You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
[This is second in an expository series on how “Woke” works, see here for the foundational essay on what woke is]
1) The claim
“Woke” is not a single policy or a stable tribe. It is a portable political form: a way of converting friction into identity, and identity into a special way of knowing.
A practical diagnostic:
- Ontological grievance: the dispute becomes about who we are and what is being done to us.
- Positional knowing: standing determines what can be known; dissent becomes suspect.
- Self-sealing loop: objections are reinterpreted as proof of corruption.
When those stack, persuasion decays into control-seeking.
2) The Left, steelmanned (and where the machine bites)
Start with the best version. There are reasonable claims on the Left:
- Institutions can have blind spots that matter in real lives.
- Listening to marginal voices can correct systematic inattention.
- Some norms exclude people unnecessarily, and reform can reduce that.
That’s ordinary liberal reform.
Machine activation begins when “correction” turns into “jurisdiction.” Disagreement becomes “harm,” procedural neutrality becomes “violence in disguise,” and the argument becomes uncorrectable because argument itself is reclassified as aggression.
You can see the pattern in soft-power settings where programming becomes legitimacy warfare. The Adelaide Writers’ Week / Randa Abdel-Fattah controversy escalated into resignations, withdrawals, cancellation, institutional apology, and a promised reinvitation. The conflict stopped being “who should speak” and became “who has moral authority to decide who speaks.” (ABC)
Now the policy-adjacent version (harder, more consequential): Canada’s Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act). Steelman: protecting people’s access to religious/cultural spaces from intimidation and addressing hate-motivated conduct are serious public-order aims. (Canada)
But the same machine-shaped risk appears in the surrounding rhetoric: once “speech boundary” disputes are treated as a moral sorting test (good people vs haters), it becomes harder to argue about scope, definitions, and safeguards without being read as suspect. Civil-liberties groups explicitly warn about Charter impacts and overreach risks. (CCLA)
The point is not “hate laws are woke.” The point is: when moral urgency turns into epistemic privilege, the debate stops being corrigible.
3) The Right, steelmanned (and where the machine bites)
Start with the best version. There are reasonable claims on the Right:
- Borders, civic trust, and state capacity matter.
- Institutions sometimes overreach and launder ideology through “neutral” language.
- Recent years have trained people to doubt official narratives too easily.
That is not conspiracism. It’s ordinary suspicion in a messy age.
Bridge sentence (the crucial distinction): distrust becomes machine-shaped when it flips into a total explanatory key, where suppression itself is treated as evidence of truth (“they don’t want you to know”), and disagreement is recoded as complicity.
That’s the turn that makes replacement-style narratives so sticky: anxiety about cohesion gets converted into a unified dispossession story with hidden directors. Watchdogs and explainer sources describe “Great Replacement” ideology as a white nationalist conspiracy frame, often with antisemitic variants, and as a driver for radicalization. (Al Jazeera)
(One more steelman note: people can argue about immigration levels, integration, and public confidence without endorsing any of that. The machine is not “caring about borders.” The machine is the sealed metaphysics move.)
4) Shared outputs (what the form produces on either side)
Once the form locks in, the outputs converge:
Friend–enemy sorting
People are judged less by arguments than by whether they accept the frame. “Ally” becomes an obedience category.
Exception ethics
Rules become “context.” Double standards become “justice.” Coercion becomes “self-defense.”
Platform war
Institutions become terrain: universities, HR offices, granting bodies, publishers, professional colleges.
A Canadian micro-case: the York University Student Centre dispute around MP Garnett Genuis shows how a procedural venue decision can become a symbolic censorship war, with different accounts emphasizing policy requirements versus ideological suppression. The ambiguity itself becomes fuel. (CityNews Edmonton)
5) The discriminator (reform vs machine)
Reform politics says: we can be wrong; show what would change our mind.
Machine politics says: disagreement proves you are contaminated.
That shift is the warning. Not that every Left claim is woke, or every Right claim is woke, but that any movement becomes uncorrigible once it adopts the form.
When that happens, societies stop arguing and start purging. 🧯
Glossary
- Ontological grievance: a complaint treated as core to being, not a fixable dispute.
- Positional knowing / standpoint: the view that social position determines access to truth; some “lived experience” claims function as trump cards.
- Self-sealing loop: a reasoning loop where objections become confirmation.
