You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Canada’ category.
From a Stoic perspective, which emphasizes virtue, reason, and living in accordance with nature, Canadian values can be interpreted through the lens of universal principles rather than cultural specifics alone. However, reflecting on commonly recognized Canadian traits—such as respect for diversity, community, fairness, resilience, and a connection to nature—we can distill these into a Stoic framework. The Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius or Seneca, would likely admire values that align with justice, courage, wisdom, and temperance, and these can guide our understanding of Canadian ideals. Below is a list of five key values, interpreted stoically, with practical ways to embody them.
1. Respect for Diversity as Justice**: Stoicism teaches that all humans share a common reason and are part of the same cosmopolitan community. In Canada, this resonates with the value of embracing diversity—cultural, linguistic, and ideological. To practice this, exercise justice by treating all individuals with equal respect, regardless of background, as Seneca advised: “Associate with those who will make a better man of you; welcome those whom you yourself can improve.” Engage in conversations with people different from you, listen without judgment, and challenge your biases daily.
2. Community as Mutual Support**: The Stoic concept of *oikeiôsis*—a natural affiliation with others—parallels Canada’s emphasis on collective well-being, seen in things like universal healthcare or community-driven initiatives. Marcus Aurelius wrote, “What brings no benefit to the hive brings no benefit to the bee.” To live this, contribute to your community without expecting reward: volunteer locally, support neighbors in need, or simply offer a kind word. Recognize that your well-being is tied to the whole, and act accordingly.
3. Fairness as Wisdom**: Canadians often pride themselves on fairness, a value Stoics would tie to wisdom and impartiality. Epictetus reminds us to focus on what is in our control and accept what is not, judging situations rationally rather than emotionally. In practice, this means resolving conflicts calmly, advocating for equitable treatment in your workplace or social circles, and refusing to let personal feelings cloud your decisions. When faced with injustice, respond with reasoned arguments rather than anger.
4. Resilience as Courage**: Canada’s harsh winters and vast geography have bred a cultural resilience that aligns with Stoic courage—the ability to endure hardship without complaint. Seneca noted, “Sometimes even to live is an act of courage.” To embody this, face challenges head-on: whether it’s a tough job, a bitter cold day, or personal setbacks, adopt a mindset of endurance. Practice discomfort deliberately—take cold walks, limit indulgences, or tackle hard tasks first—to build your inner strength.
5. Connection to Nature as Temperance**: Canadians often feel a deep bond with their natural surroundings, from forests to mountains. Stoics, who urged living in harmony with nature, would see this as temperance—moderation in desires and appreciation of what is. As Zeno taught, align your life with the natural order. Practically, this means spending time outdoors mindfully: walk in parks without distractions, reduce wasteful consumption, and cultivate gratitude for the environment. Let nature remind you of life’s simplicity and your place within it.
The concern about any ideology or religion overpowering a culture stems from a natural desire to preserve what feels foundational to a society. Some worry that Islam, through immigration, higher birth rates, or assertive community-building, can gradually shift cultural norms, as seen in certain European neighborhoods where local traditions seem overshadowed. Critics argue this isn’t just integration but a slow replacement—pointing to historical examples like the Islamization of Persia or the Ottoman expansion, where distinct cultures were reshaped over centuries. The fear is that Canada, with its mosaic of identities, risks losing its core values if such a pattern takes hold unchecked.
However, it’s worth stepping back to consider what’s really at stake. Canada’s strength lies in its ability to blend diverse influences while holding fast to principles like individual freedom, secular governance, and mutual respect. The worry about “infiltration” often exaggerates the intent and influence of Muslim communities, many of whom are here to build better lives, not to conquer. Still, there’s a grain of truth in the concern: unchecked cultural shifts can erode cohesion if not balanced with a firm commitment to shared ideals. The challenge isn’t Islam itself but ensuring that no single worldview—religious or otherwise—overrides the pluralistic spirit that keeps Canada resilient.
Rather than fear an overthrow, the focus should be on reinforcing what makes Canada distinct—its openness, yes, but also its backbone. This means fostering honest dialogue, not stifling it with accusations of bigotry, and encouraging integration that respects differences without surrendering core liberties. If we let paranoia drive us, we risk becoming the very thing we fear: a fractured society. Canada can welcome many voices while standing firm on its identity—we’ve done it before with countless waves of newcomers, and we can do it again without losing ourselves.
Dallas Brodie, once the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, has emerged as a lightning rod in British Columbia’s political landscape due to her insistence on questioning the narrative surrounding the Kamloops Indian Residential School. Expelled from the BC Conservative Party on March 7, 2025, Brodie’s assertion that “zero” child burials have been confirmed at the site—technically accurate, as no remains have been excavated—ignited a firestorm. Her refusal to retract her February 2025 social media post, despite pressure from party leader John Rustad, and her subsequent mockery of subjective “truths” in a March 6 online discussion, underscored her quest to challenge what she sees as unverified claims. Brodie’s stance, while divisive, reflects a broader frustration among some Canadians with the lack of empirical evidence behind widely accepted residential school narratives, positioning her as a figure demanding factual accountability in a debate often steeped in emotion.
