40.4 billion by 2015. The narrative also ignores that Conservative platforms often adapt to public sentiment—Poilievre, for instance, has emphasized affordability and housing, issues resonating with younger voters typically dismissed as outside the party’s base.
Beyond disputing the media’s alarmism, there’s a strong case for why switching governments every decade or so benefits Canada’s democracy. A prolonged grip by any single party—Liberal or otherwise—breeds complacency, entitlement, and policy stagnation. The Liberals, under Justin Trudeau since 2015, have faced criticism for unfulfilled promises (e.g., electoral reform) and scandals like SNC-Lavalin, suggesting a fatigue that sets in without fresh competition. Historical shifts bear this out: Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (1984–1993) broke a 20-year Liberal dominance, introducing the GST and NAFTA—policies initially vilified but later credited for economic stability. Similarly, Harper’s 2006 win ended 13 years of Liberal rule, forcing a recalibration of priorities like accountability (via the Federal Accountability Act). Regular turnover keeps governments responsive, preventing the calcification of power and ensuring policies reflect evolving public needs rather than entrenched agendas.
The media’s tendency to paint Conservative victories as a threat also dodges the reality that Canada’s system thrives on balance, not perpetual one-party rule. Voter turnout data supports this: elections with clear alternation potential—like 2006, when turnout hit 64.7% after years of Liberal governance—show higher engagement than landslides like 2015 (68.5%), where momentum favored Trudeau’s Liberals but later waned. A Conservative government, far from being a monolith of destruction, often acts as a corrective force, challenging orthodoxies (e.g., Harper’s focus on deficit reduction post-recession versus Liberal spending). Changing government every decade isn’t just healthy—it’s a safeguard against complacency, corruption, and the echo chamber of uninterrupted power, ensuring Canada remains dynamic rather than dogmatic.
This is Ameneh Bahrami. She was attacked with acid after rejecting a marriage proposal from a classmate.
You never know how brutal and Barbaric Islam is unless you are a Muslim woman.
Ameneh Bahrami, an Iranian woman, became a symbol of resilience after a horrific acid attack in 2004 in Tehran. The attack was perpetrated by Majid Movahedi, a former classmate, who threw acid in her face after she rejected his marriage proposal. This act of violence left Bahrami blind, disfigured, and requiring over a dozen reconstructive surgeries in Spain. The incident gained international attention, highlighting the severe sex-based violence faced by women in Iran, often linked to societal pressures and conservative interpretations of Islamic norms that punish women for asserting autonomy.
The legal and cultural context in Iran further complicated Bahrami’s pursuit of justice. Under Iran’s Islamic penal code, victims of such crimes can seek “qisas” (retribution in kind), and Bahrami initially demanded that Movahedi be blinded with acid, a right upheld by Iranian law. However, in 2011, she forgave him at the last moment, influenced by personal, legal, and societal pressures, including a pardon reportedly from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This case underscores the broader issue of acid attacks in Iran, such as the 2014 Isfahan incidents, where women were targeted for not adhering to strict dress codes, often tied to vigilante enforcement of conservative Islamic values.
The story also reflects systemic sex-based violence in Iran, where women face physical, legal, and social oppression. Acid attacks, though not explicitly endorsed by Islamic texts, are frequently associated with patriarchal interpretations of Islamic law and culture that devalue women’s autonomy. Bahrami’s experience, alongside other cases, sparked protests and legal reforms, like the 2019 law increasing penalties for acid attacks, yet the root causes—misogyny and cultural norms—persist, perpetuating such brutality against women.
Remember when we used to have credible academic institutions?
“Mindful that the identities can influence our science (Roberts, et al. 2020), we wish to provide the reader with information about our backgrounds. The authors have interesting identities relating to the work in this article. All authors are cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists. Some are part of the LGBTQIA+ community and others are allies. All authors are passionate about addressing inequalities and injustice, hence our involvement in efforts to reduce stigma and transphobia. Overall, much of our work is driven by a desire to promote social justice and well-being.”
This positionality statement is a grotesque embarrassment, a self-inflicted wound that bleeds performative virtue and intellectual dishonesty. It’s not a scholarly disclosure—it’s a clown show in academic drag, and it deserves to be shredded for the farce it is. Let’s dismantle this travesty piece by piece.