- Friend–enemy sorting: political classification that treats opponents as existential threats.
- Exception ethics: moral rules are suspended because “we’re under siege.”
- Platform war: institutions become the main battleground for power.
- Corrigible: open to correction by evidence and argument.
Endnotes
- James Lindsay, “What Woke Really Means” (New Discourses podcast, Jan 21, 2026).
- Adelaide Writers’ Week controversy: ABC coverage and Adelaide Festival statement (apology + 2027 reinvitation), plus reporting on cancellation after withdrawals. (ABC)
- Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act): Government summary + bill text; civil-liberties critiques and legal-professional analysis. (Canada)
- York University Student Centre / Garnett Genuis dispute (policy vs free-speech framing). (CityNews Edmonton)
- “Great Replacement” explainer coverage describing it as a conspiracy frame and discussing radicalization risk. (Al Jazeera)
Attribution: This essay is a paraphrase-and-critique prompted by James Lindsay’s New Discourses Podcast episode “What Woke Really Means.” Any errors of interpretation are mine. (New Discourses)
“Woke” is a word that now means everything and nothing: insult, badge, shibboleth, brand. That’s why it’s worth defining it narrowly before arguing about it. I’m not using “woke” to mean “progressive,” “civil-rights liberal,” “any activism,” or “anyone who thinks injustice exists.” I mean a specific machine: a moral–political pattern that turns social friction into group-based identity, and then turns group-based identity into a special way of knowing. When that pattern is present, the downstream politics are unusually predictable.
The first engine is entitlement turned into alienation. Start with a felt ought: people like me should be able to live, speak, belong, succeed, and be recognized in a certain way. That ought can be reasonable. Some groups really have been locked out of full participation. Institutions really do gatekeep. Norms really do punish outsiders. The pivot is what you do with the mismatch between “ought” and reality. The woke machine teaches that the mismatch is not mainly a mix of tradeoffs, chance, imperfect policy, individual bad actors, or local failures. It is alienation, a structural condition imposed by an illegitimate power arrangement. Your frustration is not merely about outcomes. It becomes about being denied your proper mode of existence. Once alienation is framed that way, it stops being a problem to solve and becomes an identity to inhabit.
That identity shift is the real move. The self is quietly demoted from “individual with rights and duties” to “representative of a class in conflict.” You begin to think in group nouns first: oppressed/oppressor, marginalized/privileged, normal/deviant, colonized/colonizer. This is why identity politics shows up so reliably. It is a downstream output of a prior decision to interpret the world through group-alienation. It can even masquerade as humility. “I’m just listening to marginalized voices.” But it performs a different operation. Moral standing relocates from argument to position. You don’t merely hold beliefs. You become a bearer of a collective grievance, and that grievance grants a kind of authority in advance.
The second engine is epistemic: knowledge becomes positional. Again, the starting observation can be true enough. Institutions reward certain ways of speaking. Credentialing filters who gets heard. Consensus is sometimes wrong. Lived experience can surface facts that statistics miss. The woke machine turns those observations into a total explanation. The established “knowing field” is not just fallible, but hegemonic. It is treated as a knowledge regime that functions to protect power.
There is an honest version of this impulse. Marginalized people can notice things insiders miss. Testimony can expose local abuses that institutions quietly normalize. Suspicion of official narratives is sometimes warranted. History is full of respectable consensus that later looks like rationalized cruelty. In that sense, privileging marginalized voices can function as a corrective. The problem begins when “corrective” hardens into a standing hierarchy of credibility, and when the moral value of hearing becomes a substitute for the epistemic work of checking. At that point, the method stops being a tool for truth and becomes a tool for power.
Once you accept the hegemonic frame as total, a standing preference follows. “Counter-hegemonic” claims, those said to come from the margins or said to be suppressed, are treated as inherently more trustworthy, or at least more morally protected. The point isn’t always truth. Often it’s leverage. If a claim destabilizes the legitimacy of the system, it gets treated as epistemically special.
You can see how this becomes self-sealing. Consider a common pattern: demographic observation, then a moralized system interpretation, then an appeal to lived experience, then immunity from counterargument. “I notice a space is mostly white.” Fine. “Therefore hiking is racist.” That is not observation but diagnosis. If challenged, the claim can retreat into experience: “I feel unsafe,” “my lived experience says otherwise.” Any dissent is then reclassified as proof of the system’s blindness. The disagreement is not processed as information. It becomes further evidence of hegemony. At that point, you’re no longer arguing about the world. You’re litigating the moral status of who gets to describe it.
