You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
This just nails what the post modern Left has become. Deplatforming and deliberately not dealing with facts.
Two views on the current state of the West. Both share a fairly grim tone. We need to as nations of the West turn things around. The classical liberal* principles that our societies were founded on need to be restored and refreshed in their primacy of how we exist as people in society.
There are competing narratives of how we are supposed to advance society, I think if we stray from the path we’re on we going to be in trouble.
*Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism which advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech
I spent a fair amount of time poking fun at the US right-wing here on DWR. But as of late is that very same right wing that is standing up and fighting for the rights, boundaries, and safety of women. The noisy befuddled activist Left has taken over the discourse on the Left and as result it has turned into utter identitarian hogwash.
The Left I knew was about promoting the interests of the working class and helping people get to a place economically and socially where they could contribute to society and have a reasonable life within the bounds of our Western values. Now? It is intersectionality 24/7 in a competition to see is the most oppressed and who is best at fracturing society into warring factions bent on dismantling the very system that lets them spout their egregious bullshite.
So, you have to look to whomever has the most reasonable and fact based ideas – it is how we actually progress as a nation.
These principles seem to be formed on the objective material we all share. They are a step in the right direction.
Statement of Principles – The September Declaration
This document is intended to be a minimal set of principles that are commonly agreed to by all individuals and organizations participating in the Parents Rights Coalition of Canada.
While the interests of various participants may be broad, the coalition’s focus is on the rights and responsibilities of parents and legal guardians with respect to their children who are below the age of majority. We believe that parents and legal guardians have a responsibility to their children to be faithful stewards of their best interests, and “parental rights” are the basis for them to exercise this responsibility.
We regard “gender ideology” to be a set of highly controversial beliefs and values rooted in academic fields such as “queer theory”, “gender studies”, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism. The tenets of gender ideology are unscientific and antithetical to the beliefs and values of most Canadians. These include the ideas that children can be “born into the wrong body”, that there are more than two “genders”, that gender is “fluid”, that gender is a “social construct” unrelated to sex, that traditional values concerning sexual propriety are “oppressive”, and so forth. We reject all core tenets of “gender ideology”. These include the following:
We reject that “gender” is a set of socially constructed behaviours and is independent of sex.
Note: Our position is that stereotypical behavioural differences between men and women are simply the cultural manifestations of deeply rooted biological and neurological differences between the two sexes. These concepts are not independent of each other. Accordingly, we make no distinction between “gender” and “sex. We propose to eliminate the use of the word “gender” to avoid confusion.
We reject the assertion that there are more than two sexes, that “gender” is separate from sex, and related concepts such as “gender spectrum”, “non-binary genders”, “transgender”, etc. Note: Our position is that there are only two sexes defined as follows: Man/Male = Adult Human Male and Woman/Female = Adult Human Female.
Accordingly, we call for the removal of all references to “gender identity” and “gender expression” from all provincial and federal diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and wherever it may be present, from the official K-12 educational curriculum as well.
Principle 1: “No government has ever proven itself a capable parent.”
Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their own traditional cultural, religious, or secular moral codes. Publicly funded schools have no authority to overrule parents’ rights in this regard. This means that parents must give permission for their children to participate in any contentious political, social, or cultural subject matter at any time. The default position for this type of participation for students must be “opt-in”.
Principle 2: “No secrets, parental consent is mandatory.”
We demand that schools adopt and vigorously enforce a “no secrets from parents” policy. Gender social affirmation at school is a serious psychotherapeutic intervention. It must never be conducted without parental approval. The provincial Ministries of Education must enforce this policy within the school system.
Principle 3: “We demand protection for girls’ sports.”
Boys must not be permitted to compete in competitive sports intended for females where male-specific physical advantages (strength, muscle mass, fast-twitch muscle fiber, bone density, etc.) result in an unfair competitive advantage and increased safety risks for female participants at the grade school and high school level.
Principle 4: “Affirmation cannot be dictated under penalty of law.”
