You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘CBC’ tag.
The CBC’s problem is not that it experimented with satire, hidden cameras, or uncomfortable encounters. Those tools have existed for decades. Political comedy often works by creating discomfort. The issue exposed by the CBC/APTN controversy is narrower and more revealing: the apparent belief that some Canadians are legitimate targets for deception and public humiliation, while others must be protected from the same treatment.
Reports surrounding the proposed CBC/APTN production describe critics of prevailing narratives being approached under false pretences for staged ideological confrontations. The defence offered afterward was familiar: this was entertainment, satire, social experimentation, democratic conversation. Not journalism. Not activism. Just provocative television.
So apply the format evenly.
Imagine CBC producers creating fake donor dinners for Egale Canada representatives, only to surprise them with hidden-camera confrontations involving worried parents asking difficult questions about youth medical transitions.
Imagine prominent Indigenous advocates invited to reconciliation forums before being confronted with unscripted questions about land acknowledgements, pipeline development, corruption scandals, or reserve governance.
Imagine supervised-consumption advocates calmly informed during a fake consultation that a new injection site will open beside an elementary school and a seniors’ residence, while cameras capture their reactions for national entertainment.
Everyone knows what would happen next. The country would not describe these productions as brave satire. They would be denounced as targeted harassment. Editorials would appear within hours condemning the emotional manipulation. Activists would speak about institutional retraumatization. Media panels would debate whether public funding had enabled abuse against marginalized communities. Sensitivity consultants would materialize at lightspeed.
“Nobody seriously believes CBC would approve the same hidden-camera tactics against officially protected activist groups.”
That predictable reversal is the whole problem.
The CBC controversy matters because it exposes two moral rulebooks operating inside many modern institutions. Protected groups receive the full vocabulary of care: context, power dynamics, emotional safety, harm, trauma, dignity. Dissidents, skeptics, unfashionable critics, and anyone outside the approved coalition structure receive a different treatment. Their discomfort becomes democracy in action. Deception becomes “conversation.” Public ridicule becomes “holding people accountable.”
Public broadcasters occupy a different category from private partisan outlets because they are funded by citizens across ideological lines. The expectation is not perfect neutrality. Nobody serious believes that producers have no assumptions, sympathies, or editorial instincts. The expectation is procedural fairness and basic consistency. What corrodes legitimacy is the growing perception that public institutions now distinguish between citizens whose dignity must be protected and citizens whose dignity can be safely spent for entertainment, activism, or moral theatre.
That perception does not emerge from nowhere. It emerges from asymmetry repeated often enough that people begin noticing the pattern.
The most revealing part of the whole affair is how easy the hypothetical reversal is to predict. Nobody seriously believes CBC would approve a hidden-camera “social experiment” targeting officially protected activist constituencies in the same way it appears willing to target dissident academics or politically inconvenient critics. The cancellation would arrive before lunch. Internal investigations would begin by dinner.
The issue is not whether satire is allowed. Satire should be allowed. Democratic societies need irreverence, criticism, and uncomfortable mockery. But institutions do not get to claim moral consistency while operating two different ethical systems depending on who happens to be in the chair.
“Protected groups receive the language of care. Dissidents receive the language of accountability.”
Once people notice the asymmetry, the lecture circuit stops sounding principled and starts sounding managerial. The language of compassion begins to feel less universal and more tribal. Trust decays accordingly.
Institutions that spend years preaching equity should be careful about teaching the public that equal treatment ends the moment the targets change.
One of the stupider habits in media criticism is the claim that one bubble tells the truth and the other tells fairy tales. In Canada, the usual version is that mainstream media give the public a softened, reassuring picture of Liberal rule, while X is where people go for the hard reality.
That flatters both sides.
The problem is not usually fabrication. It is calibration. Different media environments distort reality by different mechanisms. Mainstream outlets tend to smooth, normalize, and translate failure into managerial language. X tends to sharpen, inflame, and convert every pressure into proof of regime decay. One teaches underreaction. The other teaches overreaction.