Put these two engines together, alienation-as-identity and positional knowing, and the political outputs stop looking like random bad behavior. If your group’s situation is existential, ordinary ethics begin to look like luxuries written by your enemy. Double standards don’t feel like hypocrisy. They feel like “context.” Coercive tactics don’t feel like power-seeking. They feel like self-defense. “Allies” become morally sorted people who accept the frame. “Enemies” become those who refuse it. Because the machine treats knowledge as power, controlling speech and institutions can be rationalized as protecting truth rather than enforcing conformity.
So here’s a clean diagnostic that avoids cheap mind-reading. It’s not “woke” to notice injustice, organize, protest, or advocate. It becomes woke in this sense when three conditions appear together:
- Ontological grievance: your primary identity is a group-based injury story. Who you are is mainly who harmed “your people.”
- Positional epistemology: the status of a claim depends heavily on who says it, not what can be shown. Identity outranks argument.
- Self-sealing reasoning: disagreement is treated as proof of harm or hegemony, making correction impossible.
Any one of these can show up in ordinary politics. “Woke,” in this narrow sense, is when they lock together and become a stable identity system.
That triad is the machine. Once it’s operating, it tends to erode the conditions that let pluralistic societies function: shared standards of evidence, equal moral agency, and the ability to disagree without being treated as morally contaminated. In its best moments, the impulse can push institutions to see what they ignored and to repair what they excused. But a politics that begins as reform can slide into a politics that needs conflict as fuel. Once conflict becomes fuel, the temptation is obvious. Keep the wound open. Keep the epistemic gate locked. Keep the enemy permanent. If the machine ever stops, the identity it built starts to dissolve. 🔥
Glossary 📘
Alienation
A felt separation from what you believe you should rightfully be or have. In this framework: not mere disappointment, but a condition allegedly imposed by an illegitimate system.
Entitlement claim
A “felt ought”: a belief that people like me (or my group) are owed a certain kind of recognition, access, or outcome. Not automatically “spoiled,” just the moral premise that something is due.
Group-based identity
A primary self-concept built around membership in a social category (race/sex/class/nation, etc.), especially when that category is framed as locked in conflict with another.
Identity politics
Politics organized primarily around group membership and group conflict rather than individual rights, shared citizenship, or policy compromise.
Ontology / ontological grievance
Ontology is “what you are.” Ontological grievance is when grievance becomes core to being: the self is primarily defined as an injured member of an alienated group.
Epistemology / positional epistemology
Epistemology is “how we know.” Positional epistemology is when the credibility of claims depends heavily on the speaker’s identity position, rather than evidence and argument.
Hegemony / hegemonic knowledge
The idea that a society’s “common sense” and official knowledge are shaped to preserve existing power. “Hegemonic knowledge” is what the system allegedly allows as legitimate truth.
Counter-hegemonic / marginalized claims
Claims presented as outside the dominant “knowing field,” often treated as morally protected or more trustworthy because they challenge the status quo.
Lived experience
First-person testimony about what life is like. Valuable as evidence of experience; controversial when treated as unquestionable authority on broad causal explanations.
Self-sealing reasoning
A reasoning pattern where counterevidence is reinterpreted as evidence for the claim (for example, “your disagreement proves the system’s bias”), making the claim hard to correct.
Friend–enemy politics
A posture that sorts people into allies and enemies in a moralized way, where dissent feels like threat rather than disagreement.
Exception ethics
A moral logic where ordinary standards like fairness, consistency, and procedural restraint are suspended because the situation is framed as existential.
Endnotes
- James Lindsay, “What Woke Really Means,” New Discourses Podcast (New Discourses, January 21, 2026). (New Discourses)
- “What Woke Really Means,” New Discourses (audio hosting/episode metadata). (SoundCloud)
- Joe L. Kincheloe, Critical Constructivism Primer (Peter Lang, 2005). (Peter Lang)
- Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, 2nd ed. (Teachers College Press, 2017). (tcpress.com)
- Helen Pluckrose and James A. Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody (Pitchstone Publishing, 2020). (ipgbook.com)
In his January 16, 2026 X post, James Lindsay treats the “ICE is Trump’s Gestapo” line as more than overheated language. He reads it as a political technique: a framing move that aims to provoke escalation, polarize interpretation, and sap legitimacy from federal immigration enforcement by making every subsequent clash look like retroactive confirmation.
