You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
The Alberta government’s proposed deal to the Alberta Teachers’ Association included a 12% wage increase over four years plus a pledge to hire 3,000 new teachers over three years — a headline framework intended to relieve classroom strain and show fiscal generosity. However, the ATA and its membership balked. In their view, the offer fails to guarantee what matters most: enforceable class-size caps, protections against classroom complexity, and compensation that truly restores lost purchasing power. The tentative agreement was rejected overwhelmingly, with 89.5% voting against it, triggering an imminent strike.
The core of the disagreement lies not only in dollars, but in mechanism versus promise. The government’s hiring numbers are political commitments that can be undermined by retirements, attrition, or enrollment growth — they are not a contractually binding solution to class overload. Meanwhile, teachers argue that compensation must do more than rise nominally; it must reverse years of wage erosion and inflationary decline in real earnings. Without structural reforms baked into the contract, the 12% headline looks insufficient to many in the profession.
Below is a snapshot of key terms and where the parties diverge:
| Item | Government Offer (Reported) | ATA Position / Counter-Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Wage increase | 12% over 4 years | Restoration of lost purchasing power; 12% deemed insufficient |
| Staffing | Hire 3,000 new teachers over 3 years | Enforceable class-size caps / meaningful workload limits |
| Other supports | Strike supports (childcare, tutoring), minor add-ons | Retention incentives, support for complex classrooms, early career retention |
Sources:
- ATA press: Teacher strike imminent; tentative agreement rejected (teachers.ab.ca)
- Global News: analysis of government offer and ATA reaction (globalnews.ca)
- Calgary CityNews: reporting on strike mitigation measures and negotiation context (calgary.citynews.ca)
When political violence erupts, it often looks random — a lone extremist, a protest that gets out of hand, or a clash between two angry groups. But much of what we’re seeing today, in both the United States and Canada, is not random at all. It is part of a deliberate strategy that activists call dialectical warfare — and it is tearing at the heart of our democratic societies.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the furious conservative backlash that followed are not isolated events. They are part of a larger spiral of violence and reaction, one that radicals hope will end with the collapse of our current system. To understand how, we need to unpack an old idea: the dialectic.
What is the Dialectic?
The word “dialectic” comes from philosophy, specifically the German thinker Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 1800s. At its simplest, the dialectic is a way of describing how history moves forward through conflict.
- Thesis: the current system or status quo.
- Antithesis: the force that challenges it.
- Synthesis: a new system that emerges after the clash.
For Hegel, this was a way of understanding history as a story of progress. Marx later took this idea and made it the foundation of his revolutionary theory. For him, history was about class struggle: workers against capitalists. Capitalism, he argued, would eventually collapse under its contradictions and give way to communism.
The key point is this: conflict isn’t a bug in the system — it’s the engine of history.
From Philosophy to Political Activism
Fast forward to today. Many left-wing activists, consciously or not, operate with a dialectical mindset. They believe that society advances through conflict and breakdown, not peaceful debate.
That means chaos, division, and even violence can be seen as useful. If enough conflict is stirred up, the system will be forced to reveal its flaws, overreact, and eventually collapse — clearing the way for something new.
This isn’t conspiracy theory. Activist manuals, writings from radical groups, and historical revolutionary movements all share this logic. The goal is not stability. The goal is destabilization.
Dialectical Warfare Today
Dialectical warfare is what happens when activists deliberately create or amplify conflict to destabilize society. Here’s how it works in practice:
- Provocation: Protests or acts of violence designed to draw a harsh reaction.
- Overreaction: Authorities or opponents respond too aggressively, confirming the activists’ narrative.
- Crisis: The clash erodes faith in institutions and convinces people the system doesn’t work.
- Escalation: Each cycle of conflict moves society further up the spiral toward collapse.
It’s not about winning the argument. It’s about breaking the system so that something “better” (usually some form of socialist utopia) can be built on the ruins.
The Charlie Kirk Case
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk shows this dynamic clearly. For the radical Left, the act of violence itself was a shock designed to destabilize. But what mattered more was the reaction.
Conservatives in power, outraged and furious, began employing the same tools that had once been used against them: censorship, cancel culture, and efforts to silence left-wing voices. In their anger, they began shredding the same democratic norms — free speech, due process, respect for law — that they had once fought to defend.