The Canadian media, however, has largely framed Brodie’s actions as denialism, amplifying a narrative that paints her as a villain rather than a skeptic. Outlets like CBC and The Globe and Mail emphasized her expulsion and her inflammatory tone—such as mimicking survivors’ testimonies—while downplaying the absence of physical evidence at Kamloops, a point she repeatedly highlighted. This selective reporting constructs a fabricated storyline that prioritizes moral outrage over nuanced discussion, failing Canadian society by stifling inquiry into a complex issue. By focusing on Brodie’s personal conduct rather than engaging with her central argument, the media has diverted the conversation from truth-seeking to character assassination, leaving the public with a polarized, oversimplified version of events that obscures the need for factual clarity.
Compounding this failure is the response from some Indigenous leaders and communities, whose rejection of Brodie’s evidence-based critique has hardened the discourse. Groups like the Métis Nation British Columbia condemned her as a denialist, dismissing her call for verification of the Kamloops claims as an attack on reconciliation itself. This reflex to brand dissent as heresy—rather than address the lack of excavated remains—entrenches a narrative that equates questioning with disrespect, sidelining legitimate debate. Such denial of the truth, or at least its ambiguities, transforms a potentially unifying pursuit of facts into a battleground of identity and guilt, alienating Canadians who seek clarity rather than dogma.
The fallout from Brodie’s case reveals how these dynamics erode public trust and degrade civic dialogue. Her expulsion from the BC Conservatives, followed by the defection of two MLAs on March 7, 2025, signals internal party fractures but also mirrors a broader societal rift. Media-driven narratives that vilify skepticism, paired with Indigenous insistence on unchallengeable “truths,” have created a climate where questioning official accounts invites ostracism rather than answers. This poisonous blend has left Canadians less equipped to grapple with the residential school legacy, as discussion deteriorates into accusations of racism or betrayal instead of a shared pursuit of what actually happened—a failure that undermines reconciliation more than Brodie’s provocations ever could.
Ultimately, Dallas Brodie’s quest, however flawed in delivery, exposes a critical flaw in Canadian society: the inability to confront uncomfortable questions without fabricated narratives or entrenched denialism. The media’s rush to condemn rather than investigate, and the refusal of some Indigenous voices to entertain factual uncertainty, have roughened a debate that demands precision and honesty. As Brodie sits as an independent MLA, unrepentant in her stance, her case serves as a warning—Canadian society risks losing its capacity for truth when inquiry is sacrificed for comfort. Until the media prioritizes evidence over outrage and all parties embrace open scrutiny, the dialogue around residential schools will remain a casualty of its own abrasiveness, failing the very history it seeks to honor.
It is scaremongering pure and simple.
The claim that the Canadian Conservative Party will make abortion illegal in Canada lacks substantial evidence and ignores the party’s historical and current stance on the issue. While some individuals within the party may hold personal anti-abortion views, the Conservative Party as a whole has not included banning abortion in its official platform. For instance, during recent leadership races and party conventions, the Conservatives have consistently avoided committing to reopening the abortion debate. Leaders like Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole explicitly stated that their governments would not legislate on abortion, emphasizing that the issue remains settled since the 1988 Supreme Court decision in R v. Morgentaler, which struck down Canada’s abortion law as unconstitutional. The party’s 2021 election platform made no mention of restricting abortion access, focusing instead on economic recovery, healthcare funding, and other priorities.
Additionally, the legal and political landscape in Canada makes it highly unlikely for any party to successfully ban abortion. The Morgentaler decision established that restricting abortion violated women’s Charter rights to security of the person, and subsequent attempts to introduce restrictive legislation have failed. Even if a Conservative government wanted to revisit the issue, it would face significant hurdles: introducing new abortion laws would require a parliamentary majority willing to vote for such a measure, surviving inevitable Charter challenges in the courts, and overcoming fierce public and political opposition. Abortion access enjoys broad public support in Canada—polls consistently show a majority of Canadians favor maintaining or expanding access. The Conservative Party, aware of these dynamics, has little incentive to pursue a policy that would alienate voters and risk electoral backlash, especially in a country where coalition-building and centrism often define electoral success.