Even if you don’t accept the strongest version of his claim (that it is centrally orchestrated), the underlying mechanism is worth taking seriously—because it doesn’t require orchestration to work. It requires an audience that consumes politics in fragments, and a media ecosystem that pays for heat.
The point of media literacy here is not to pick a side. It is to recognize when you are being handed a frame that’s designed to steer your moral conclusion before you are allowed to know what happened.
The loop, reduced to mechanics
The escalation loop has four moves.
1) Load the moral frame early.
“Gestapo” is not an argument. It is a verdict. It tells the audience what they are seeing before they see it. It collapses a contested enforcement dispute into a single image: secret police.
2) Convert observation into resistance.
Once people believe they’re facing secret police, ordinary scrutiny becomes morally charged. Disruption can be reframed as defense. Escalatory behavior becomes easier to justify, especially in crowds, especially on camera.
3) Force a response that looks like the frame.
As tension rises, agents harden posture: more crowd-control readiness, more force protection, more aggressive containment. Some of that may be lawful, and some may be excessive; the loop does not depend on the fine print. It depends on optics.
4) Circulate optics as proof.
Clips win. Captions win. The most provocative 15 seconds becomes “what happened,” for millions who will never read a court filing. The frame spreads because the frame is legible in low context.
Frame → friction → hardened posture → optics → reinforced frame. Repeat.
Notice what’s missing: slow adjudication of facts. The loop thrives on speed. It preys on low-context attention.
Why Minnesota is an instructive case
Minnesota matters here because the escalation loop is visible across multiple lanes at once: street-level conflict, political rhetoric, and rapid legal constraint.
Recent reporting describes the Department of Homeland Security deploying nearly 3,000 immigration agents into the Minneapolis–St. Paul area amid intense protests and public backlash. In that environment, a fatal shooting—Renée Good, shot by an ICE agent on January 7, 2026—became a catalytic event for further demonstrations and scrutiny.
Then the conflict moved into procedural warfare. On January 17, a federal judge issued an injunction restricting immigration agents from detaining or using force (including tear gas or pepper spray) against peaceful protesters and observers absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That order is narrow, but it is not trivial: it codifies a boundary in exactly the arena where optics are most easily weaponized.
The rhetorical layer matters too. DHS has publicly condemned Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for using “modern-day Gestapo” language about ICE (and the White House has amplified that criticism). Whatever you think of the underlying enforcement operation, this is the accelerant: the label that turns complexity into a single moral picture.
If you want a single media-literacy takeaway from Minnesota, it’s this: the escalation loop often ends up constraining policy through courts and procedure, not merely through street confrontation. Once the story becomes “secret police,” legal process itself becomes part of the narrative battlefield—injunctions and motions become content, and content becomes legitimacy.
“Low information public” is the wrong diagnosis
“Low information” is typically used as a sneer. The sharper term is low context.
Most people aren’t stupid; they’re busy. They consume politics the way they consume weather: by glance. They get fragments, and fragments invite frames.
The “Gestapo” label works on low-context audiences because it is:
- Instantly moralized: villain and victim are assigned immediately.
- Highly visual: it primes the brain to interpret normal enforcement cues (gear, urgency, crowd control) as secret-police signals.
- Clip-native: it fits perfectly into captions and short video, where emotional clarity beats evidentiary completeness.
- Correction-resistant: anyone who says “slow down” can be painted as defending tyranny.
This is the real vulnerability narrative warfare exploits: not ignorance, but context starvation.
The key analytical distinction: intent vs incentives
Here’s where writers often lose credibility: they jump from “this pattern exists” to “this was orchestrated.”
Sometimes there is coordination. Often there isn’t. And you typically don’t need it to explain outcomes.
Shared incentives can produce coordinated-looking behavior without a central planner:
- Outrage frames mobilize attention.
- Attention produces fundraising, followers, and headlines.
- Headlines pressure officials and constrain institutions.
- Institutions respond in ways that produce more outrage footage.
That is enough.
The media action depends on showing a self-reinforcing system: rhetoric that increases confrontation risk, confrontation that increases hardened posture, posture that increases “secret police” plausibility to spectators.
