You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Enlightenment-era ideals of objective truth, universal rights, and reason-based governance forged modern democratic civilization. In contrast, postmodernism’s relativism and identity-based narrative critique threaten these foundations. We must reaffirm Enlightenment principles to preserve unity, justice, and discourse.
1. Reason’s Dawn: How the Enlightenment Forged Civilization
In the 17th and 18th centuries, philosophers like John Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau articulated frameworks for reason-based governance. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689) posited natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws (1748) introduced separation of powers; Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) argued that legitimate authority rests on citizen consent.
These ideas mattered practically—they informed the U.S. Constitution (1789) and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), embedding Enlightenment principles in the DNA of modern democracies. As of 2020, scholars estimate that around 80% of democracies worldwide trace their philosophical roots to the Enlightenment.¹
Enlightenment values also translated into measurable successes: by 2020, approximately 167 constitutions enshrined freedom of expression; and countries scoring above 0.9 on the UNDP Human Development Index—predominantly Western democracies—demonstrated the tangible benefits of rational inquiry and institutional rule.² These metrics underscore the Enlightenment’s role as civilization’s intellectual crucible.
2. A Shadow Looms: Postmodernism and the Corrosion of Truth
Despite this legacy, postmodern thought rose to challenge Enlightenment truths. Thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida argued that “truth” is a social construct shaped by power dynamics—rather than anything objective or universal.³,⁴
This relativistic posture manifested starkly in 2017 when Evergreen State College’s Professor Bret Weinstein was targeted for resisting identity-based orthodoxy, demonstrating how narrative power can supplant reasoned discourse.⁵
Survey data reinforces this cultural shift. In September 2020, Pew Research found that 44% of Americans had heard a fair amount about “cancel culture,” and 49% defined it as punitive rather than corrective.⁶ By 2022, awareness had climbed to 61%.⁷ FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming Database logged a steep increase in speaker cancellations, documenting over 1,000 incidents between 2020 and 2024 and a success rate above 50% in recent years.⁸
Public trust in academia has also plummeted. Gallup reports that confidence in higher education fell from 57% in 2015 to 36% in 2023, with modest recovery to around 42% in 2025. Republicans showed especially low confidence at 26%, while Democrats expressed around 61%.⁹
Postmodernism’s rise thus correlates with an erosion of institutional trust, suppression of debate, and fragmentation of public discourse—an intellectual shift that seems to undermine the very Enlightenment principles upon which open society relies.
3. Not All Postmodernism Is the Enemy: Nuance and Constructive Critique
It is crucial to acknowledge that not all postmodern critique invalidates reason wholesale. Some theorists alert us to valid Enlightenment blind spots—colonialism, technocracy, scientism, and persistent inequality. Foucault, for instance, provided nuanced analyses of institutional power without advocating epistemic nihilism.
Acknowledging these critiques enriches the conversation—but when relativism becomes ideological absolutism, it dissolves trust in evidence-based policy and shared truth. History shows that societies fragment when reason yields to narrative absolutism.
4. Unity vs. Fragmentation: The Stakes Today
The divide between Enlightenment rationalism and postmodern relativism is not merely theoretical—it plays out in civic polarization, distrust of institutions, and ideological silos. When everyone has their own truth, civic cohesion unravels.
Conversely, Enlightenment-era constitutional liberalism undergirds pluralistic societies capable of managing conflict without collapse. Wherever constitutionalism, an independent judiciary, and open inquiry flourish, democracies exhibit resilience—whether in Western Europe, North America, or Oceania. These structures remain civilization’s compass—pointing toward shared reality rather than tribal narrative.
5. A Call to Action: Reaffirming Enlightenment Principles
We must recommit to rational discourse and institutional integrity. Universities, media, and civic organizations should uphold robust free speech policies—not ideological conformity disguised as accountability.
Educational institutions should offer curricula grounded in logic, debate, and classical liberal values, resisting pressure for ideological self-censorship. Meanwhile, public institutions should incentivize transparency and evidence-based decision-making.
We can also advocate for public reunification around shared civic values: tolerance, rationality, discourse. Platforms and forums that encourage civil disagreement—not echo chambers—can be part of the solution.
By elevating Enlightenment values—without ignoring valid critiques of past excesses—we can craft an enlightened path forward that embraces reason, inclusion, and unity.