Finally, the narrative that the Conservatives will ban abortion often stems from fear-mongering or misrepresentation of individual MPs’ views as party policy. While some backbench MPs have introduced private member’s bills on issues tangentially related to abortion—like Bill C-225 in 2016, which aimed to recognize fetuses as victims of crime—these bills rarely gain traction and are not reflective of party priorities. The Conservative Party operates on a “big tent” philosophy, accommodating a spectrum of views but not endorsing fringe positions as official policy. Current leader Pierre Poilievre has also dodged committing to anti-abortion policies, focusing instead on populist economic messaging. Without a clear mandate or unified party push, claims of an impending abortion ban remain speculative at best, ignoring both the party’s strategic pragmatism and the broader Canadian context that protects reproductive rights.
It’s absolutely infuriating to see what’s happening in Canada with our prison policies—allowing male rapists into female prisons just because they claim to identify as women. This isn’t about being progressive; it’s about throwing common sense and safety out the window. Women in prison are already some of the most vulnerable people in society, and now they’re being forced to share space with men who have a documented history of sexual violence. It’s a betrayal of basic decency, and the fact that this is even up for debate shows how far down the rabbit hole of ideology we’ve gone.
The government’s justification—rooted in laws like Bill C-16 and Correctional Service Canada directives—pretends this is about human rights, but it’s a sham. These policies don’t protect anyone; they enable predators to exploit the system. There are countless stories of women in these facilities feeling terrorized, knowing they’re locked in with men who’ve committed heinous acts against other women. And when they speak up, they’re dismissed as bigots or punished with parole denials. It’s a sick twist of irony that the same system claiming to champion rights is stripping these women of their safety and dignity.
What’s worse is the spineless refusal to admit this is a problem. Instead of protecting female inmates, Canada’s leaders double down, hiding behind vague notions of inclusivity while ignoring the real-world consequences. How many assaults, how much trauma, will it take before they wake up? This isn’t about denying anyone’s identity—it’s about acknowledging biology and the risks it poses in a confined setting. Letting male rapists into women’s prisons isn’t justice; it’s reckless, infuriating, and a slap in the face to every woman who deserves better.
Males should not be in female changing rooms because these spaces are designed to provide women and girls with privacy, safety, and comfort—needs rooted in biological and social realities. Allowing males, regardless of identity, undermines this by introducing potential risks, from voyeurism to assault, as evidenced by cases like the 2021 Wi Spa incident in Los Angeles, where a registered sex offender exploited lax policies. Women’s boundaries deserve respect, not erosion under the guise of inclusivity, especially when separate facilities can accommodate everyone without compromising female security. Data backs this up: a 2018 UK study found 90% of sexual offenses in changing rooms occurred in mixed-sex spaces. Single-sex areas aren’t about exclusion—they’re about protection.
From Reduxx.info :
“A Canadian mother has come forward to reveal that she was chastised by staff at her local recreation center after reporting that a balding man wearing “fetish gear” was in the women’s changing room. Despite feeling so frightened that she called the police, the mother was told that the man had a right to self-identify into whatever changing room he felt like.
The incident occurred on February 18, when Keri* and her 14-year-old daughter visited the Bonnie Doon Leisure Centre in Edmonton, Alberta. Their plans to have a fun-filled afternoon at the local pool quickly took a turn for the worse after the two entered the changing area to see an adult man “naked except for fetish gear” standing in the center of the room.
Keri tells Reduxx that the man, who appeared to be in his mid-forties, was wearing a “black penis sling” and an exposed rubber breast form. So shocked by the sight, Keri immediately began to usher her daughter out of the changing area.
“My daughter was behind me… I backed up quickly so she would not keep walking forward and yelled ‘help, there is a man in the change room.’” Keri says she went back to the front desk, where she had just paid for the admission to the pool. After explaining what she had seen in the women’s changing area, a male staff member dismissed her concerns.
“He said something like: ‘yes, this is an inclusive facility, what are you afraid will happen?’ and so I told him I was calling the police. He asked me why I felt the need to call the police, but did not try to stop me.”
While waiting for an officer from Edmonton Police Service to arrive, a female staff member approached Keri to ask her about the situation. Keri recorded the conversation with the staff member, and provided the audio to Reduxx for review.
In the recording, Keri is heard giving a statement to the staff member and explaining precisely what she had experienced.
“I am telling you right now – he is a balding man, in his forties, wearing a penis sling and rubber breasts around his neck… fetish rubber breasts slung around his neck,” Keri is heard telling the staff member. “He is in the women’s washroom. I walked in with my 14-year-old daughter… I am 54, I should not have to put up with it. But she should definitely not be exposed to a man enjoying his fetish in the women’s washroom.”
In response, the staff member explains that “it is the city of Edmonton’s policy that you can use whatever changing room you are most comfortable using.” She goes on to defend the man’s attire, saying “they can wear whatever they are comfortable wearing.”
Let’s not forget the CBC and it’s startling(?) lack of coverage of this.