From the perspective of dialectical warfare, this is a victory for the radicals. The point was never just to kill one man. The point was to provoke an overreaction that would weaken the credibility of conservative leaders, make democratic institutions look fragile, and drive polarization even deeper.
Why This is Dangerous
Every time conservatives react by copying the authoritarian tactics of the Left, they confirm the radicals’ worldview. They prove that democracy is a sham, that free speech is a lie, and that the system is doomed.
This is exactly what the activist Left wants. They welcome conservative overreach, because it accelerates the collapse of the old order. The tragedy is that in fighting back, the right risks becoming what it hates: reactionary, authoritarian, and destructive of the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Lessons from History
We have seen this before. In the 20th century, totalitarian movements from Communism in Russia to fascism in Germany thrived on dialectical conflict. They used street violence, political assassinations, and manufactured crises to polarize society. Each overreaction by their opponents brought them closer to power.
The idea is seductive: “This system is broken. Only radical action can save us.” But the results are always catastrophic. Millions died under regimes that promised utopia and delivered tyranny.
A Simple Analogy
Think of democracy like a family car. It’s not perfect — sometimes it breaks down, sometimes it needs repairs. Activists practicing dialectical warfare are not trying to fix the car. They are trying to crash it on purpose, believing that after the wreck, they’ll be able to build a perfect new vehicle.
But history shows that after the crash, what you usually get is not a better car — it’s a dictatorship.
The Dialectical Spiral at Work
To make this crystal clear, here’s how activists see the spiral — and what really happens:
| Stage | Activist Left’s View | What Actually Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Provocation | Stir conflict (riots, violence, incendiary rhetoric) to expose “systemic oppression.” | Communities destabilize; trust erodes. |
| Reaction | Force conservatives into authoritarian overreach. | Free speech and rule of law weaken; institutions lose credibility. |
| Crisis | Show that democracy and capitalism can’t solve the conflict. | Cynicism deepens; polarization hardens. |
| Escalation | Push society up the spiral toward “revolution and utopia.” | Cycle repeats, leading not to utopia but greater instability. |
Why We Must Resist
The activists’ dream of a communist utopia is a fantasy that has failed every time it’s been tried. But their strategy of dialectical warfare is very real — and very effective at breaking societies apart.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the conservative overreaction it triggered are a warning. If we allow ourselves to be baited into authoritarian responses, we are not saving democracy — we are digging its grave.
The only way forward is to resist the spiral: to defend free speech, uphold the rule of law, and refuse to play into the radicals’ hands. Otherwise, we will all be dragged into the chaos they long for, and the freedoms that make Western society unique will vanish in the wreckage.
References
- Hegel, G.W.F. The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807).
- Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto (1848).
- Arendt, H. On Violence (1970).
- Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
- Contemporary coverage: Reuters, Associated Press, Fox News (Sept. 2025) – reporting on the assassination of Charlie Kirk and ensuing political fallout.
Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss repairman, has made headlines for refusing to pay a fine imposed for a social-media comment stating what he says are biological truths: that there are only two sexes as determined by skeletal evidence. Because he wouldn’t pay the fine, he opted instead to serve 10 days in jail. He was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination laws (Art. 261bis), which have been expanded to include “sexual identities” beyond race, religion, etc. His statement was judged to belittle the LGBTQI community and violate human dignity, though Brünisholz insists he was speaking objective biological fact. (Reduxx)
This case is deeply troubling, because it illustrates a slippery slope: when a judge or prosecutor can criminalize speech that claims a biological fact, simply because some group interprets it as hateful. That is not far off from what proposed Canadian legislation threatens. The Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, would make it a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against identifiable groups (including on grounds of gender identity) by any public display or speech. It also aims to streamline prosecutions for “hate propaganda,” remove some procedural checks, and broaden the definition of hate. Critics warn that this will give activist minority claims outsized power over what counts as acceptable speech. (Government of Canada)
If Brünisholz’s case was an outlier, then Canada’s proposals make clear this is a trajectory, not a one-off. Under the proposed laws, someone could theoretically be prosecuted (and even imprisoned) for speaking truths about biological sex if a court determines that such statements violate the new definitions of hatred or hate speech. That means what is scientifically or biologically reality could become illegal speech, depending on who is offended and how strong the activist pressure is. In a Western democracy that claims to defend freedom of expression, this is simply unacceptable.