Conclusion
The Enlightenment transformed civilization through reason, universal rights, and institutional design. Postmodernism, in its most radical form, threatens to tear down that structure by denying objective truth and fragmenting discourse. While constructive critique has its place, nihilistic relativism endangers the very foundations of democratic society. To preserve justice, cohesion, and open debate, we must hold fast to Enlightenment principles—reason as civilization’s compass, truth as our shared ground.
References
-
Freedom House. Freedom in the World Report (2020). https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world FIRE+1Wikipedia+1Gallup.comWikipedia+8Freedom House+8Freedom House+8
-
UNDP. Human Development Report (2022); Constitute Project. World Constitutions Database (2020). https://www.constituteproject.org edtechbooks.orgOur World in Data
-
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish; Derrida, J. (1967). Of Grammatology.
-
EdTech Books. “Enlightenment Thinkers and Democratic Government.” https://edtechbooks.org/democracy/enlightenment edtechbooks.org
-
Weinstein, B. “The Evergreen State College Implosion.” Wall Street Journal, 2017.
-
Pew Research Center. “Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’,” Sept. 2020 survey. papers.ssrn.com+4FIRE+4Gallup.com+4dokumen.pub+5pewresearch.org+5pewresearch.org+5
-
Pew Research Center. “A growing share of Americans are familiar with ‘cancel culture’,” June 2022. pewresearch.org
-
FIRE. Campus Deplatforming Database (2020–2024). https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database FIRE+1FIRE+1
-
Gallup. “U.S. Confidence in Higher Education Now Closely Divided,” June 2024 survey. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx Gallup.com
“A celebration of diversity that silences certain voices… is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective.”
The Montreal Pride Parade’s decision to exclude Jewish organizations like Ga’ava and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) reveals the brittle nature of contemporary inclusion. Organizers explained that the festival’s board had “made the decision to deny participation in the Pride Parade to organizations spreading hateful discourse”—widely interpreted as targeting groups perceived to hold Zionist views amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (National Post). Yet this rationale exposes a contradiction: a celebration of diversity that silences certain voices based on political affiliation is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective. True inclusion doesn’t retreat under pressure or disqualify those with unpopular views; it endures in the face of discomfort. By barring these organizations, Montreal Pride signals that its version of inclusion functions not as a principle, but as a privilege granted only to those aligned with a narrow ideological consensus.
Considering the Organizers’ Perspective
It’s worth acknowledging why the organizers might have made this decision. They could argue that pro-Israel groups might provoke protests or distress among participants, given the polarized nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, without specific, credible threats, this rationale appears more like a preemptive strike against ideological discomfort than a genuine safety measure. Pride has weathered controversy before—its history is one of defiance in the face of societal pushback. To retreat now suggests a prioritization of ideological purity over inclusivity.
Safety as a Pretext for Exclusion
Invoking “physical and mental safety” may appear commendable, but applying it to justify excluding Ga’ava—a Montreal-based LGBTQ+ Jewish organization—and CIJA appears unfounded in concrete threats. Ga’ava’s president characterized the exclusion as “based on flimsy, politically motivated reasons decided behind closed doors under pressure from groups that hate Jews, deny Israel’s existence, and whose members celebrated the atrocities of October 7, 2023” (i24NEWS). Who gets to determine what’s safe? In this case, the organizers prioritized avoiding discomfort among critics of Zionist expression over the dignity of those excluded. This risks prioritizing ideological comfort over genuine safety concerns.
According to CIJA’s director of strategic communications, Julien Corona, the decision represents “a dark day for the LGBTQ+ movement here in Quebec but also in all of Canada” (National Post).
The Perils of Moral Absolutism
Montreal Pride’s actions illustrate how moral certainty, when unchecked, can corrupt even the most noble ideals. By conflating the participation of Jewish organizations with “hateful discourse,” organizers implicitly deemed dissenting political views as unacceptable, suggesting their perspective is immune from challenge (i24NEWS). But in reducing disagreement to danger, they betray their own professed values of inclusion and pluralism. What remains is not a broad tent of solidarity, but a gated enclave of ideological approval.
This episode fits into a broader pattern: similar exclusions have occurred in other Pride contexts—Toronto, Chicago, Washington DC—involving Jewish symbols or groups linked to Israel/Palestine debates (Wikipedia). By excluding Ga’ava and CIJA, Montreal Pride reinforces a troubling trend: replacing complexity of identity with a simplistic tribal test.
Moreover, this isn’t the first time a social movement has been fractured by ideological litmus tests. The feminist movement, for example, has seen bitter divisions over issues like sex work and transgender rights, with some factions excluding others based on perceived ideological impurity. Similarly, the civil rights movement grappled with tensions between integrationist and separatist ideologies. In each case, moral certainty led to splintering rather than solidarity. Montreal Pride risks a similar fate if it continues down this path.