That is media literacy: the ability to separate “this felt true on my feed” from “this is true in the world.”
How to defuse the loop
Defusing the escalation loop means starving it of inputs. That requires two fronts: institutional discipline and citizen discipline.
What institutions can do
1) Treat optics as a real constraint (not PR garnish).
In a clip-driven environment, unnecessary spectacle is narrative fuel. If tactics can be lawful and less visually coercive, the second option is often the strategically sane one.
2) Over-communicate rules, thresholds, and remedies.
Explain what triggers stops, detentions, and uses of force; explain complaint pathways; publish policy boundaries. If courts are drawing bright lines around peaceful protest and observation, those lines should become part of the public-facing doctrine, not buried in litigation.
3) Correct fast and publicly when mistakes occur.
Silence functions as permission for the loudest interpretation to win. Delay is a gift to the escalation loop.
4) Avoid “timing that reads like punishment.”
Even lawful actions can look retaliatory if they cluster around protests. In narrative warfare, timing becomes motive in the audience’s mind.
What readers can do
1) Treat moral super-labels as a stop sign.
When you see “Gestapo,” “fascist,” “terrorist,” “insurrection,” assume you’re being pushed into a conclusion. Slow down.
2) Refuse clip capture.
Ask: what happened thirty seconds before this clip starts? If you can’t answer, you’re watching a weaponized excerpt.
3) Use a two-source minimum.
One source gives you mood. A second source often provides the missing constraint—timeline, legal posture, or what is actually being alleged. The injunction’s specific limits, for example, are precisely the kind of detail clips rarely include.
4) Separate event, legality, and morality.
“This happened” is not “this was lawful,” and neither is “this was tyranny.” Narrative warfare succeeds by collapsing those categories into one reflex.
5) Ask what behavior the story is trying to elicit.
Is it trying to make you understand, or to make you react—share, donate, show up, escalate? That question alone breaks many spells.
Where this ends if we don’t learn
If the escalation loop runs unchecked, politics becomes performance for low-context consumption. Enforcement becomes optics. Protest becomes optics. Courts become props. Everyone plays to the camera because legitimacy is increasingly adjudicated there.
The antidote isn’t bland neutrality. It’s refusing to let a frame do your thinking for you—especially one engineered to convert fragments into certainty.
That’s what media literacy looks like now: not knowing everything, but knowing when you’re being steered.
“When a word arrives preloaded with a verdict, your job is to slow the tape.”
References
- James Lindsay, X post (January 16, 2026), “ICE is Trump’s Gestapo” narrative thread. (X (formerly Twitter))
- Reuters (January 17, 2026), report on federal judge’s injunction limiting immigration agents’ tactics toward peaceful protesters/observers in Minneapolis–St. Paul; includes mention of DHS deploying nearly 3,000 agents and context following Renée Good’s death. (Reuters)
- Associated Press (January 17, 2026), coverage of the same injunction and the lawsuit context, including limits on detentions and crowd-control measures against peaceful protesters/observers. (AP News)
- ABC News (January 14, 2026), background reporting confirming Renée Good was fatally shot by an ICE agent on January 7, 2026 and noting an FBI probe. (ABC News)
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security (May 19, 2025), DHS statement criticizing Gov. Tim Walz’s “modern-day Gestapo” language about ICE (useful for documenting the rhetoric’s public circulation). (Department of Homeland Security)
- White House (January 2026), article compiling public statements about ICE and “modern-day Gestapo” language (useful as an example of administration amplification rather than a neutral factual source). (whitehouse.gov)
When designers try to overrule human incentives with a barricade, they don’t get obedience. They get a workaround. The meme Councillor Peter Fortune shared shows it in one frame: a paved bike path blocked by metal barriers, and a dirt trail worn smooth beside it where people simply go around. The joke lands because it’s familiar. The system “wins” on paper; the public wins in practice.
The lesson isn’t that people are bad. It’s that people optimize for time, effort, and friction. Put an obstacle in the shortest route and you don’t remove the desire to move—you relocate it. The new path brings second-order costs the designer pretended didn’t exist: erosion, muddier edges, conflicts between walkers and riders, and a steady drift from the “safe” route to the “usable” one. The dirt trail isn’t misbehavior. It’s feedback.