Bless the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—our noble guardians of progressive virtue—turning a blind eye to fetish-driven males sashaying into female changing rooms with all the grace of a tax-funded diversity seminar. Why bother reporting on something as trivial as women’s safety when you can churn out another glowing piece on inclusivity, eh? It’s not like the CBC would dare risk its pristine reputation as Canada’s woke megaphone by admitting that some dudes in fishnets might not belong where girls are undressing—nah, that’d clash with the narrative. Besides, who needs pesky facts or viewer trust when you’ve got government cheques and a mandate to keep the maple syrup flowing smoothly over any hint of controversy?
To unpack the Kamloops unmarked graves story, we need a French philosopher—Jean Baudrillard. He loved poking holes in modernity, especially how culture twists itself around shaky narratives. His big idea, hyperreality, describes a state where the line between reality and representation blurs so much the representation becomes more real—a world of signs pointing to other signs, not facts. It’s a four-stage slide into a simulation that outshines truth. Let’s see how Kamloops fits.
The Four Stages of Hyperreality
First Stage (A Sign Reflects Reality): You’ve got a symbol that points to something real. A photo of a mountain—it’s not the mountain, but it shows what’s out there. Clear connection, no tricks.
Second Stage (A Sign Distorts Reality): Now the symbol starts messing with the real. Think of a touched-up Instagram pic—still a photo of a mountain, but filters make it look “better” than the actual thing. Reality’s skewed, but you can still trace it back.
Third Stage (A Sign Pretends to Reflect Reality): Here’s where it gets dicey. The symbol acts like it’s tied to something real, but that real thing doesn’t exist. Baudrillard uses Disneyland as an example—a fake Main Street that sells nostalgia for a past that never was. It’s not reflecting reality; it’s inventing one.
Fourth Stage (Hyperreality—Signs Without Reality): Now the symbol doesn’t even pretend to care about reality—it’s a closed loop, a simulation of a simulation. Think reality TV: scripted drama sold as “real life,” but nobody’s asking what’s real anymore—they’re just hooked on the drama. The loop’s all that matters.
Got all that? Now let’s strap on our simulacra goggles and map this onto the Kamloops unmarked graves story—watch how reality gets buried.
Kamloops Through the Hyperreal Lens
First Stage: Sign Reflects Reality
If this were just about the radar findings, we’d start here—a report saying, “Hey, we found some weird soil patterns, might be graves, might not.” It’d point to a real investigation, grounded in facts. Residential schools left real scars, no question—but the Kamloops story spun into something else: a hyperreal mess where symbols outran facts. We didn’t linger here long.
Second Stage: Sign Distorts Reality
The initial framing—calling them “unmarked graves of children”—already stretched things. Ground-penetrating radar doesn’t show bodies; it shows anomalies. Media outlets, hungry for clicks, and activists, hungry for justice, ran with the graver version (pun intended). Headlines screamed “mass graves” (think CBC’s early “215 children found”), even though Tk’emlúps clarified it wasn’t that. Reality got airbrushed into something more dramatic.
Third Stage: Sign Pretends to Reflect Reality
Here’s where it gets spicy. The “215 children” became a cultural artifact—orange ribbons, vigils, government apologies—all built on a reality that wasn’t confirmed. It wasn’t lying outright; it just acted like the graves were a done deal. The media and public didn’t need proof—they needed a symbol. And boy, did they get one. Every Child Matters morphed into a movement, not a question.
Fourth Stage: Hyperreality—Signs Without Reality
Now we’re in 2025, and the simulation’s running the show. The “graves” aren’t just unproven—they’re beside the point. The story’s spawned funding (millions allocated for searches), laws (like bills to criminalize “denialism”), and endless X debates where “deniers” and “believers” slug it out over a phantom. It’s not about what’s under the ground anymore; it’s about what the idea of those graves does—how it shapes identity, guilt, policy, and power. That’s hyperreality: the menu’s tastier than the meal, and we’re all eating it up.
The Canadian Media’s Role
The media should be our first defense against false narratives and hyperreal incursions. Our Canadian media—particularly the CBC—ran headlong away from their duty to inform with facts. They chose style over substance, leaning hard into emotional hooks—“215 children,” “mass graves”—with little reporting on what ground-penetrating radar can reliably identify or the ground’s composition (leading to false positives). Objective reporting got tossed aside to boost the narrative and reactions to it. Stories about protests, church burnings, and government responses fed the loop, making the “graves” realer in discourse than in dirt. The simulacra’s at stage four—no reality needed for the story to keep going.
In Baudrillard’s world, this is how hyperreality wins—when the media trades facts for feelings, the simulation doesn’t just obscure reality; it replaces it. What happens when the next narrative rolls in—no dirt, all discourse?
The reporting around Kamloops isn’t about graves anymore; it’s about what simulacra we’ll fall for next. Baudrillard’s spinning in his grave—wherever that happens to be. So what’s the next simulacrum Canada’s media will peddle—more graves, more guilt, or something fresh? Drop your guess below.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…