A Forward-Looking Conclusion
If Pride movements hope to sustain moral legitimacy and relevance, they must resist equating disagreement with harm. Exclusion based on political affiliation not only wounds the excluded but weakens the movement itself. Pride must recommit to its radical roots—embracing all marginalized voices, even those that spark debate—or risk losing its soul. The true test of inclusion isn’t welcoming those who agree with us; it’s extending that welcome to those who challenge us. Only then can Pride fulfill its promise as a beacon of diversity and defiance.
Works Cited
- Amador, Marisela. “Montreal Pride excludes Jewish LGBTQ+ group, citing ‘hateful discourse’.” CTV News, July 31, 2025. Link
- Corona, Julien. Quoted in “‘A dark day for the LGBTQ movement’: Montreal Pride Parade organizers bar Jewish groups from march.” National Post, August 1, 2025. Link
- “Montreal’s Pride Parade bans 2 Jewish groups.” i24NEWS, July 31, 2025. Link
- “Pride parade.” Wikipedia. Link
It is Will that makes the world turn.
I am writing this open letter to you in my capacity as Executive Director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. The FSUC is a non-partisan, mass-membership, non-profit organisation that defends the expressive rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely.
It was disappointing to see Parks Canada cancel the upcoming performance by Christian musician Sean Feucht, and for other municipalities to follow suit. This appears to be based solely on the fact that some members of the community do not like this performer’s views. According to CBC, “Feucht, who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. congress as a Republican in 2020, is also a missionary and an author who has spoken out against the 2SLGBTQ+ community, abortion rights and critical race theory on his website.” There were also references to him being part of the “MAGA” movement.
The FSUC does not endorse the views of Mr. Feucht, nor do we advocate for particular points of view. We do believe strongly that, unless laws are being broken (as opposed to some people claiming to be offended), it is not for public venues to decide which views people are allowed to hear.
His cancellation by your various institutions appears to have been the result of public pressure from a group of “concerned citizens” who have forgotten that they live in a country that is founded on liberal principles, such as freedom of expression. Parks Canada’s immediate caving to this pressure has only emboldened the mob, which has now successfully brought pressure to bear on the municipalities of Charlottetown, Moncton and Quebec City.
Citizens of a free society, as Canada is, have a right to hear as much as the speaker has the right to express. Are we so censorious and fragile in this country that we cannot tolerate someone with non-progressive views expressing themselves to those who want to hear them? Why should those who enjoy his concerts not be able to attend? Surely, the answer to the “concerned citizens” who were up in arms about this was to say, “If you don’t like what he says, don’t buy a ticket.”
Liberal Member of Parliament Shannon Miedema, who initially applied pressure to Parks Canada, wrote, according to CBC, that, “I have the utmost respect for the value of free speech, I do not believe this event aligns with Parks Canada’s core values of respect for people, equity, diversity and inclusion, or integrity.”
Once again, we see free speech (paid an Orwellian form of lip-service here) trumped by some vague conflict with “equity, diversity and inclusion.” Trotting out this formulaic refrain suggests that only “progressive” expression will be tolerated at government venues, which is an arbitrary limit on free speech. Public entities have an obligation to uphold the constitutional right to freedom of expression generally—for all Canadians—which is a central tenet of a free and democratic society.
Perhaps you do not appreciate the heritage and importance of freedom of expression. As our Supreme Court of Canada articulated, “Freedom of expression is not, however, a creature of the Charter. It is one of the fundamental concepts that has formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society. Representative democracy, as we know it today, which is in great part the product of free expression and discussion of varying ideas, depends upon its maintenance and protection.”1
And some years later, the Supreme Court elaborated that freedom of expression “was entrenched in our Constitution […] so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the mainstream.”2 The Charter describes this protection as fundamental “because in a free and democratic society” such as Canada, “we prize a diversity of ideas and opinions for their inherent value both to the community and individual.”3
Some people are not going to like that. These individuals disparage dialogue and the principle of challenging ideas with better ideas—not with force or censorship. They will shout down and censor speakers, and even threaten protests, destruction and violence to prevent the constitutional right of others to listen and engage in the marketplace of ideas. You do not have to give in to them, and you should not do so.