We must not accept that the mere possibility of offending a protected group is enough for criminal sanction. We must resist laws that hand over the power to judges or prosecutors (or activist complainants) to decide what biological truths are “hate.” Because once speech can be criminalized based on activist interpretation, the foundations of open, free inquiry, reason, and reality are at risk.
Key Comparisons: Swiss Case vs. Proposed Canadian Laws
| Feature | Swiss Case (Brünisholz) | Proposed Canadian Laws (Combatting Hate Act / related bills) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of statement | Emphasis on binary sex; “only man and woman” skeleton argument | Biological sex, gender identity claims could be targeted under new definitions of hate |
| Punishment | Fine convertible to 10 days jail if unpaid | Proposed penalties include imprisonment, removal of procedural protections |
| Law basis | Anti-discrimination / hate speech law expanded to “sexual identities” in Switzerland | Criminal Code, Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, amendments to CHRA, etc. |
| Risk of censorship | High — statement considered “belittling” a protected class despite appeal to biological evidence | Also high — definitions are broad; courts could side with activist interpretations over scientific or factual speech |
| Freedom of speech concern | Biologically rooted fact may be criminalized if deemed insulting or hateful | Same concern: scientific / truth claims could be suppressed if they conflict with activist definitions of what counts as acceptable speech |
Why This Matters
- Biological Truths Are Not “Opinions” Alone: Things like male vs. female biological sex are backed by sciences like genetics, anatomy, forensic anthropology. If those become “hate speech” when expressed, then reality is subject to legal veto by ideological enforcement.
- The Power to Define “Hate” is the Power to Silence: Under Canadian law, if definitions of hatred or hatred-motivated speech expand (especially by removing required consent, or giving prosecutors more discretion), then more speech becomes liable—not because it causes harm, but because someone claims it does.
- Free Speech is Not Optional: Western democracy is built in part on being able to speak even unpopular or uncomfortable truths. If truth becomes legally risky, we’re no longer free—even if the penalties aren’t always applied.
- Precedent Matters: Once speech is criminalized for some, even “harmless” speech tomorrow could become the target. Laws tend to expand in scope over time. The Brünisholz case shows how “harmless to some, hateful to others” becomes a legal equation.
What to Watch & What to Do
- Monitor what the final definitions are in Canadian bills: how they define hatred, “wilfully promoting hatred,” “identifiable groups,” and what defenses are permitted (e.g., truth, scientific basis).
- Watch penalties: whether fines only, or possibility of imprisonment; whether Criminal Code or human rights tribunal; how strong the burden of proof is.
- Pay attention to how administrative procedures work: whether prosecutors need prior approvals, whether individuals or groups can privately instigate charges/complaints, whether there’s ability to appeal.
- Support and defend free speech, especially for dissenting or scientific views. Speak out when persons are penalized for expressing what others call “politically incorrect truths.”
References
- “Swiss Man Opts For Jail Time Instead Of Fine After Being Charged Over ‘Transphobic’ Social Media Post”, Reduxx, Sept 26, 2025 — Brünisholz case. (Reduxx)
- “Combatting Hate Act: Proposed Legislation to Protect Communities Against Hate”, Government of Canada, Sept 19, 2025 — summary of proposed amendments, hate definitions, penalties. (Government of Canada)
- “Canada Introduces Legislation to Combat Hate Crimes, Intimidation, and Obstruction”, Department of Justice Canada news release, Sept 19, 2025 — details on new offences including intimidation, obstruction, containing identity grounds. (Government of Canada)
When a government spends beyond its means, citizens eventually pay the price. This reality looms over Prime Minister Marc Carney’s fiscal approach, which has drawn mounting criticism for being both irresponsible and inflationary. With federal spending ballooning under his leadership, Canada faces mounting deficits that risk fueling long-term inflation and undermining economic stability.
At its core, Carney’s fiscal strategy rests on aggressive public expenditure with the stated aim of stimulating growth and addressing social inequities. While such intentions may sound noble, the result is the same problem that has plagued countless governments before: spending outstrips revenue, and deficits grow. Canada is already burdened with significant debt from past administrations, and Carney’s unwillingness to rein in spending threatens to push the nation further into the red. This raises serious concerns about the sustainability of his policies.
The inflationary risks cannot be overstated. When governments flood the economy with borrowed money, demand rises artificially, often faster than supply can keep up. The outcome is predictable: rising prices that erode the purchasing power of ordinary Canadians. Carney’s background as a central banker makes his freewheeling fiscal approach especially puzzling, given that he fully understands how unchecked deficits translate into inflationary pressures. By ignoring these basic economic principles, he risks not only undermining Canadian competitiveness but also hollowing out the middle class he claims to champion.