We acknowledge that a small minority choose to present themselves as the opposite sex in terms of stereotypical dress and deportment. In a free country, they have the option to do so. This does not obligate the rest of society to affirm their choice. One’s self-proclaimed identity is a continuous negotiation with broader society which all Canadians must be free to accept or reject as they choose. Forced affirmation, including compelled or coerced speech, must not be dictated in our public schools. We likewise reject any attempt to force our children to use preferred pronouns or names they (or their parents) do not agree to.
Principle 5: “Public schools must be ideologically neutral.”
We call for an embrace of freedom of thought, respect for diversity of opinion, and principles of religious tolerance in public education. Schools must not promote, nor denounce, any religion(s) or secular ideological belief systems. We call for the removal of ideological symbols and forced celebration of days dedicated to various ideological social causes. On the matter of flags, we ask that only national flags and provincial or territorial flags be flown in our public schools anywhere on the school property.
Principle 6: “Sex-based rights must be respected.”
We demand that both sexes be prohibited from accessing spaces designated for the privacy and protection of the opposite sex regardless of how they self-identify. This includes all Canadian K-12 schools bathrooms/showers/changerooms, children’s camps, and overnight school trip accommodations, etc. Furthermore, we demand that all public schools and other public facilities have sex-based washroom options: girl’s washrooms, and separate boy’s washrooms. Sex-neutral washrooms as the only option, are not acceptable.
Principle 7: “There is no such thing as a transgender child.”
Teaching the idea that children are ever born in the wrong body (i.e.: one not matching their sex) is a blatant form of mental child abuse and a flagrant violation of the duty of fiduciary care schools have to all our children. We acknowledge that some children deal with gender dysphoria, and this must be addressed with compassion and the involvement of parents.
Principle 8: “Opt-out default for Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs.”
Some school boards and educators embed the core tenets of “gender ideology” into “anti bullying”, “DEI training”, and what is deemed “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” which differs from traditional sex education programs. This includes teaching “gender identity” and “gender expression” without presenting dissenting “gender critical” perspectives. As such, we demand that parental consent be required for all Comprehensive Sexuality Education and that it should be taught on an opt-in basis only where the opt-out option is the default choice.
Furthermore, no tenets of gender ideology should ever be shoehorned into classroom instruction, extracurricular activities, school posters/displays, or introduced by third-party trainers under any circumstance.
We demand that all school boards list all related training topics and provide electronic copies of all training materials pertaining to any “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” programs on their official websites so as to allow all these materials to be reviewed online by parents at any time.
Principle 9: “A moratorium on ‘gender-affirming medical care’ for minors.”
We call for an immediate moratorium on both “social gender transition” and so-called “gender-affirming medical care” for minors until such time as an impartial evidence-based review of gender medical practices (puberty blockers, hormones, surgery) similar to the UK “Cass Review” can be completed in Canada. Children do not have the brain development, maturity, wisdom, or life experience to fully appreciate the long-term consequences of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures designed to emulate the appearance of the opposite sex. Social gender transition is the first step on the path toward medical transition for children and must be treated as a form of child abuse. Accordingly, we also call for the removal of “gender expression” and “gender identity” from the definition of “conversion therapy” under the criminal code of Canada given the impact on children.
September 28, 2023 Revision
Canadians are beginning to find their voice and say no to the regressive gender ideology in society.
“The reason these parents were protesting is simple. They do not want their children to learn that ‘everyone has a gender identity’, to be asked for their ‘pronouns’, or to be told they may have been ‘born in the wrong body’. Parents do not want their kids learning that their families are ‘bigoted’ or ‘abusive’ because they believe their children’s bodies are perfect just the way they are. They do not agree that it is possible to ‘identify’ as the opposite sex.
Yet this is precisely what is being taught in Canadian classrooms as part of the so-called SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) curriculum. Primary-school kids learn that ‘When babies are born, doctors and parents usually decide if the baby is a boy or girl’, but that ‘not everybody will grow up feeling like or identifying as a boy or a girl’. And they are told they should ‘look for clues’ that reveal a boy is really a girl.