Charlottetown initially resisted the mob, stating on July 22 that “From a legal standpoint we are limited in restricting access to public spaces,” the statement on social media said. “The city wishes to be clear in its support of the 2SLGBTQ+ community. If there are any opinions or statements expressed by any performer to the contrary, they are not the views of the city.”
That was a reasonable statement.
That of Charlottetown MP Sean Casey was not: “While I fully respect the right to freedom of expression, I do not believe this event reflects the values of inclusivity and respect that define the City of Charlottetown or the Government of Canada,” Casey wrote in a Facebook post.
A day later, Charlottetown caved to the pressure as well. “After consultation with Charlottetown Police Services, the City of Charlottetown has notified the organizer… that their permit has been revoked due to evolving public safety and security concerns,” the city said in a news release Wednesday afternoon. “This review included a conversation with one of the counter event organizers, as well as a review of social media comments, some of which included threatening language and indications there could be damage to property and equipment.”
They do not say who is proposing to damage the equipment, but if it is the “hecklers” trying to shut down Feucht, the City should be thinking hard about the effects of giving in to the mob. All someone has to do is threaten violence, and they get their way.
Similarly, in Moncton, a permit was withdrawn, “due to evolving safety and security considerations, including confirmation of planned protests, the City has determined that the event poses potential risks to the safety and security of community members, event attendees, and organizers.”
An open letter from various LGBTQ groups (and others), alleged that, “Allowing a group that goes against all principles of diversity, equity and inclusion to perform in a public space, thus creating an atmosphere of fear for marginalized residents, is completely contradictory to the city’s Policy.” This prompted the City to backtrack on its permit, once again giving in to the heckler’s veto.
Most municipalities have hosted Pride events, which some citizens would find controversial, distasteful or offensive, and which sometimes results in displays of nudity or overt sexual behaviour. Yet these events proceed with a stamp of approval and even participation from city officials. Again, the FSUC takes no position on this, except to point out that double standards and arbitrariness are not appropriate in a society based on equal treatment under the law.
Not to be outdone, Quebec City cancelled a concert scheduled in its city yesterday: “The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned when the contract was signed between ExpoCité and the promoter of the concert planned for the site this Friday,” said François Moisan, Quebec City’s director of public relations.
With upcoming concert dates across the country, it would be a good time to remind the remaining municipalities on the tour of their Charter obligations and the foundational principles that make Canada a free and democratic society. This letter will be posted on our website and social media accounts. Should any of your institutions care to respond, we will post your response. We do hope you will reflect on this letter and take our comments in the spirit in which they are intended. We all want to live in the best country Canada can be, but ushering in authoritarianism and censorship, while crushing our fundamental freedoms, is not the best path forward for anyone.
Sincerely,
Lisa Bildy, JD, BA
Executive Director
The Free Speech Union of Canada
1 RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 573, at para. 12 https://canlii.ca/t/1ftpc
2 Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 at 968. [Emphasis added].
3 Ibid. [Emphasis added].
Maintaining a liberal democratic society is a challenging but essential endeavor. Yet, many Western institutions of higher learning seem to have lost sight of what makes liberal democracy one of the most effective ways to organize a society. Academic discourse often emphasizes relentless criticism of Western culture, frequently drawing on Marxist or Marcusean frameworks that prioritize deconstructing its flaws.
Criticism is a vital component of any open society, but it cannot be the sole lens through which we view our cultural system. Moreover, this critique often targets only the West, while other cultures and societal systems are overlooked or excused, often due to perceived historical grievances like colonialism. Over time, academia and other cultural institutions—such as universities, media, and public policy circles—have developed an almost boundless capacity for self-criticism. What’s often missing is a balanced perspective: an acknowledgment of the West’s strengths, such as its unparalleled commitment to individual autonomy and freedom of thought.To address this imbalance, we need tools to evaluate whether societal critiques strengthen or undermine liberal democracy. Two principles from Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors offer a powerful framework for this evaluation:
- No one has the last say on anything (the principle of open-ended inquiry, where no authority can definitively settle a matter, and all claims are subject to challenge and revision).
- No one gets to say who gets to speak (the principle of equal access to the marketplace of ideas, where everyone has the right to express their views without being silenced by authority).
When assessing an argument or movement, ask: Does it uphold these principles? For example, does a critique seek to shut down debate by declaring certain ideas off-limits, or does it invite open challenge? Does it exclude voices based on ideology, or does it allow all perspectives to compete in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is no to either question, the argument may be more about unraveling the fabric of liberal society than improving it.
