One truth about male child sex predators is this – They always go to where their prey is. Whether it be a Priest or Drag Queen the need for child safeguarding remains the same, maybe more so the case of DQ’s because no established accountability structure exists.
But let’s go through the CBC story, line by line to see exactly what’s going on over there in CBC land.
“Drag is everywhere — and it has never been more popular.”
According to whom, exactly? Seems very much like a personal opinion as opposed to anything resembling fact.
“Across the country, performers are bringing their art to events like drag brunches, drag story time at libraries, and shows at local gay bars. But with this increased visibility and popularity has come backlash, in the form of hate.”
If we’re just throwing opinion around here which obviously the hosts of CBC Now or Never are, here is one. Most adults don’t know or care about the increased frequency of Drag Events. What puts it on the radar for most adults is when children and youth are the target audience for a Drag Queen event.
Men in womanface are first and foremost adult entertainers and purveyors of adult entertainment. They, if their motivations were transparent would have no justification for interacting with children in their ‘professional’ capacity. Unless of course there were other reasons: (see the full text here)
It would seem there is some contention in our society about the value of adult entertainers interacting with children. It would be beneficial to have a lively public discussion about what exactly happens at DQSH and the concerns/questions for all those involved.
“Drag is happening in communities big and small, and it’s not going anywhere.”
Sound like a challenge. Did you really want to encourage more acrimonious behaviour within Canadian society? Keep poking the bear of mainstream Canadian opinion (i.e. continue fucking around in order find out).
One of things the LGBTQIA+ ‘community’ cannot abide by is debate or criticism of what they think should be part of normal society. Tough beans, all contentious issues merit debate in a free and democratic society.
Wear the Jersey or not, to bake the cake or not. In a free society these choices must remain with the individual. To be forced down one road another is authoritarianism, and the route we most definitely do not want to take.
“Note that neither Phillips nor Provorov is going out and preaching hatred or violence against homosexuals or transgender men and women. They are simply asking not to be required to affirm a particular point of view. That refusal is, per our official civil rights enforcement ideology, itself a form of bigotry and discrimination. But that is not the only way to see it.
There are, of course, genuine bigots in America. And many want to make that the issue because it simplifies things. But there is a deeper issue. How can America accommodate the diversity of moral opinions we currently have? In light of that question, we see that we have two warring views of respect for diversity and of toleration. The first is supported by the legal enforcement bureaucracy, as in the Jack Phillips cases, and is reflected in the criticism of Provorov. That view holds that to be tolerant is to give explicit support to particular points of view
Provorov did not explicitly criticize gay pride. On the contrary, his claim was that he is an Orthodox Christian, and as such, he cannot in good conscience actively support homosexuality because his religion teaches that it is sinful. He does not seek to keep gay players out of the NHL, nor has he, as far as I know, made it a point to preach his beliefs to others. He merely asks not to be required to praise something with which he disagrees. The same is true of Jack Phillips. He makes specialty cakes. He is willing to provide a cake for anyone. But he refuses to make a specialty cake with a particular message that celebrates something contrary to his beliefs.
In other words, Phillips and Provorov, and their supporters, are embracing a rival understanding of toleration—namely, that it is a practice, not a particular belief. To be tolerant reflects the classic idea of magnanimity, embracing what used to be called “liberality,” and accepting the notion that there are different ways of living well, and that a free society must give people space truly to live as their consciences dictate. Such liberality requires that civil society provide space for people to live separately in some regard, including in a private business.
In former ages, that sort of toleration applied particularly to America’s diverse religious sects. In a world in which many Protestants regarded the Pope as the Anti-Christ, religious liberty meant allowing America’s many religious communities the space they needed to live freely, even if they hated each other. It did not require, as the British King had required, one affirms Anglican doctrine to be a full citizen, nor did it require, as the King of France had required, one to be a Catholic. Instead, America merely required that a citizen respect the laws of the community—laws that gave us space to disagree about some very fundamental things. That allowed us to put the wars of the Reformation in the rearview mirror. In short, religious liberty and religious diversity allowed America to practice safe sects.”
The activist left seems to have forgotten the notions of liberty and actual diversity as they attempt to ‘reform’ society in their risible utopian cast. Their vision potentially spawns only strife and adversity. There is no “live and let live”, but rather “you will live how I see fit, or we have a problem (bigot/phobe)…”
Authoritarianism from the Right or Left is the bugbear in the room. Know it when you see it and fight against the totalitarian impulse the informs so much what passes for ‘social justice activism’ these days.
The use of opaque statements like “Trans people are just trying to LIVE our Lives” is a prime example of the motte and bailey fallacy.
“The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”).[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).”
Mostly everyone in western democratic societies are free to reasonably live their lives – within the confines of what is currently acceptable in society. In this case, currently transpeople have *every* right afforded to other people that inhabit Canadian and American society. What transactivists and other parts of the activist Left don’t say is that they wish to radically alter society’s rules around *their* vision of the future (which,in my opinion, is mostly utopian dogshit).