This is why public planning fails in a predictable way. Government systems are often built to defend the plan rather than learn from the result. Once concrete is poured, changing course becomes politically costly, procurement-heavy, and reputation-sensitive. So the incentive is to explain the barrier, not remove it, even when the public has already voted with their feet. You get infrastructure that looks orderly in a report and behaves disorderly in the world.
A competent planner doesn’t start by asking, “How do we force compliance?” They start by asking, “What will people do instead?” Then they design for that answer: align the official route with the desire line, reduce friction where it matters, and treat workarounds as data. Ignore that, and the meme becomes policy. The public routes around you, and you pay twice: once for the plan, and again for the consequences.
Western civilization, in its liberal form, rests on a remarkable set of principles: that religious belief should be voluntary, that individual conscience is sovereign, and that the rights of the person take precedence over both state and religious authority. These ideas are not universal human defaults; they are hard-won cultural and philosophical achievements, shaped by the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and centuries of political struggle. They are not shared equally by all religious or ideological systems.
Classical Islam, in its orthodox jurisprudential tradition, is not solely a private spiritual faith. It is also a comprehensive legal and political system (sharia) that historically integrated religious authority with governance. From its earliest centuries, Islam expanded through a combination of military conquest, trade, persuasion, and migration. While conquest played a significant role in some regions, conversion in others—such as Southeast Asia—was often gradual and voluntary. The fusion of religious and political authority remains influential in many interpretations, though its application varies widely across the Muslim world today.
One area of tension concerns apostasy. In traditional interpretations of several major schools of Islamic law, leaving the faith has been treated as a serious offense, sometimes punishable by death. This stands in contrast to the Western commitment to absolute freedom of belief and conscience. However, enforcement differs greatly: many Muslim-majority countries no longer prescribe capital punishment for apostasy alone, and reformist scholars argue that the Qur’an itself emphasizes no compulsion in religion (2:256) and that punishment should be deferred to the afterlife.Religious pluralism presents another challenge. Historical Islamic polities often extended protected status to Jews, Christians, and sometimes others (“People of the Book”), allowing communal autonomy in exchange for taxation (jizya) and certain restrictions. This system offered more tolerance than many contemporary societies of the time, yet it was hierarchical rather than egalitarian. Full equality before the law—a core Western principle—has not always been realized in states governed by traditional sharia interpretations, though modern reforms in countries such as Tunisia, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates have moved toward greater legal equality.
The status of women reveals further differences. In some countries applying strict interpretations of sharia, women face legal and social restrictions on dress, travel, marriage, inheritance, and testimony. Recent examples include compulsory veiling enforcement in Iran and severe restrictions under Taliban rule in Afghanistan. These practices draw from certain classical readings of Qur’anic verses and hadith. At the same time, it is worth noting that seventh-century Islamic law granted women rights to inheritance, divorce, and property ownership that were progressive compared to many pre-modern societies. Today, women’s rights vary enormously across the Muslim world—from relatively egalitarian frameworks in Indonesia and Tunisia to highly restrictive ones elsewhere—and Muslim feminist scholars actively work to reinterpret texts in light of contemporary values of equality.These differences are not simply “extremist misinterpretations.” Many stem from longstanding and mainstream interpretations of sacred texts and tradition.
Yet Islam is not monolithic: it encompasses a spectrum of thought, from rigid literalism to progressive reformism, and interpretations evolve over time and place.None of this is an indictment of Muslims as individuals. Millions of Muslims live peacefully and prosperously in Western societies, often embracing liberal values while maintaining their faith. Their successful integration is made possible precisely because Western secular frameworks limit the political reach of any religion—protecting both believers and non-believers alike.Recognizing the genuine tensions between certain traditional interpretations of Islam and core principles of Western liberalism is not intolerance; it is intellectual honesty.
At the same time, acknowledging Islam’s internal diversity, historical context, and capacity for reform prevents sweeping generalizations. A mature conversation requires holding both truths: deep differences exist, yet dialogue, mutual accommodation, and individual freedom remain possible. A civilization that clearly understands its own founding principles—without either naivety or hostility—is best equipped to preserve them while extending hospitality to those who share its public square.
In recent years, Canadian public schools have increasingly incorporated political themes into extracurricular events, including winter concerts. A widely discussed example occurred at Karen Kain School of the Arts in Toronto, where Grade 8 students performed a skit during a December “winter concert” featuring protest‑style signs such as “Give Back Stolen Land” and “Land Back.” The performance replaced traditional seasonal programming with messaging aligned with the contemporary “Land Back” movement. While the intent may have been to highlight Indigenous history, the choice of format and venue raises important questions about the appropriate boundaries between education and activism in publicly funded schools.