The early Carney era makes the pattern easy to see. The Liberal rebound is real. 338Canada’s March 8 polling snapshot had the Liberals at 45%, with several late-February and early-March polls putting them in the mid-to-high 40s. Carney projects competence, institutional fluency, and stability at a moment when many voters are tired of noise. A media system does not need to invent momentum when momentum exists.
But that does not mean the picture is balanced. Institutional media often frame persistent problems in the language of management rather than consequence. Housing becomes a supply challenge. Immigration strain becomes recalibration. Cost-of-living pain becomes a headwind. Even when the facts are there, they are often cushioned by tone. A government cutting immigration targets after years of visible strain can be framed less as an admission of damage than as prudent adjustment. Ottawa’s own immigration levels plan uses the language of “restoring balance and control” while reducing temporary-resident arrivals and stabilizing permanent-resident admissions. A chronic failure described in the voice of process sounds less like failure.
“One side launders stress through institutional language. The other turns every strain into apocalypse.”
That is the mainstream distortion. It is not usually lie-by-falsehood. It is lie-by-emphasis. What is softened, what is normalized, what is treated as regrettable but basically under control.
X distorts in the opposite direction. It takes real pressures and narrates them at maximum intensity. Every shortage becomes collapse. Every compromise becomes betrayal. Every omission in legacy media becomes proof of protection or conspiracy. A grim housing forecast or weak affordability number can move through the platform in hours as evidence that Canada is finished. X sometimes performs a real service by surfacing data, reports, and institutional failures that legacy outlets underplay. Its weakness is not attention, but proportion.
That is why both bubbles feel persuasive from the inside. Each one is attached to something real. The mainstream press is right that public opinion can shift and governments can recover. X is right that the country’s underlying pressures did not disappear because the branding changed. Housing is still broken. CMHC’s latest supply-gap estimate says housing starts would need to rise to roughly 430,000 to 480,000 units a year through 2035 to restore affordability, far above the current pace. A better suit and calmer tone do not cancel that.
So the real divide is not truth versus lies. It is polished optimism versus permanent indictment. One side launders stress through institutional language. The other turns every strain into apocalypse. Neither gives citizens a good sense of scale.
That is the danger of media bubbles. They do not just tell people what to think. They teach people how hard to feel. Mainstream media often teach Canadians to underreact to chronic deterioration. X teaches them to experience every deterioration as final proof that the whole order is rotten.
Reality is uglier and less satisfying than either story. Canada is not collapsing. Canada is not well. Carney may have political momentum. The country may still be carrying pressures that no narrative reset can solve. Both things can be true at once.
The sane response is not to trust one bubble against the other. It is to distrust the emotional calibration of both. Read institutional media for reporting. Read adversarial media for pressure points. Believe neither atmosphere.
That is less exciting than choosing a tribe. It is also closer to reality.
Travis Dhanraj’s July 7, 2025 resignation from CBC News exposes a deepening crisis at Canada’s public broadcaster: a culture of ideological conformity that punishes dissent and undermines its public mandate. In a scathing resignation letter, Dhanraj claims he was “forced to resign” due to a “workplace culture defined by retaliation, exclusion, and psychological harm,” where questioning “tokenism masquerading as diversity, problematic political coverage protocols, and the erosion of editorial independence” became a “career-ending move.” His allegations paint a damning picture of an institution that prioritizes a monolithic worldview over journalistic integrity. A 20-year veteran and former host of Canada Tonight, Dhanraj says he was “systematically sidelined” and “denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role” after advocating for more balanced coverage. These claims raise urgent questions about CBC’s commitment to serving all Canadians.
According to Dhanraj and his legal counsel, CBC’s approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) functions as a veneer for performative tokenism rather than genuine pluralism. His resignation letter denounces what he calls “a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others,” alleging that his efforts to confront this imbalance were met with retaliation. His lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, contends that CBC leadership assumed Dhanraj would adopt a “liberal worldview” based on his Indo-Caribbean background—an expectation that turned into marginalization when he platformed politically diverse voices, including Conservatives.
When he sought to broaden the range of political perspectives on air, Dhanraj claims that “internal booking and editorial protocols were weaponized to create structural barriers for some while empowering others, particularly a small circle of senior Ottawa-based journalists.” These allegations suggest that the CBC’s DEI policies prioritize surface-level representation while enforcing ideological uniformity. Such practices risk alienating Canadians who value intellectual diversity and erode the CBC’s credibility as a publicly funded institution tasked with reflecting the full spectrum of public opinion.
