You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Canada’ category.
This from X user America 2100. This post describes the hollowing out of support for the rights and liberties that the LGB movement fought so hard to obtain. Support for gay marriage in America is trending downward.
One of the major reasons for this decline is that the LGB movement has been parasitized by the TQ+ activists who are trying to destabilize society rather than integrate into it. TQ+ activism requires a constant stream of people that are at odds with all the norms in society, who see the normative values as oppressive and structures that must be burnt to the ground. In other words, a revolution, and in the new society that rises from the ashes with themselves at its centre.
These activists do not know history. If they did they would see that every revolutionary vanguard is mercilessly destroyed once the society is burnt down and reforming. The powers that be have no need for radical activists whose only goal is to destabilize society. See what happened to the Red Guard after the revolution in China as proof of this assertion.
Support those who want to integrate into the current society – the one that guarantees personal liberty, freedom of thought and speech, and private property. Fight to maintain our democratic principles and effect incremental positive change within the society. Because the oppression that will be visited upon all of us by revolutionary regime will be magnitudes greater than what is being experienced now. Count on it.
“🏳️🌈”Pride Month” begins tomorrow. But here’s what they won’t tell you: The LGBT movement is losing—badly.
Let’s look at some of the polls.
Just a few years ago, it seemed like the LGBT revolution had won, once and for all. By 2020, even a majority of Republicans supported gay marriage.
But the Left overplayed their hand. What began as a backlash to gender ideology and the indoctrination of kids is now turning Americans against the entire LGBT project, including gay marriage—something that would have been unthinkable just five years ago.
Rather than continuing to climb, American support for gay marriage has dropped 7 points in just one year (from 2022 to 2023).
Republican support for gay marriage dropped 15 points over the same period. In 2022, 56% of Republicans supported gay marriage. By 2023, that number had fallen to 41%—the lowest it’s been in a decade.
Even amongst Democrats, support for gay marriage dropped 6 points from 2022 to 2023. (Source: Gallup)
Among young people, too—the most liberal and LGBT-friendly demographic—support for gay marriage is going down, not up. From 2018 to 2024, support for gay marriage among 18-29 year olds dropped by 8 points.
That decline appears to be overwhelmingly driven by Generation Z. From 2021 to 2023, Gen Z’s support for gay marriage dropped by a full 11 points. (Source: PRRI)
This wasn’t supposed to happen. “History” was only supposed to move in one direction—and gay marriage was supposed to be a “settled issue.”
The majority of Americans still support gay marriage. But the trend lines should serve as a bright-red warning sign for the Left. If they’re losing ground on this issue, they’re in big, big trouble.”
A primer on the sad state of Canadian Universities.
University of Toronto Professor Leigh Revers and Peter Boghossian discuss challenges in STEM education, including the integration of indigenous science and the use of diversity criteria in academic evaluations. Leigh highlights the need for academic rigor and criticizes oversimplified teaching methods, emphasizing the importance of maintaining intellectual diversity in education. His experience with this is firsthand – this year, the University of Toronto Mississauga sanctioned him for using Spectrum Street Epistemology in the classroom. Leigh Revers is an Associate Professor at the Institute for Management & Innovation at the University of Toronto Mississauga.
It so very important to know how the activist Left uses words. Logan Lancing helps illuminate all that goes into the term “Culturally Relevant Teaching”.
“Ok,” I thought. “Let’s figure out what culturally relevant teaching is.” I was curious. I wanted to know what it was and how it was tied to “equity.” I wanted to know how I had never encountered the term in my early schooling, yet it was now ubiquitous on every district page I looked at. “It had to have come from somewhere,” I thought. Who created it?
I moseyed on over to Google Scholar for the first time in over a decade. I searched for “culturally relevant teaching,” and hit “enter.” I received over three million results in a tenth of a second. Whoa! The results overwhelmed me, so I set my eyes on the two most cited – Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy (over 12 thousand citations); and But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy (over 6 thousand citations).
Both articles were authored by Gloria-Ladson Billings in the mid-1990s. I started with Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, the most cited result. It was there that I first encountered the term “critical consciousness,” which Billings identifies as the central learning objective culturally relevant teaching. “Culturally relevant teaching must,” she wrote, “[lead to the] development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness.” I now know that critical consciousness is the cult belief that everything in society is designed to oppress you, and the only way to come to know “the truth” of the world is to become a Marxist committed to the “prophetic vision of social justice,” to quote Henry Giroux (writing about Paulo Freire’s critical theory of education.) But, at the time, all I knew was that I needed to know more. “Wait… what? The central goal of education is the development of a *political* consciousness,” I thought. “What the hell is going on here?” I was curious.
In But that’s just good teaching, I encountered Paulo Freire’s name for the first time. I learned that culturally relevant teaching is an “approach similar to that advocated by noted critical pedagogue Paulo Freire.” I also learned that “critical consciousness” was something Ladson-Billings wasn’t mincing words about. “Students,” she said, echoing her statement in Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, “must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order.”
“Excuse me?!” Culturally relevant teaching was all the rage in every school district I investigated. I now recognized Gloria’s name all over the source documents I found. Why on earth are all of the schools invested in a program that teaches kids to “challenge the status quo of the current social order?” Who is Paulo Freire? What are “inequities,” and why must students learn to “critique the cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that produce and maintain” them? How did all of this become “good teaching”?
When I was learning to become a teacher this stuff was just starting to be integrating into the teaching curriculum. What sticks out now is a workshop I attended during one of the many teaching conventions I attended. They suggested that instead of the teacher following the curriculum and laying out the school year to be taught, instead, the first step was to ‘brainstorm’ with the students to see what they were interested in and then plan backwards from the student responses. I actually tried with my class to do that. The project got as far as tabulating the results on the board.
