You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
This is a frustrating clip to watch. The host is constantly talking over the guest as she tries to respond to the attempted ‘gotcha’ questions being posed.
I think we need to be clear here. There is no need to “Experts” to weigh in on keeping sexually explicit and pornographic material out of public school libraries. We need to keep age appropriate books in public school libraries – and certainly there can and should be discussion about the exact guidelines.
Children do not need to know about dildos, strap-ons, and anal rape. This shouldn’t be a hard issue to comprehend.
“Academic freedom is not a self-justifying good. It must be oriented to some end that merits the support of those who finance it. One end of liberal education is the advancement of knowledge, which requires diverse opinions and the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. But another is to preserve and transmit a social and cultural inheritance. This is true if the transmission encourages challenges to the tradition as well.
The mere expansion of knowledge understood as information without an accompanying sense of philosophical wisdom and moral limitation is unable to justify itself or prevent its own abuse. Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps before the Progressive virus—one of whose symptoms is hyper-rationalism—fully infected him, explained: “There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility.”
This quotation speaks to the problem that seems to be endemic today in so much of higher education – a lack of a philosophical ‘North Star’ that guides and orientates the academic scholarship at universities and colleges. The transmission of our culture’s bedrock values, Classical Liberalism, seems to have been mostly replaced by a cadre of activist academics that seek not to preserve and strengthen our society, but rather ruthlessly criticize and pull apart that values that make higher education possible in the first place.
A better balance must be struck.
Many thanks to Courage is a Habit on “X”.
“Strong parenting is fundamentally about exclusion, and the imposition of boundaries becomes paramount.
From the moment our children are born, it is our duty as parents to build formidable barriers that protect their growth and development. We do not welcome inclusion; we embrace exclusion. Newborns, delicate and defenseless, require a fortress against the tumultuous outside world. We rigorously limit the number of individuals permitted to hold them, acknowledging the necessity of a controlled environment that minimizes potential health risks.
As these beautiful tiny beings evolve into crawling explorers, our parenting role transforms into a vigilant act of exclusion – shielding them from the lurking dangers of electrical sockets, sharp edges, household hazards, and countless other items they want to put into their mouths.
The trajectory of parenthood traces a deliberate expansion of boundaries, mirroring the child’s burgeoning independence. With every developmental stage, our responsibility as parents pivots towards a meticulous curation of the influences that shape their world. The friends they choose, the content they consume, and the food they ingest all fall under the scrutiny of our discerning oversight.
Friendships In the realm of friendships, we guide them towards relationships that instill confidence and personal growth. By cultivating a discerning approach to friendships, we foster an environment that nurtures values that reflect those within our family.
Social Media In the digital era, where a deluge of information bombards impressionable minds, the imperative of exclusion becomes even more pronounced. We assume the role of gatekeepers, wielding control over the content they consume. In a world teeming with both constructive and detrimental influences, setting firm boundaries on screen time, online interactions, and the nature of digital content is critical to sculpting responsible, discerning individuals.
Food The practice of exclusion extends decisively to dietary habits, where we vigorously steer our children away from the insidious allure of junk food and sugar. By instilling a profound appreciation for nutritious choices, we not only contribute to their physical well-being but also lay the groundwork for enduring habits that transcend a lifetime.
Embrace Exclusion In essence, strong parenting asserts itself through a resolute rejection of inclusion for its own sake. While love and support remain foundational, the imposition of unwavering boundaries becomes the scaffolding that empowers our children to navigate, learn, and flourish within the safety of predefined limits.
Strong parenting has always been about exclusion, not inclusion. Never let anyone, especially government school employees, guilt you into accepting “inclusion”.
Those who cannot respect parental boundaries never have good intentions for children.”
This quote from GAG illustrates exactly how gender ideology has unscrupulously inserted itself into our society and institutions. It subverts ideas and twists programs that sound like what they once were but now align with the tenets of regressive gender ideology. This is why it so hard to convince low information people of the danger and harm that gender ideology represents. G.I puts the Big Bad Wolf to shame when it comes to misrepresenting what it is.