Dhanraj’s experience further illustrates the erosion of editorial independence and objectivity within CBC News. “I was told I would be ‘a bold voice in journalism.’ I took that role seriously,” he writes. “But what happens behind the scenes at CBC too often contradicts what’s shown to the public.” His push to “expand political balance” reportedly led to accusations that he was on a “crusade,” and he was “repeatedly denied access to key newsmakers.” The February 2025 cancellation of Canada Tonight—replaced by Hanomansing Tonight—and CBC’s internal investigation into an April 2024 post on X, in which Dhanraj noted then-president Catherine Tait’s refusal to be interviewed, indicate an institutional climate that discourages independent inquiry and punishes dissent.
CBC’s public response has done little to allay these concerns. In a statement, spokesperson Kerry Kelly said the broadcaster “categorically rejects” Dhanraj’s allegations but cited “privacy and confidentiality considerations,” offering no substantive rebuttal. This evasive posture reinforces perceptions of an organization more interested in protecting its image than addressing internal dysfunction. Meanwhile, CBC head of public affairs Chuck Thompson insisted that Dhanraj remains “on leave”—despite his public resignation—raising questions about transparency. Adding to the controversy, CBC allegedly demanded that Dhanraj sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which he refused. Marshall described the NDA as “Stalinist,” claiming it was designed not to protect privacy but to “sign away [Dhanraj’s] voice.” If accurate, this suggests an institution seeking to suppress criticism rather than confront it.
The CBC’s apparent descent into ideological conformity demands more than cosmetic reform. Dhanraj’s resignation is a clarion call: “CBC doesn’t need more workshops. It needs accountability. It needs reform. It needs courage.” If left unaddressed, the broadcaster risks permanent reputational damage and growing public disengagement.
Reform must begin at the top—replacing leadership that enforces orthodoxy, revisiting DEI frameworks that suppress intellectual pluralism, and reestablishing editorial protocols that prioritize accuracy, fairness, and independence. Journalists must be empowered to ask hard questions without fear of reprisal. Only through such transformation can the CBC rebuild trust and fulfill its mandate to serve all Canadians, not just those who share a prevailing ideological stance.
The nation is watching. Silence is no longer an option.
Sources Cited
-
Dhanraj, Travis. “Email to all‑staff at CBC News,” July 7, 2025. Published excerpts via St. Albert Gazette (Canadian Press):
Nicole Thompson, St. Albert Gazette, “CBC News anchor Travis Dhanraj says he was ‘forced’ to resign…” July 7, 2025.
URL: https://www.stalbertgazette.com/lifestyle-news/cbc-news-anchor-travis-dhanraj-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-from-broadcaster-10912196 Reddit+7St. Albert Gazette+7Yahoo News UK+7 -
Lawyer Kathryn Marshall (statement):
As quoted in St. Albert Gazette:CBC assumed Dhanraj would hold a certain “liberal world view” based on “the colour of his skin.” MediaPolicy.ca+4St. Albert Gazette+4The Hub+4
-
Quote from resignation letter (“tokenism masquerading as diversity…”):
Reported in St. Albert Gazette and Yahoo News UK:
Yahoo News UK, “CBC host Travis Dhanraj says he was ‘silenced’ and ‘forced to resign’…” MediaPolicy.ca+3The Hub+3The Times of India+3St. Albert Gazette+2Yahoo News UK+2Reddit+2 -
CBC response (“categorically rejects the accusations…” / privacy concerns):
St. Albert Gazette via CP confirms CBC’s statement quoting Kerry Kelly Yahoo News UK+6St. Albert Gazette+6Reddit+6 -
Replacement of Canada Tonight with Hanomansing Tonight (Feb 2025):
Wikipedia, Ian Hanomansing page:…CBC announced that Hanomansing will become host of a new nightly news program, Hanomansing Tonight, on CBC News Network beginning February 18, 2025. Instagram+3Wikipedia+3Reddit+3
-
Lawyer describing NDA as “Stalinist” and the broader legal push (including planned human rights complaint):
Referenced in r/canadian thread summarizing quotes from Dhanraj and Marshall: MediaPolicy.caYouTube+7Reddit+7The Hub+7 -
Coverage and push for accountability (“Conservatives want hearings…”):
MediaPolicy.ca, “Conservatives want hearings on Travis Dhanraj quitting the CBC,” July 12, 2025. YouTube+9MediaPolicy.ca+9MediaPolicy.ca+9 -
Further legal details and broader staff culture claims:
MediaPolicy.ca, July 17, 2025, describes Marshall’s invitation to whistleblowers and her “Stalinist” remark. MediaPolicy.ca -
General reporting on toxic workplace culture and DEI criticism:
Times of India, “CBC news anchor Travis Dhanraj resigns, citing ‘toxic and bullying’ workplace culture,” July 8, 2025. The Times of India
The CBC likes to think that they are an objective news source. They are not. Let’s take a look at this article that is so completely lopsided that if it ‘objective CBC reporting’ was a car, two wheels would be spinning freely in the air.