To evaluate this incident fairly, it is essential to distinguish between curricular education—which is mandated, necessary, and valuable—and extracurricular political advocacy, which carries different expectations and responsibilities.
Ontario’s curriculum explicitly requires students to learn about Indigenous histories, treaties, residential schools, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. These topics are not optional; they are embedded in the Social Studies and History curriculum for Grades 1–8. Teaching them is not activism—it is education grounded in historical fact and national responsibility. When taught in the classroom, these subjects can be explored with nuance, context, and opportunities for critical thinking.
The issue at Karen Kain is not the subject matter itself, but the format and framing. A winter concert is traditionally a community‑building event: inclusive, celebratory, and accessible to families of all backgrounds. Parents attend expecting music, dance, or drama that reflects seasonal themes or showcases student creativity. Transforming such an event into a protest‑style performance shifts the purpose from celebration to advocacy. It also removes the pedagogical safeguards—balanced discussion, guided inquiry, and contextual explanation—that exist in the classroom.
The “Land Back” movement, while rooted in legitimate discussions about Indigenous rights and historical treaties, is also a politically contested movement with a wide range of interpretations and significant implications for land ownership, governance, and public policy. Presenting it through slogans and protest imagery, without space for analysis or alternative perspectives, risks conveying a single ideological stance rather than fostering informed understanding. For 13‑ and 14‑year‑old students, who are still developing the ability to evaluate complex political claims, this can blur the line between learning about a movement and being encouraged to endorse it.
This concern is not hypothetical. Surveys consistently show that many Canadian parents prefer schools to avoid pushing students toward political activism, even on causes they personally support. Parents generally want schools to prioritize academic learning, critical thinking, and balanced instruction rather than advocacy. When extracurricular events adopt activist framing, it can erode trust by making families feel blindsided or excluded from decisions about what messages their children are asked to perform publicly.
None of this means schools should avoid difficult topics or silence discussions of Indigenous rights. On the contrary, these subjects deserve thoughtful, rigorous treatment. But context matters. A winter concert is not the venue for dramatizing contested political movements. Doing so risks reducing complex issues to slogans, bypassing critical engagement, and placing students in the role of political actors rather than learners.
A healthier approach would preserve the distinction between education and advocacy. Teach Indigenous history thoroughly in the classroom, as the curriculum requires. Encourage students to analyze movements like Land Back with intellectual seriousness. But keep extracurricular performances focused on inclusive, community‑oriented themes that unite rather than divide.
By maintaining this boundary, schools can honour both their educational mission and their responsibility to provide neutral, welcoming environments for all families—ensuring that learning remains grounded in inquiry, not activism, and that public events remain spaces of shared celebration rather than ideological theatre.
References
Original Incident and Reporting
Pfahl, Chanel (@ChanLPfa). “A parent at the Toronto District School Board sent me these pictures from the ‘Winter Concert’…” X (formerly Twitter), 18 Dec. 2025. https://x.com/ChanLPfa/status/2001719861723173203
“Toronto Grade 8 students stage ‘Land Back’ protest at school ‘winter concert’.” Juno News, 19 Dec. 2025. https://www.junonews.com/p/toronto-grade-8-students-stage-land
Ontario Curriculum Requirements
Ontario Ministry of Education. “Indigenous Education in Ontario.” Government of Ontario, updated 2 Sept. 2025. https://www.ontario.ca/page/indigenous-education-ontario
“Indigenous history, culture now mandatory part of Ontario curriculum.” CBC News, 8 Nov. 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-history-culture-mandatory-ontario-curriculum-1.4393527
Context on the “Land Back” Movement
“The Indigenous ‘Land Back’ Movement: A Land Mine for Canadians.” C2C Journal, 28 Oct. 2024. https://c2cjournal.ca/2024/10/the-indigenous-land-back-movement-a-land-mine-for-canadians/
Parental Attitudes Toward Activism in Schools
Zwaagstra, Michael, and Alex MacPherson. “Canadian parents don’t want schools to push students into political activism.” Fraser Institute, 2024. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadian-parents-dont-want-schools-to-push-students-into-political-activism
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…