Dead Wild Roses

Quick Hit: Carney’s Housing Photo-Op and Liberal Hypocrisy

September 22, 2025 in Canada, Politics | Tags: Fake Houses, Hypocrisy, Liberal Party of Canada, Marc Careny | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

Mark Carney launched his new “Build Canada Homes” initiative with the Liberals at a construction-themed event, complete with hard hats, lumber, and the imagery of homes being built. Mainstream outlets like CBC and BNN Bloomberg covered the announcement and confirmed the backdrop included construction visuals and talk of modular housing. However, Conservative MP Barbara Bal and several CPC social media accounts have claimed the set was little more than a temporary stage — alleging that when they returned to the site, nothing was actually there. It is important to note: these allegations come from partisan and social sources, not from mainstream media confirmation.

Even if one accepts the stronger claim that the site was a prop, the larger problem is not theatricality but the substance. After nine years of Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, housing affordability has collapsed: mortgage interest costs have more than doubled since 2015 according to Statistics Canada, rents have spiked across major cities according to CMHC, and Canada now has the fewest homes per capita of any G7 country. Liberal promises to “get housing built” ring hollow given this record of failure.

That is where the hypocrisy cuts deepest. A party that has presided over a historic affordability crisis now rolls out a former Bank of Canada governor to stage glossy announcements about “change.” Whether or not the Vaughan backdrop was literally a Potemkin village, it symbolizes the Liberal pattern: photo-ops and slogans standing in for tangible progress. Canadians don’t need props — they need homes they can afford.

References

CBC News / Yahoo: “The way we build homes needs to change: Carney makes housing announcement” – https://ca.news.yahoo.com/way-build-homes-needs-change-024451476.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
BNN Bloomberg (Canadian Press): “Liberals promise to build nearly 500,000 homes per year, create new housing entity” – https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/federal-election-2025/2025/03/31/liberals-promise-to-build-nearly-500000-homes-per-year-create-new-housing-entity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Barbara Bal (Conservative MP) Instagram reel alleging staged backdrop – https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-1lE9YtZ8p?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Conservative Party of Canada X/Twitter account repeating claim – https://x.com/cpc_hq
Statistics Canada: “Mortgage interest cost index, May 2024” – https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240620/dq240620a-eng.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
CMHC: “Canada Housing Market Report” – https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/canada-housing-market-report?utm_source=chatgpt.com
OECD Housing Data – https://data.oecd.org/price/housing-prices.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice – Monkey Heaven

September 21, 2025 in Religion | Tags: The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

Primates, who would have thought…

Feminism: Bodily Autonomy & Safety

September 20, 2025 in Feminism | Tags: Autonomy, Feminism, Transgender ideology | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

People should be consistent about their beliefs. Let’s put a bodily autonomy situation to the test.

Major Premise: Any moral principle protecting a woman’s bodily autonomy and safety must be applied consistently to all areas where her biological sex is directly relevant.
Minor Premise 1: Abortion rights protect a woman’s bodily autonomy.
Minor Premise 2: Female-only spaces protect a woman’s safety and dignity, which are inseparable from her biological sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, just as abortion is morally protected for bodily autonomy, the right of women to control access to female-only spaces must also be morally protected

Let’s consider a possible counter –

Trans inclusion claim: Some argue trans women should access female spaces.
Counterpoint: Biological sex, not gender identity, determines risk factors (e.g., privacy violations, physical safety concerns), which are the basis for female-only spaces. Moral protection of women’s autonomy and safety therefore cannot be overridden by gender identity claims.

This (and logic generally) only works if you belief in objective truth and a shared common reality. Social constructivists are bound by neither, so this argument probably wouldn’t work well with them.

Crime in Canada: Rising… or Turning the Tide?

September 18, 2025 in Canada, Politics | Tags: Crime, State of Canada | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

Canada’s crime landscape resists neat storytelling. After nearly a decade of steady increases—especially in violent offenses, property thefts, and youth crime—2024 marks a notable pivot downward.

According to Statistics Canada, the overall police-reported crime rate fell 4% to 5,672 incidents per 100,000 people, ending three consecutive years of growth (Statistics Canada). The Crime Severity Index (CSI)—which captures both volume and seriousness—also dipped 4% nationally, with Non-violent CSI down 6% and Violent CSI down 1% (Statistics Canada). Homicide rates slid 4%, from 1.99 to 1.91 victims per 100,000, with eight fewer lives lost than the year before (Global News, Statistics Canada).