Former teacher, Carolyn Burjoski, is taking legal action against the Waterloo Region District School Board after being censored in a public school board meeting because she raised concerns about the age-inappropriateness of library books for children.
Trouble started when she turned to a book called The Other Boy by M.G. Hennessey and a scene that depicts a meeting between Shane, a transgender boy (born a girl), and a doctor. He voices excitement about starting on testosterone and when the physician says it would mean he likely wouldn’t be able to have children, he says, “It’s cool.”
As Burjoski remarked that such books make it seem overly straightforward to take cross-sex hormones, Piatkowski interjected to warn she may be violating the code.
The teacher said the book was misleading “because it does not take into account how Shane might feel later in life about being infertile. This book makes very serious medical interventions seem like an easy cure for emotional and psychological distress.”
At that point, Piatkowski told her he was “ending the presentation.”
The human rights code bars discrimination based on gender identity and other grounds in the areas of housing, employment and providing services.
Article contentThe widely used “affirmation” approach to children who identify as transgender has raised some concerns in several countries, and not just among obvious critics. Two leading psychologists in the transgender medical community, one of them a trans woman, complained in a recent article about sloppy and dangerous assessment of young people presenting as trans, with overly hasty resort to hormones.
In a statement, Burjoski said was relieved by the ruling.
“It is a significant victory and vindication, not just for me, but for everyone who dares to voice their valid concerns publicly,” she said. ”I hope this decision sends a strong message to school boards that the weaponization of human rights codes against concerned citizens is an undemocratic abuse of the code.”
Canadians are guaranteed the freedom of expression by our Charter of Rights. The self appointed sacred caste of trans has issues with people critiquing and discussion their vacuous ideology. The TQ+ community, because it doesn’t have a rational argument to stand on, then must rely on defamation, coercion, and social shaming to freeze out any debate of transgenderism and what its effects are on society.
“An Ontario judge has declared that human rights legislation “does not prohibit public discussion of anything,” in a free-speech victory for a teacher who was shut down when she raised concerns at a school board meeting about transgender-themed books in elementary school libraries.
“What happened here should not happen in a democratic society,” Ontario Superior Court Justice James Ramsay said in the case of now-retired teacher Carolyn Burjoski
“The Human Rights Code does not prohibit public discussion of issues related to transgenderism or minors and transgenderism. It does not prohibit public discussion of anything.”
Finally, one institution in Canada that isn’t kowtowing to gender ideology.
“Piatkowski later told a local CTV station, however, that Burjoski’s comments were actually transphobic and “questioned the right to exist” of trans people. He said he had no choice but to expel the teacher from the meeting. He told 570 News radio that Burjoski was “disrespectful” towards transgender people and was “not promoting healthy debate” at the meeting. The organization took down its recording of the meeting — a regular, public session of elected officials — and had YouTube remove another copy of the video for alleged copyright infringement.”
Ah. The right to exist. This is one of the favourite motte and bailey rhetorical dodges of the transgender ideologues. The question at hand was should books that present a false narrative of ‘transition’ be available to elementary school children. Nothing to do with existence or ‘erasing’ trans people.
“She launched a defamation lawsuit, which the board sought to have thrown out. In a Nov. 23 ruling, Ramsay dismissed the bid and ordered the board to pay Burjoski $30,000 in costs. He said her claims have merit and should be allowed to proceed, adding the comments made against her were “defamatory.”
“They accused her of breaching the Human Rights Code, questioning the right of trans persons to exist and engaging in speech that included hate. She did not do any of those things,” the judge said in his ruling.
“The chairman of the board acted with malice or at least, with a reckless disregard for the truth. He had made an embarrassingly erroneous and arbitrary decision to silence a legitimate expression of opinion and he was widely criticized for it. It is not a stretch to infer that, realizing that, he tried to justify himself with the public by assassinating the plaintiff’s character.”
The judge said he saw no prospect Piatkowski will be able to prove his statements were based in fact, since he accused her of saying things she did not say.
Hopefully our Supreme Court won’t overrule this correct decision in favour of free speech in Canada.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…