The consequences of such policies ripple outward. Inflation means higher food and housing costs, disproportionately hurting working families. Higher deficits translate into heavier debt servicing, which steals resources from essential services like healthcare and infrastructure. In short, Carney’s fiscal vision looks less like a plan for prosperity and more like a reckless gamble with the nation’s future.
Table: Why Carney’s Fiscal Policies Risk Inflation
| Policy/Action | Short-Term Effect | Long-Term Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Aggressive public spending | Temporary economic stimulus | Rising deficits and debt burden |
| Borrowing to finance programs | Increased demand | Inflationary pressure and weakened currency |
| Ignoring fiscal restraint | Boosts political popularity | Erodes economic competitiveness |
| Large deficits | Expanded government footprint | Reduced fiscal flexibility in future crises |
| Reliance on debt-financed growth | Superficial prosperity | Declining middle-class purchasing power |
References
- Canada’s Budget Deficit First Four Months 2025/26 — Between April-July 2025 the federal deficit rose to C$7.79 billion, as spending grew faster (3.0%) than revenues (1.6%). (Reuters)
- Deficit Estimate for Entire Fiscal Year — Economists project Canada’s 2025-26 deficit could hit C$70 billion, more than the previous year’s (approx. C$48 billion). (TT News)
- Government Spending Rise — 2025-26 federal main estimates show total spending of C$486.9 billion, an 8.4% increase from the previous year. (iPolitics)
- Projected Future Deficits — Carney’s platform projects yearly deficits of ~C$62 billion in 2025-26, dropping gradually in following years but still significant. (Taxpayer)
- Deficit Pressure from Trade War & Tariffs — U.S. tariffs and counter-tariffs affecting revenues and costs are cited as one factor expected to increase deficits well above initial forecasts. (The Hub)
- Official Signalling of Higher Deficit — Ottawa has publicly acknowledged that the upcoming budget will feature a “substantial” deficit, larger than last year’s, and has warned that all departments must participate in spending restraint efforts. (Global News)
In a recent post, I criticized Orange Shirt Day as a ritualized form of national self-loathing. That critique stands — but I have to admit I fell into a trap myself: I repeated elements of the story of Phyllis Webstad without checking the details.
Her now-famous account is that, as a six-year-old, she was sent to St. Joseph’s Mission, where her brand-new orange shirt was taken away on her first day. That image — the innocent child stripped of her identity by cruel authority — became the symbolic foundation of Orange Shirt Day and, in turn, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. It is powerful. It moves people. It creates policy.
But is it literally true in every detail? The answer is murkier than most Canadians are led to believe. Critics such as Rodney Clifton, a former residential school worker and researcher, have pointed out that Webstad attended St. Joseph’s when it was functioning as a student residence — not a traditional residential school — and that she attended public school in Williams Lake. Others note that staff were often Indigenous lay workers rather than the stereotypical “nuns with scissors.” Even Webstad herself has described that year as one of her “fondest memories,” a detail that vanishes from the public retelling.
In other words: the story has been simplified, polished, and repeated until it no longer represents the whole truth. This is how narratives work. They take a fragment of reality and expand it into myth — and then the myth becomes untouchable. Questioning it, or even pointing out inconsistencies, can make one a “denier” or a “deplorable.”
That is the lesson here. I fell for the narrative too, because it was convenient. It had emotional force. It seemed to explain everything at a glance. But truth — especially historical truth — is rarely that neat.
If Canadians want real reconciliation, it has to be based on facts, not fables. We do Indigenous people no favors by sanctifying selective memories while ignoring the messy, complicated realities of reserve life, family breakdown, and the mixed legacy of institutions like St. Joseph’s. Nor do we honor our own country by allowing symbolic stories to become instruments of guilt rather than prompts for genuine understanding.
References
-
Orange Shirt Society: Phyllis’ Story — orangeshirtday.org
-
Rodney Clifton, They Would Call Me a ‘Denier’ — C2C Journal
- UBC Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre, About Orange Shirt Day — irshdc.ubc.ca
- Troy Media, Clifton & Rubenstein, The Truth behind Canada’s Indian Residential Schools — troymedia.com
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…