By applying Rauch’s principles, we can discern whether a critique is constructive or destructive. This approach not only protects the open inquiry that defines liberal democracy but also ensures that we celebrate its strengths while addressing its flaws.
—–
The book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch is available in various formats. You can find it through the following sources:
- Publisher’s Website: The University of Chicago Press, which publishes the expanded edition (2013), provides details and purchasing options: University of Chicago Press – Kindly Inquisitors.
- Amazon: Available in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook formats: Amazon – Kindly Inquisitors.
[Editor’s Note: A previous version of this essay included citations that did not support the specific claims attached to them. I reviewed the sources, corrected reference details, and revised the text to align with what the evidence can bear.]
Gender ideology, with its audacious claim that biological sex bows to subjective whim, is a wrecking ball smashing through truth, family, and society. It peddles a fiction: that large numbers of individuals are born in the “wrong” bodies, requiring major medical interventions to “fix” what evolution perfected over millennia. When parents of dependent children are egged on to “transition,” the fallout can be severe, not just personal, but societal. This isn’t a debate. It is a destabilizing moral and political project demanding fierce, unflinching resistance
Shattering Children’s Worlds
Children, fragile and tethered to parental stability, are shaken when a parent’s identity shift reorders their world. Hormones, surgeries, or social reinventions don’t just alter a parent. They can fracture a child’s sense of security. Clinical psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson, herself transgender, has warned that we are running something like a “social experiment,” with uncertain long-term outcomes for young people caught up in this cultural moment (Jarvie, 2022).
On the narrower question of children raised by a transgender parent, the available research is limited and mixed. Some studies report generally good child adjustment in their samples while also emphasizing how little broad, long-term evidence exists (Imrie et al., 2020). None of this supports breezy certainty, institutional mandates, or the pretense that complex family changes are automatically cost-free. Prioritizing an adult’s self-actualization over a child’s emotional bedrock isn’t progress. It is a risk we keep rebranding as compassion.
Demolishing Family Bonds
Families, the crucible of human connection, can disintegrate under this ideology’s corrosive weight. A parent’s transition can place marriages under severe strain, forcing spouses and children into abrupt renegotiations of roles, expectations, and loyalties. The empirical literature on romantic relationship satisfaction and stability in transgender contexts is still developing, but systematic review work suggests relationship outcomes are heterogeneous and shaped by multiple stressors, not a simple morality play where affirmation guarantees flourishing (Marshall et al., 2020). The ideology’s fetish for individual affirmation over collective duty can rip apart interdependence, leaving children caught in loyalty conflicts and spouses facing unrecognizable partners. This isn’t liberation. It is a familial debacle, a slow-motion implosion of the bonds that sustain us.
Corroding Institutions
Society’s institutions, schools, hospitals, public health bodies, buckle as gender ideology colonizes them. The Cass Review (2024), a major UK review of pediatric gender services, concluded that parts of the evidence base for medical pathways are weak and that clinical practice had developed without the level of rigor, consistency, and safeguarding expected in other areas of pediatric healthcare (Cass Review, 2024). When medicine and education forsake skepticism and evidence for dogma and compliance rituals, public trust corrodes. This isn’t inclusion. It is an institutional betrayal of the empirical foundations that anchor civilization.
Defying Biological Reality
Biologically, gender ideology is utter bollocks. Human sexual dimorphism is a core feature of our species. Claims of mass “body mismatches” are not supported by the basic reality of sex. Even intersex conditions are rare, and prevalence estimates vary sharply depending on definitions. Sax (2002), using a strict definition, argues for a very low prevalence, far below the inflated figures often implied in popular debate (Sax, 2002). If pervasive dysphoria were a simple, innate biological fate on the scale now suggested, humanity would have joined Neanderthals and Denisovans in the evolutionary dustbin. Yet, we’re told the most advanced species can’t navigate puberty without turning healthy bodies into medical projects. Absurd. This ideology spits on evolutionary resilience, peddling a delusion that demands invasive fixes for psychological distress. The stakes are civilizational: either we reclaim material reality, or we watch society unravel, child by child, family by family, institution by institution.
References
- Cass Review. (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ - Imrie, S., et al. (2020). Children with Trans Parents: Parent–Child Relationship Quality and Psychological Well-being. (Open access)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8372299/ - Jarvie, J. (2022, April 12). A transgender psychologist has helped hundreds of teens transition. But rising numbers have her concerned. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens - Marshall, E., et al. (2020). The quality and satisfaction of romantic relationships in transgender people: A systematic review. (Open access)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8726697/ - Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. (PubMed record)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…