1. A Shameless Parade of Performative Virtue
This statement is the epitome of performative nonsense, the kind of empty signaling that the Promises and Perils of Positionality Statements article (Cambridge Core) warns against, comparing such declarations to land acknowledgments that do nothing but posture for moral superiority. “All authors are cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists”? This isn’t a positionality statement—it’s a cult manifesto. The phrase “cis-gender menstruating individuals” is so absurdly gratuitous that it’s almost satirical. Unless this paper is explicitly about menstruation—and there’s zero indication it is—this detail is as relevant as listing the authors’ favorite ice cream flavors. It’s a desperate attempt to rack up identity points, but it only makes the authors look like they’re auditioning for a social justice pageant.
2. Utterly Devoid of Substance
The purpose of a positionality statement is to provide meaningful context about how the authors’ backgrounds shape their research, as emphasized in the Beyond Making a Statement article (Boveda & Annamma, 2023). This statement fails so spectacularly that it’s almost impressive. What does being “cis-gender menstruating individuals” have to do with the study? How does identifying as “intersectional feminists” influence their methodology or findings? We get no answers—just a smug list of buzzwords that sound like they were plucked from a social justice bingo card. The authors claim their “interesting identities” relate to the work, but they don’t deign to explain how. This isn’t transparency; it’s intellectual cowardice masquerading as depth. It’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of value.
3. A Jargon-Filled Mess of Elitism
The statement is a cesspool of jargon that screams exclusion rather than insight. “Intersectional feminists,” “LGBTQIA+ community,” “allies,” “reduce stigma and transphobia”—it’s a verbal soup that only the most indoctrinated will swallow without gagging. The Beyond Making a Statement article stresses that positionality should engage broader audiences, not just niche echo chambers, but this statement does the opposite. It’s a self-righteous gatekeeping exercise, ensuring that only those fluent in the language of progressive dogma will feel welcome. For everyone else, it’s an alienating slog, a reminder that the authors care more about ideological purity than accessibility or clarity.
4. A Blatant Admission of Bias
By loudly declaring their “passion” for addressing inequalities and reducing transphobia, the authors might as well have tattooed “BIASED” across their work. The Cambridge Core article cautions that positionality statements can make researchers vulnerable to accusations of bias, especially for minoritized scholars, but these authors seem to revel in the spotlight of their own prejudice. Their ideological agenda is so front-and-center that it’s impossible to trust their objectivity. If you’re writing a scientific paper, your job is to pursue truth, not to flaunt your activism. This statement doesn’t contextualize their research—it poisons it, signaling to readers that the findings are likely warped by the authors’ preconceived notions.
5. A Glaring Omission of Expertise
What’s missing from this statement? Any shred of information about the authors’ qualifications, training, or expertise. The Cambridge Core article notes that positionality statements often neglect to include professional context, which is essential for understanding research design and process. Are these authors sociologists? Public health experts? Gender studies scholars? We have no clue, because they’re too busy preening over their identity markers to bother with something as basic as their credentials. This isn’t just a minor oversight—it’s a catastrophic failure that obliterates their credibility. Why should anyone care about your menstruation status if you can’t even establish why you’re qualified to conduct this research?
6. A Mockery of Academic Rigor
The tone of this statement is so self-congratulatory—”we have interesting identities,” “we’re passionate about addressing inequalities”—that it reads like a parody of itself. The authors seem more interested in polishing their social justice credentials than producing rigorous scholarship. The Beyond Making a Statement article calls for positionality to engage with “power differentials and historical legacies,” but this statement doesn’t even pretend to grapple with such complexities. It’s a shallow exercise in identity politics that cheapens the very concept of positionality and drags academic integrity into the gutter. If this is what passes for scholarship, the academy is in a death spiral.
7. A Polarizing Trainwreck
This statement doesn’t inform—it alienates. It’s so steeped in ideological signaling that it’s guaranteed to turn off anyone who doesn’t already share the authors’ worldview. It’s not a bridge to understanding; it’s a wall, built to keep out anyone who doesn’t speak the same jargon or bow to the same ideals. If your positionality statement makes readers question whether they’re reading a research paper or a manifesto, you’ve failed on a fundamental level.
8. A Wasted Opportunity for Real Reflection
The authors had a chance to offer a thoughtful reflection on how their identities shape their work, but they squandered it on meaningless identity flexing. For example, if they’re studying transphobia (as they claim to care about), they could have reflected on how their cis-gender identities might limit their perspective—a point the Beyond Making a Statement article stresses as critical. Instead, they opted for a self-indulgent pat on the back, leaving readers with no real insight into their research process. This isn’t positionality; it’s narcissism, plain and simple.