First of all, please go to the Let Kids Be website and read what they have to say about the dangerous practice of mutilating (transitioning) children.
“Members of London’s transgender community say a new ad appearing on London Transit Commission (LTC) buses this week carries a message with the potential to harm young people who seek, or are receiving, medical care related to their gender identity.”
Potential harm? You mean like having children and people think twice about undertaking procedures that will sterilize them for life and require life long medical attention. The horror.
“Elliot Duvall, a transgender man who lives in London, said the ad shouldn’t be allowed because it’s focused on denying care that is allowed in Canada and follows standards of care accepted by health practitioners.
Gender-affirming health care — an approach that affirms a trans person’s gender identity instead of trying to change it — is endorsed by medical associations in Canada and around the world, including the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society.”
Both these associations are institutionally captured and are ignoring the evidence based medicine that contradicts their political views. This from the Cass Report:
-
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
- Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
- For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
- Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.
Yeah, so quoting only one side of the issue is nothing like “objective reporting”.
“”It’s absolutely appalling to be honest with you,” said Duvall about the bus ads. “It’s also hard because every person, whether they’re a minor or not, should have health-care rights.”
Let’s call bullshit on this statement because on of the cornerstones of *ANY* healthcare procedure is informed consent. Which isn’t happening in Canada.
“Robyn Hodgson, a registered nurse and formerly the co-ordinator in the transgender and non-binary program at the London InterCommunity Health Centre, said the ad’s message has the potential to harm young people.
“We have medical criteria for when young people should receive appropriate care,” said Hogdson. “So it’s unclear from this advertisement what it is that they seek to ban. There are medically approved criteria for doing different levels of care at different points of developmental progression.”
Defining evidence based medical practice as ‘potentially harmful’ is amazing Orwellian considering that so called gender affirming care is been shown to be based on politics and wishful thinking, as opposed to actual evidence of efficacy. Canada’s standards for GAC are based on the discredited WPATH guidelines.
-
Lack of Consideration for Long-Term Outcomes: The files reveal that WPATH members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the potential debilitating and fatal side effects of treatments such as cross-sex hormones. There’s an acknowledgment within the discussions that patients, including those with severe mental health issues like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions without adequate understanding of the implications.
-
Medical Ethics and Informed Consent Violations: There are indications that WPATH does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, with members improvising treatments as they go along. The files highlight concerns about the ethicality of these practices, showing that informed consent might not be as thorough or well-understood by patients as it should be, particularly in the context of minors and vulnerable adults. The discussions reveal a pattern where the potential for harm, including infertility and other severe health complications, is known but not adequately communicated or considered.
-
WPATH’s Influence and Policy Implications: WPATH, being a leading authority in transgender healthcare, significantly influences global medical practices, policies, and guidelines. The files expose that this influence might be based on practices that are not backed by robust scientific evidence or ethical medical standards, which could lead to widespread medical malpractice. This has implications for how transgender healthcare is regulated and practiced worldwide, potentially affecting patient care and policy-making in numerous countries.