So this is how this one works. If you call Activist Leftists out on their unreasonable claims such as biological sex isn’t real( The bailey) then they will retreat to the motte and say “Well you just don’t want trans people to live their lives” (the motte).
The solution is to not even grant them the motte. People in free societies CAN live their lives mostly as they see fit – with the proviso their ‘lifestyle’ doesn’t negatively impact others.
The denial of biological sex has significant detrimental impacts on female rights, boundaries, and safety in our society – most to the point the ‘inclusion’ of male rapists (because they fucking feel like women) in female prisons in Canada.
Always bomb their innocuous motte and raze their radical bailey.
“Not all sex offenders are incarcerated. Given how hard it is to obtain convictions for sexual offenses, consider the likelihood that the total number of male sex offenders may be larger than the total number of males who “identify as women.” If a man invades a female change room, the women and girls inside are likely to have a stress response because their subconscious minds already know this person is approximately 100 times more likely to be a sex offender than any woman in the space and also more likely to be a sexual predator than a man who uses the proper facilities. It does not matter if the trespasser had surgery or takes hormones.
No male should ever be tolerated in a “single-sex” space for females. It’s right there in the name. The minute a person born male enters a female space it is magically transformed into a “mixed-sex” space and is no longer fit for purpose. There is such a thing as too much tolerance and sex is where we must draw the line in order to avoid an easy to predict increase in sexual offenses against women and girls. This is borne out in another UK chart on unisex toilets.
The helpful charts above could not be reproduced with data from Canada because all the male sex offenders pretending to be women would be counted as women by law enforcement. The decision made by Stats Canada in 2019 to track crime by whatever gender a perpetrator claims to be is already causing harm. Not only will it lead to the false claim that “more women are being jailed as sex offenders” it also hides the crimes that male sex offenders are committing in women’s prisons against vulnerable female inmates who cannot “identify” their way to safety. How can we solve this problem when the government is using flawed statistics to cover up what is really going on? Sound statistics are crucial as the foundation for public policy.”
“Ultimately this will be won or lost based on real politics, and elections at the Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels. While it is helpful overall to have not-woke people at City hall, the thrust of municipal elections for schools is done through the school board elections. More on this below.
Realistically, given the current slate of political parties, left, right or centre, the only prospects for pushback against woke ideology will come from the right- that means conservative and populist parties. The NDP has been predominantly identity politics focused since the 1990s, and has gone almost completely woke – they are no longer the voice of the working class. The Green Party, once a refuge for the not-woke left, submitted rapidly over the past few years. The Liberals have generally succumbed, especially with the current Prime Minister, and while there may be many members who do not like woke ideology they feel their hands are tied. Even the conservative parties are questionable with little support in Ontario from the pretend populist Doug Ford, – some are wavering elsewhere. Only the populist parties (People’s Party, UCP, Sask United Party, New Blue, Ontario Party and now CAQ) have shown reliability in opposing wokeism.
It is a tough pill to swallow for those of us who have traditionally been left to support right wing parties, but it is now no longer possible to expect the woke movement to simply fall out of fashion. The only way to save the left is to punish it. Across the English speaking world, every party not on the right is culturally incapable of pushing back against wokeism.”
As always, definitions are important. This is what ‘woke’ actually is, as opposed to what is members claim it to be:
The chronically fragile have been working overtime in Canada as of late (thanks to the National Post for the article). Apparently respecting the material reality we all share can get you in trouble with the authorities as Josh Alexander found out.
“That Canada is becoming less tolerant comes as no surprise, but even so a Catholic high school getting one of their 16-year-old students arrested is a bit of a shock, especially when the heart of the issue is his religious beliefs.
Josh Alexander was arrested by police Monday afternoon for breaching an exclusion order, but the real crime that the student is being punished for is upholding his Catholic beliefs and doing so in what some would no doubt think is a defiant and troublesome manner.”
Stating the factual reality of our existence in some circumstances is a crime. Let that sink in for a bit.
Josh, a Christian, believes there are only two genders, that people can’t switch genders, and that male students shouldn’t use girls’ washrooms. But expressing those views in a classroom discussion on gender at St. Joseph’s Catholic High School in Renfrew, Ont., got him suspended.
“I got suspended for comments made during a class discussion,” said Josh in an interview. “It was about male students using female washrooms, gender dysphoria and male breastfeeding. Everyone was sharing their opinions on it, any student who wanted to was participating, including the teacher
“I said there were only two genders and you were born either a male or a female and that got me into trouble. And then I said that gender doesn’t trump biology.”
Nothing unreasonable been stated so far. My quibble would be that using ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’ when discussing these issues already concedes too much to ground to the gender ideologues.