Still, narratives of escalating crime haven’t vanished. And it’s not hard to understand why. From 2014 to 2023, Canada saw violent crime rise nearly 30%, with 2023 registering approximately 1,427 incidents per 100,000—up 3.7% from the previous year (X (formerly Twitter)). This contrasts sharply with the U.S., where violent crime grew about 5% and property crime fell 24% over the same decade (X (formerly Twitter), Fraser Institute).

Youth crime follows a similar pattern. Between 2022 and 2023, violent youth crime jumped 10%, with overall youth crime up 13% (Ministère de la Justice). On a regional level, Western provinces—especially Saskatchewan and Manitoba—continue to report some of the highest crime rates, while Ontario and Quebec remain comparatively stable (Government of Nova Scotia, Statistics Canada).

The Takeaway

Crime in Canada isn’t spiraling, nor is it fully under control. The 2024 decline is welcome, but it follows substantial, worrying increases. The story lies between alarm and apathy—calling for careful, evidence-driven policy, not sensational headlines or complacency.

References

Statistics Canada. “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2024.” Overall crime rate – 5,672 per 100,000; CSI changes. (Statistics Canada)
Global News (citing StatsCan). Homicide rate down to 1.91 per 100,000 in 2024 (4% decline). (Global News)
Statistics Canada. Homicide victims – 788 in 2024, eight fewer than in 2023. (Statistics Canada)
Statistics Canada. 2023 crime stats: 3% rise in crime rate to 5,843/100k; violent incidents up 4%; CSI up 2%. (Statistics Canada)
Crime comparison data: Violent crime +30% (2014–2023); 2023 rate ~1,427/100k (up 3.71%); Canada vs U.S. trends. (X (formerly Twitter), Fraser Institute)
Justice Canada. Youth crime: +10% violent youth crime; +13% overall youth crime (2022–2023). (Ministère de la Justice)
Nova Scotia stats: Regional disparities, highest in Manitoba/Saskatchewan. (Government of Nova Scotia)

Partisan Dishonesty – Endemic at the Moment – Name the Dynamic

September 17, 2025 in Politics | Tags: Defusing Decision Dilemma, Naming the Dynamic | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

Always in political warfare you must name the dynamic. Always show, never tell. This places the people who trying to put you in a decision dilemma in one of their own. In this case they have to justify equivocating words as being the same as political violence is somehow a good thing.

The post accusing Charlie Kirk of “enthusiastically encouraging political violence” is built on a single manipulative dynamic: it redefines political violence to mean political positions I oppose. Then it runs through a list of Kirk’s controversial views, inflates them into caricatures, and brands them “violence.” This is not an honest critique—it’s a smear designed to erase the difference between debate and brutality. Let’s break it down.

1. Immigration. Kirk supported strict enforcement against criminal non-citizens, often citing gang members, rapists, and traffickers released by sanctuary cities. The post reframes this as “rounding up people of colour and terrorizing neighborhoods.” That’s the dynamic: take law enforcement, exaggerate it into indiscriminate terror, then call it violence.

2. Demographics and “Replacement Theory.” Kirk talked about demographic shifts and immigration policy, citing illegal entry numbers and workforce displacement. He framed it as sovereignty and cultural stability, not white supremacy. But the post takes those concerns, slaps on the “Replacement Theory” label, and declares it “stoking violence.” Again: redefine, inflate, smear.

3. Civil Rights Act. Kirk said the 1964 Act was a “mistake” because it created bureaucracies that undermined free speech and colorblindness. He criticized MLK in that context. That’s a libertarian critique (shared by some legal scholars), not a denial of Black rights. Yet the post twists this into “stating Black folks should never have been given civil rights.” This is a textbook case of taking a radical-sounding policy critique and miscasting it as raw racism.

4. Abortion. Kirk opposed abortion as murder, even in tragic cases, and argued life should always be protected. The post inflates this into “forcing women and girls to give birth against their will.” In reality, it’s a moral absolutist position on protecting the unborn, not violence against women.

5. “Disinformation.” Kirk was guilty of rhetorical excess—on COVID, election integrity, Islam, and crime. But the post turns provocative speech into “targeting vulnerable populations.” Here again is the trick: take speech you don’t like, call it “lies,” and rebrand it as violence.

6. Consent. The claim that Kirk said women can’t withdraw consent is pure fabrication. He acknowledged murky debates around alcohol but affirmed that consent must be ongoing. Yet the post smears him as endorsing rape. This isn’t just dishonest—it’s defamatory.

7. Guns. Kirk argued for armed guards in schools while opposing gun control, saying liberty comes with costs. You may find that callous, but it’s policy debate—not violence. The post reframes it as if merely opposing gun restrictions is an assault on children.