Lesson plans for teachers suggest they ask pupils, ‘What does it mean to feel like a boy or to feel like a girl?’. A suggested activity in one lesson plan instructs teachers to ‘ask everybody to walk around the classroom and introduce themselves and ask each other what their names are and what pronouns they should use’.
These kinds of practices have been adopted in public schools across Canada, with zero input or consultation with parents or voters. Many have felt voiceless on these issues. Contacting our MPs and the media has proven fruitless. The One Million March offered the silent majority a chance to stand up and speak out.
While most of the rallies across Canada were enormously successful, the march I attended in Victoria, British Columbia was shut down prematurely.
I was informed, halfway through my speech, that the police had demanded my mic be cut. Counter-protesters had swarmed the area, aggressively pushing their way to the front of the rally, while screaming at and being physically aggressive towards the children, parents and grandparents in attendance. They then attempted to attack the stage. The police determined the situation was too dangerous and that they could no longer protect attendees, and so they shut down the rally, just 30 minutes in. Ironically, it is those claiming to advocate ‘love’ and ‘inclusivity’ who consistently use bullying, threats and violence to silence views they disapprove of.”
1/ The current controversy in Saskatchewan shows how the gender debate has become the perfect storm for loss of confidence in the Charter. The Charter has never commanded universal respect among Canadians but in recent years these doubts have increased.
2/ The Charter was introduced by Pierre Trudeau over opposition from the provinces. The notwithstanding clause was one of a series of compromises which won the grudging support of 9 provinces. Quebec did not agree and has used the notwithstanding clause regularly.
3/ Public support for the Charter has grown because it was believed to secure broadly shared values of equality between individuals and limitations on state authority. It was seen as reinforcing democratic government by protecting the fundamental conditions for democracy.
4/ More recently academic and now judicial thinking has adopted a new concept of human rights based on ameliorating the condition of oppressed groups, even at the expense of traditional values of liberty and equality.
5/ This new concept of rights has pushed the courts further into the realm of policy making for which the judicial process is not designed. Bad decisions will happen and as they become more frequent the need for a political safety valve has increased.
6/ A basic problem is that court procedures are intended to resolve a clear conflict between two parties. There are often many different perspectives to a Charter issue and all of these perspectives are seldom adequately represented in court.
7/ The rules of evidence make it difficult to present a full picture of the complexity of an issue like pediatric gender transition. The scientific background has to be presented through expert witnesses who submit written reports. This is a costly process.
8/ The high costs of bringing a Charter case mean that many cases are brought by groups receiving government funding. The government is using the Charter litigation to advance the interests of favoured groups in a way that bypasses the legislative and public debate.
9/ Judges of course follow the media and in most cases they can rely on their own general knowledge to aid in understanding the evidence presented in court. However, on the issue of gender medicine Canadian media coverage has been hopelessly biased.
10/ A judge who reads the Globe and Mail and listens to the CBC will have heard nothing about the international controversy over gender medicine. There has been no coverage of the closure of the Tavistock gender clinic of the policy changes in Sweden, Finland and Norway.
11/ Strict rules of evidence exist because court cases are intended to provide a final resolution to a dispute. There are provisions to re-open a criminal conviction where new evidence is discovered after trial in other types of cases the decision is final after the final appeal.
12/ Public policy, on the other hand, should be constantly revised as new and better evidence emerges. New evidence on pediatric gender transition is emerging rapidly but it is being ignored by Canadian media and policy makers.
13/ There is a risk that when Canada finally realizes how harmful the current approach to pediatric transition has become, the ability to change course will be hindered by Charter judgments made on the basis of faulty and limited evidence.
14/ In these circumstances, use of the notwithstanding clause may be a necessity but it is worth considering that we would not be in this mess if our major institutions did not show such disregard for the Charter’s protection of freedom of expression.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…