This positionality statement is a humiliating blight on academic publishing, a textbook example of how to sabotage your own credibility with performative drivel. It’s substanceless, jargon-laden, and dripping with bias, all while failing to provide any meaningful context about the authors’ work or qualifications. It alienates readers, undermines the research, and invites nothing but scorn. The authors should be mortified—not for their identities, but for thinking this self-righteous gibberish qualifies as scholarship. If this is the future of academic publishing, as the trend suggests, then the academy might as well pack up and call it a day. This statement isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on—shred it, burn it, and start over.
it’s fun-fact woke learning time! First a new vocabulary word!
Polysemy – Having a word or concept that has multiple meanings. What it does is allow the activists to say one thing, while meaning something completely different.
Employed skillfully, the woke can flit between the reasonable definition and the one they really intend.
The “woke mind virus” is a dogmatic, control-seeking ideology, not the benign traits listed. These 10 points misfire by assigning warped meanings to common virtues, fueling confusion and division.
- “Reading books, not burning them” sounds noble, but woke ideology often curates what’s “acceptable” to read, banning dissent subtly.
- “Embracing science” shifts to cherry-picking studies that fit narratives, not raw inquiry.
- “Changing your mind” becomes abandoning principles for trending dogma, not reasoned flexibility.
- “Issues aren’t black and white” morphs into relativism that dodges accountability.
- “True equality” redefines as forced sameness, not equal opportunity.
- “Liking to share” turns into mandating redistribution, not generosity.
- “Embracing cooperation” means silencing disagreement for fake unity.
- “Respecting rights” flips to prioritizing select groups’ feelings over universal freedoms.
- “Valuing culture and arts” becomes worshipping approved expressions, not creativity.
- “Caring for the planet” slides into eco-orthodoxy, shaming nonconformists.
By cloaking coercion in virtuous terms without admitting the shift, these points don’t expose the virus—they spread it, eroding clarity and free thought under a moral mask.
High-trust societies are defined by robust interpersonal trust and shared ethical norms, enabling seamless cooperation and social stability. These societies rely on transparent governance, respected legal systems, and an unspoken confidence that individuals and institutions will act with integrity. This trust fuels efficiency—people leave doors unlocked or engage in transactions with minimal suspicion. In contrast, low-trust societies lack this cohesion, marked by skepticism, weak institutions, and reliance on tight-knit groups like family. Corruption and self-preservation dominate, stalling broader societal progress as trust remains scarce outside personal circles.
The 2025 incident involving two Australian Muslim nurses, Sarah Abu Lebdeh and Ahmad Rashad Nadir, at Bankstown Hospital exemplifies a severe breach of trust in a high-trust society. Caught on a viral video threatening to harm or refuse treatment to Israeli patients, their statements shattered the assumption that healthcare professionals prioritize care over prejudice. In Australia, where patients entrust their lives to medical staff without hesitation, this betrayal undermines confidence in a cornerstone institution. The public backlash and swift suspension reflect the shock of such behavior in a system built on mutual reliability.
This breach highlights why high-trust societies must impose strong sanctions. When trust is compromised, the fallout threatens social and economic harmony, as people question the safety of once-reliable systems. The nurses’ actions prompted criminal charges—threatening violence and menacing communication—carrying potential decades-long sentences, alongside professional bans. Such measures deter future violations and reaffirm societal standards. Without them, trust could erode, pushing Australia toward the inefficiencies and wariness of low-trust environments, where institutional faith is perpetually in doubt.
In low-trust societies, such threats might be shrugged off as routine bravado, met with cynicism rather than accountability. But in high-trust contexts, the expectation of integrity amplifies the need for a firm response. The nurses’ remarks, even if hyperbolic, exploit the openness of a trusting system, risking a broader chilling effect if unpunished. Australia’s reaction—legal action, political condemnation, and ongoing investigations—aims to preserve its high-trust framework, signaling that such behavior is anathema to its values.
Ultimately, strong sanctions in high-trust societies like Australia are vital to protect their fragile ecosystem of trust. The 2025 Bankstown incident underscores the stakes: tolerating such breaches could unravel the mutual reliance that distinguishes high-trust from low-trust worlds. By prosecuting the nurses and reinforcing ethical boundaries, Australia defends the trust that underpins its social order. This resolute stance ensures that the benefits of a high-trust society—cooperation, safety, and prosperity—endure against those who would exploit its openness.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…