Taken together, the method is consistent: start with a conservative position, exaggerate it into a cartoon of cruelty, then call it “political violence.” That’s the dynamic. And it’s dangerous. By redefining words this way, the author trivializes actual violence—like the bullet that killed Kirk—and justifies hatred of political opponents.

Charlie Kirk could be brash, offensive, and polarizing. But no honest observer can claim his work amounted to “political violence.” That label belongs to acts of physical harm, not words, policies, or even moral absolutism. The truth is simple: the only political violence in this story was the act that ended his life.

Quick Hit: The Parkland Institute’s Parental Rights Report

September 16, 2025 in Alberta, Education | Tags: Parkland Institute, Propaganda, Refuting the Activist narrative | by The Arbourist | Comments closed

The Parkland Institute’s report on “parental rights” is heavily ideologically slanted. It repeatedly frames parental involvement as a threat to children’s well-being, assumes bad faith on the part of parents and policymakers, and cherry-picks anecdotes—often from the U.S.—while ignoring Canadian legal frameworks that balance children’s rights with parental guidance. It conflates routine educational transparency with medical care access, overstating risks to vulnerable youth. Below, we break down the report’s claims and set the record straight.

1. Claim: “‘Parental rights’ is being deployed to justify legislative changes that restrict inclusive practices…” (p. 4)

Refutation: Alberta’s amendments require parental notification and opt-in consent only for instruction mainly and explicitly about gender identity, sexual orientation, or human sexuality. Incidental references are not covered, maintaining inclusivity while respecting parental involvement.

2. Claim: “These measures… often override children’s rights and ignore the perspectives of supportive parents…” (p. 5)

Refutation: Canadian law balances children’s rights with parental guidance. Alberta’s policy aligns with this principle, ensuring parental engagement without undermining children’s rights.

3. Claim: “Conservatives generally disagree… that children may have rights independent of what their parents may decide is best for them.” (p. 7)

Refutation: This overgeneralizes. Canadian legal frameworks, including the mature minor doctrine, recognize children’s rights independent of parental decisions.

4. Claim: “Such framing of parental rights… is a clear threat to the rights of vulnerable children.” (p. 6)

Refutation: The policy actually protects children by ensuring parents are informed and involved. Presenting it as a “clear threat” ignores the benefits of parental engagement and legal safeguards.

5. Claim: “Parental opt-in for instruction on gender and sexuality… curtailing access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and youth.” (p. 8)

Refutation: Educational policies do not regulate medical care. Access to gender-affirming care is governed by healthcare policy, not school curricula.

6. Claim: “Conservative governments… moved to enshrine a conservative view of ‘parental rights’ in law.” (p. 9)

Refutation: Alberta’s changes are procedural—requiring notice and opt-in—not ideological. The policy simply formalizes parental involvement in education.

7. Claim: “Parents angered by the government overriding their right to support their children’s access to gender-affirming health care.” (p. 8)

Refutation: This conflates education with healthcare. Alberta’s educational policy does not interfere with parental involvement in medical decisions.

8. Claim: “Complaints [about school library materials] actually came from [advocacy groups]… familiar to anyone who has been following… Moms for Liberty’s attacks on books.” (p. 10)

Refutation: Advocacy group involvement doesn’t negate the legitimacy of parental concerns about content. The policy ensures parents are informed, regardless of who raises issues.

9. Claim: “The law… does not give parents the right to override their children’s rights.” (p. 11)

Refutation: True, but incomplete. Canadian law emphasizes balance. Parents still play a key role in guiding their children, especially regarding sensitive educational content.

10. Claim: “Public education… beset by moral panics and wedge issues.” (p. 12)

Refutation: Labeling legitimate parental concerns as “moral panic” is dismissive. The policy simply promotes transparency and communication between schools and families.

Bottom line: The Parkland report is ideologically driven, cherry-picks anecdotes, and overstates risks while ignoring Canadian law and the benefits of parental engagement. Alberta’s policy seeks balance, transparency, and respect for both parental and children’s rights—exactly what a fair, neutral approach should do.

References

Parkland Institute Report: Challenging ‘Parental Rights’: A Primer for Parents, Students, Educators, and Advocates
Alberta Education Act Amendments: Supporting Alberta Students and Families
Parental Rights in Education: What are the legal rights of parents to be notified and opt-in for instruction?
Children’s Rights in Canada: Rights of children
Children’s Participation Rights: Review of Children’s Participatory Rights in Canada

Western Feminists and Afghanistan’s Women: A Deafening Silence

September 15, 2025 in Culture, Feminism | Tags: Afghan women, gender apartheid, Taliban, Western feminism, Women's Rights | by The Arbourist | 2 comments

The Taliban’s gender apartheid in Afghanistan has erased decades of women’s rights, yet Western feminists remain largely mute. This selective outrage undermines global solidarity and demands scrutiny.