Gender is the set of the prescribed stereotypes society has for members of the male and female sex classes. Like most stereotypes, gender is usually quite unhelpful and toxic when it comes to humans flourishing within society. So, gender = (usually negative) sex stereotypes.
““Freedom once taken for granted is lost,” the Grade 11 student added. “Freedom of religion is probably one of our most important freedoms so I’m not going to surrender it in the face of persecution.
“It just goes to show how little freedom of expression we have in our country.”
James Kitchen, a lawyer from the Liberty Defense Fund which is representing Josh, said in a statement that the student was told he could only return to school “if he agreed not to use the ‘dead name’ of any transgender student and agreed to exclude himself from his two afternoon classes because those classes are attended by two transgender students who disapprove of Josh’s religious beliefs.””
Another person cannot attend class because they disapprove of someone’s religious beliefs? This is in a Catholic School for heaven’s sake! It would seem that the new gender-religion has replaced the old religion but has turned back the dial to when it wasn’t socially acceptable to criticize religious belief. As an Atheist, I find this juxtaposition both perplexing and ironic.
There are no beliefs in a free society that should be beyond reproach. This includes transgender ideology and its unfounded (and completely risible) beliefs of a gendered soul, being born in the wrong body, humans can change sex et cetera. Different religion – same bullshit.
“Josh said he had never “dead named” anyone, that is referred to their previous name before transitioning.
“Compelling Josh to utter falsehoods regarding gender contrary to his beliefs and segregating him from classes are repugnant manifestations of religious discrimination,” said Kitchen.
Matters escalated when Josh was later served with an exclusion order.
On Monday, when he tried to go school, the cops were called and he got arrested.
“I walked into one of my classes. I sat down and everyone looked pretty surprised to see me there. Within two minutes the vice-principal was in the classroom asking me to leave,” Josh said.
He left the class and “almost immediately I was met with the police.” Josh was put in the back of a cruiser, driven off property and later released and charged with trespassing.”
Speaking the truth should not be a crime.
“But is that the society we want to become? Arresting 16-year-old kids for turning up at school when they’ve been suspended for their religious beliefs? Was there no other way? Could the school not have tried harder to find a solution? Was calling the police really the only option?
It appears we are now so intolerant that we cannot stand people defending their religious beliefs in a classroom at a supposedly religious school.
Josh doesn’t appear to be a shrinking violet. He obviously holds strong beliefs and is passionate about them.”
I have opposed organized religions for most of my adult life and I have never once felt threatened by my opponents. Nor have I had faced possibly severe social repercussions for stating my (decidedly untoward) views on religion. Gender ideology here in Canada though, seems to be the unquestionable religion of choice , and it demands utter obedience and compliance with its diktats.
Christianity and Islam once held this special status. Fuck that. I am not going back to not being able to criticize a self appointed sacred caste within Canadian society. Gender bullshit stinks just as bad as religious bullshit.
“According to its website, St Joseph’s works to promote “education within a framework of a Catholic Christian environment.”
It adds, “We truly believe in the enhancement of the spiritual, moral, and emotional well-being of those belonging to our community.”Kitchen, Josh’s lawyer, would disagree.
“Under the guise of ‘safety’, as that term has been revised by woke gender activists now pervasive in public institutions, Josh has been penalized for expressing his Christian beliefs regarding gender and modesty, beliefs which also happen to align with both objective truth and actual safety,” he said in a statement. “Josh not only has a right to express himself during class discussions and through public forums, he also has a right not to be discriminated against by his school for his sincere religious beliefs. Being suspended and excluded from attending classes is the height of discrimination.”
The activist Left or Woke have twisted the language. It is what they do. How does excluding someone = an inclusive learning environment. A brief detour on what they’ve done to the language:
Yeah. So, being inclusive is actually being ‘exclusive’ and encouraging the erosion of free speech and thought in society.
“The board said on human rights issues, it takes its guidance from the policies issued by the Ontario Human Rights (OHR) Commission and directives issued by the Ministry of Education.
Its washroom practices follow the OHR guidelines that state that trans people “have the right to access these facilities based on their lived gender identity.”
Do Catholics at a religious school have the right to access the facility based on their lived religious identity? The OHR is huffing gasoline on this issue. The idea that somehow ‘gender identity’ trumps material reality is a completely foolish and wrong headed notion. Facilities in the above statement refers to bathrooms – so if a boy ‘feels’ like a girl he can use the girls bathroom. No problems (other than the destruction of female only spaces and female boundaries) there, right?
The new transgender religion, like the old traditional religions are steeped in the hatred of women and seek to roll back their rights, boundaries, and safety in society.
The opposition to this new persecution of women is stirring in Canada (we sadly, are still far behind the UK in this area). Once the language obfuscation is stripped away and more cases are brought court perhaps we can start rolling back this pernicious transgender ideology and all the harm it is causing in society.
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…