It turns out that retrofitting the curriculum into the specific interests of the class was a colossal project and since I was (and still am not) made of time we would be following a more traditional path. Now having looked at the genesis of ‘student centred learning’ I can see what I was eventually going to be signing up for. The teaching of critical consciousness instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic… Not a good trade off if my intended goal was to prepare children for a successful path in the current society.
The BC NDP hate women and their rights, boundaries, and safety. They won’t actually say that, but any legislation that is proposed that safeguards females in their province is immediately struck down. This was the case regarding the Fairness for Women & Girls Sports Act. The NDP and the media’s framing was unchallenged – no transgender athletes were being banned, just people and children had to compete in the category based on the concrete reality of the sex they were born as. No one that is concerned about female rights in our society should even consider voting NDP or Green in BC – their staunch opposition to fairness and reality illustrates they are fundamentally unfit to govern.
The misuse of language is the primary vehicle of the activist woke Left – they manipulate words and meanings and rely on dishonest caricatures of their opponents arguments.
Funny how when captured politicians mention “participation and inclusion” it is almost always at the expense of females. The framing in the media is awesome as well. This is what the bill was for –
“Rustad told the legislature the proposed bill would ensure publicly funded sports events “must be classified by sex, and it limits participation to participants of the biological sex that corresponds to the sex classification.”
He said the aim of the proposed bill was to ensure women are treated fairly.
“There are inherent differences between males and females, ranging from chromosomal and hormonal differences to physiological differences,” said Rustad.
“But more than the obvious differences, over time, women and girls have struggled to be identified as a person. They have struggled to have the right to vote. They have struggled to be allowed to be in certain places, and they have struggled to be paid fairly.”
“Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau said the participation and inclusion of all children and youth in sports in B.C. should not be used as “political wedges.”
“What we should be striving for in this province is political discourse that brings people together and doesn’t sow hatred and anger and fear,” she said. “We have sports bodies in this province who are dealing with very nuanced conversations about inclusion and participation.”
Here is a letter posted to the BC legislature from a woman who thought that Canada was a progressive country, she’s sorely disappointed.
Become aware of the people that are on the front lines trying to bring society back to reasonable place.
http://www.ourduty.group/canada
A common thread that runs through many of the issue around free speech and the freedom of expression in our Canadian society is the application of the rules and making sure they apply to everyone in the same manner. If our institutions could stand up and once again treat equality before the law as a meaningful statement it would solve many of the problems we’ve been having. The long shadow of Herbert Marcusé’s Repressive Tolerance has made the enforcement of our laws regarding protest apply only to one category of protester. Demonstrations and gatherings perceived to be “on the right” are subject to the full letter of the law, while most activity from the Left – especially the activist Left – seems to fly underneath the authorities radar. This permissiveness has emboldened the radical left and they will continue to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in society because of lack of equanimity when enforcing the rules of our society.
We have very clear rules when it comes to protests, demonstrations, and freedom of expression in Canada – what we need is a return to a the just application of those rules to all parties in our society.
Greg Lukianoff in this excerpt looks at the encampment situation that is developing on many college campuses in the United States and how free speech is being used and abused within that context.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Since October 7th we’ve definitely seen a combination of clearly protected speech by pro-Palestinian students—speech that we’ve proudly defended because we are a nonpartisan organization; we will always defend people regardless of the content of their speech—but we’ve also seen an awful lot of assault, we’ve seen a lot of shout-downs, we’ve seen a lot of vandalism, and we’ve seen a lot of unprotected speech. It’s been accelerating for several months now.
Probably one of the worst places for this phenomenon has been Columbia University in New York City. What happened over the weekend, with the crackdown on the encampments that they had there, was interesting from a free speech standpoint, partially because you don’t have a First Amendment or free speech right to camp out on campus grounds. You have a protest right. But generally, every school in the country has rules that basically say, “No, you can’t camp here. You can’t turn this into your own encampment.” They just haven’t been enforcing them. So Columbia, to a degree, is paying the price for not actually fairly enforcing their rules, going far back.
Now, do I think that in the course of this, there are students engaged in protected speech who are getting in trouble? I have very little doubt that there are. And we want to know about those cases. But we’ve also seen, particularly at Columbia, examples of assault. Certainly examples of students being blocked and surrounded. Also, students engaging in things that, by pretty much any definition, would count as discriminatory harassment, which is a severe, persistent, and pervasive patterns of behaviour that a reasonable person would understand is discriminatory. And that’s something that we’ve seen, unfortunately, all over the country.
Now at Yale, we even know the student who was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag, and she had to go to the hospital for it. That obviously isn’t protected. I think that there was a chance for a lot of these schools to prevent a lot of this from escalating by simply, fairly, and evenly enforcing their rules from the very beginning. But in a lot of cases, they simply didn’t.
One thing that readers really need to understand is that if you care about free speech on campus, you need to know that last year was the biggest year for deplatforming in recorded history, that we know of, on American college campuses. Deplatforming includes getting speakers disinvited and shout-downs. Yet this year, 2024, is going to blow 2023 out of the water, even just from shout-downs. And that has overwhelmingly come from pro-Palestinian students. Some of them have engaged in violence, including at Berkeley where they chased off an IDF speaker, for example, several weeks ago.
Don’t believe me, go check it out yourself. Try searching up the Cass Report, WPATH, or the Tavistock Clinic. The memory hole is real over in CBC land.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…