The Plight of Afghan Women

Since the Taliban’s 2021 return, Afghan women live under the harshest restrictions in the world. Girls are banned from schooling beyond sixth grade. Women are barred from most employment, forbidden from traveling without male chaperones, and compelled to wear full coverings. More than 80 edicts—54 targeting women—have stripped them of agency.

The results are devastating: suicide rates among Afghan women now exceed those of men, a stark marker of despair. The UN describes Afghanistan as the most repressive state for women globally, with its system of gender apartheid potentially amounting to a crime against humanity. Afghan women themselves say they feel “invisible, isolated, suffocated.”

The Silence of Western Feminists

Where is the outrage? Western feminists—so vocal on reproductive rights, pay gaps, and representation—have been notably quiet. In 1997, the Feminist Majority Foundation spearheaded a campaign against Taliban “gender apartheid,” mobilizing U.S. media and Congress. No such mobilization exists today.

Instead, Western feminist discourse remains centered on domestic struggles. Social media cycles amplify abortion battles or workplace equity, while Afghanistan’s crisis rarely trends. A 2022 Human Rights Watch panel highlighted Afghan women’s sense of abandonment—forgotten by those who once claimed solidarity. The silence is more than neglect; it erodes the credibility of a movement that champions global sisterhood.

The Opposition’s View

Defenders argue Western feminists are rightly focused on where they wield influence—local policy fights over abortion or workplace equity. Others fear that advocating for Afghan women risks repeating colonialist “savior” narratives, as post-9/11 rhetoric did.

But caution has curdled into apathy. Silence neither elevates Afghan voices nor restrains Taliban oppression. If anything, Western feminism’s past complicity in militarized “rescue” campaigns demands more careful, accountable solidarity—not retreat.

The Takeaway

Irony abounds: a movement quick to decry domestic patriarchy turns mute before a regime that has locked women in their homes. Afghan women are not asking for saviors, but for allies who will amplify their voices and challenge their erasure.

Consistency is the true test of principle. Championing equality at home while ignoring gender apartheid abroad is not solidarity—it is privilege. The Taliban’s repression is their crime, but Western feminim’s silence is a stain on its conscience.

References

UN Women. Women in Afghanistan: From Almost Everywhere to Almost Nowhere. Link
Human Rights Watch. Afghan Women and Western Intervention: A Conversation. Link
Atlantic Council. In Afghanistan’s Gender Apartheid. Link

	The Arbourist on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	Steve Ruis on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	The Arbourist on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	Marengo on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	The Arbourist on The Escalation Loop Behind “IC…

Dead Wild Roses

References

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

The Takeaway

References

Share this:

Share this:

1. Claim: “‘Parental rights’ is being deployed to justify legislative changes that restrict inclusive practices…” (p. 4)

2. Claim: “These measures… often override children’s rights and ignore the perspectives of supportive parents…” (p. 5)

3. Claim: “Conservatives generally disagree… that children may have rights independent of what their parents may decide is best for them.” (p. 7)

4. Claim: “Such framing of parental rights… is a clear threat to the rights of vulnerable children.” (p. 6)

5. Claim: “Parental opt-in for instruction on gender and sexuality… curtailing access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and youth.” (p. 8)

6. Claim: “Conservative governments… moved to enshrine a conservative view of ‘parental rights’ in law.” (p. 9)

7. Claim: “Parents angered by the government overriding their right to support their children’s access to gender-affirming health care.” (p. 8)

8. Claim: “Complaints [about school library materials] actually came from [advocacy groups]… familiar to anyone who has been following… Moms for Liberty’s attacks on books.” (p. 10)

9. Claim: “The law… does not give parents the right to override their children’s rights.” (p. 11)

10. Claim: “Public education… beset by moral panics and wedge issues.” (p. 12)

References

Share this:

The Plight of Afghan Women

The Silence of Western Feminists

The Opposition’s View

The Takeaway

References

Share this:

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

Like Privacy?

Need more DWR goodness?

See what is in bloom at DWR.

TAG CLOUD:What is growing at DWR

The best of the bouquet.

Your opinions…

Categories

Posts I Like

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Blog Stats

The DWR RSS feed.

Get DWR on tap!

The DWR Commentariat