These findings are drawn from analyses and reports by various entities and individuals who have reviewed the WPATH files, highlighting concerns over the ethical and evidence-based practices within transgender healthcare.
Yes, so let’s not use bullshit to guide our best medical practices. CBC fails to mention any of the tomfoolery associated with using the WPATH guidelines.
“Hodgson believes denying access to a full range of general affirming care could leave minors vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes, including an increased risk of suicide.”
CBC just straight up prints propaganda. GAC has not been shown to improve mental health outcomes.
Evidence Against the Claim:
A study from Sweden, often cited for its long-term follow-up, examined transgender individuals who had undergone sex reassignment surgery. The findings showed that post-surgery, the suicide rate among these individuals was 20 times higher than in comparable peers, even 10 to 15 years after surgery. This suggests that gender-affirming surgery does not necessarily reduce suicide risk over the long term.
A narrative review of 23 studies on suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment (surgery, hormones, puberty blockers) indicates that while some studies show a reduction in suicidality, the literature suffers from methodological weaknesses. This review highlights the need for better control for psychiatric comorbidities, suggesting that the relationship between GAC and reduced suicide might not be straightforwardly causal due to confounding factors like psychiatric treatment history.
A study in Finland looking at all-cause and suicide mortality among adolescents who contacted specialized gender identity services found that when psychiatric treatment history is considered, gender dysphoria (GD) significant enough to seek gender reassignment does not appear to be predictive of higher suicide rates. Instead, the suicides were more associated with psychiatric morbidities rather than GD itself.
Several sources, including a review from the Heritage Foundation, argue that the research supporting the claim that GAC reduces suicide is flawed. They highlight that studies often lack rigorous methodology, fail to control for pre-existing mental health conditions, and do not establish causality. Some even suggest that easier access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental consent might correlate with increased suicide rates among youth.
An initial study from the Karolinska Institute and Yale, which suggested mental health benefits from gender-affirming surgeries, was later corrected. The correction stated that there was “no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts,” indicating that the initial findings of mental health benefits were not supported by subsequent analysis.
Unbelievable. Contact the CBC ombudsmen at once.
I’m ashamed of my national broadcaster.
It is really amazing the lengths people will go through to confirm their victimhood identities. And of course, the CBC will highlight how awesome it is to use AI to ‘make the internet a safer place for Indigenous people’.
Good lord. If the bad internet is hurting you…turn it off. But rather than make an adult decision, let’s do this:
“A new tool aims to use artificial intelligence to help make the internet a safer place for Indigenous people.
The project was given the name wâsikan kisewâtisiwin, which translates to “kind energy” in Cree.
“We’re trying to make the internet a kinder place. We’re trying to change the trajectory of the internet towards discriminated people,” Shani Gwin told CBC’s Radio Active.”
On the internet you are (with certain measures) essentially anonymous. What you say on the internet will be taken at face value (in theory).
“Being developed in collaboration with the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (AMii), the tool is dual purpose, intended to help both Indigenous people and non-Indigenous Canadians reduce racism, hate speech, and online bias.
The first function of the program is to moderate online spaces like comment sections. While the internet has been a tool used by Indigenous people for advocacy, it also can frequently be an unsafe space for communities that are discriminated against, Gwin said.
Gwin said that all it takes is one comment for online spaces to fester.”
If people want to pillow-up a spot on the internet, they are more than welcome to do so. Usually though, this sort of anti-free speech mechanism escapes from its hug-box confines and is loosed into the wider ecosystem.
“The tool flags hateful comments, and then provides sample responses, while also documenting these instances for future reporting.
The second function of the tool is designed to serve as a writing plug-in for your computer — similar to Grammarly. Intended to help general Canadians understand their bias, it will flag any writing that may be biased against Indigenous people, provide an explanation, and a suggestion for how to reword the sentence.”
Wow! It is like having your own personal Big Brother making sure that you are engaged in ‘right-thinking’ at all times. Plus offering real time suggestions on how to neuter your speech as to not risk offence to others.
“AI right now is designed through the lens of Canada’s dominant culture. And I would say that across the world that without input from racialized communities, including Indigenous people, AI cannot analyze and produce culturally safe and respectful content,” Gwin said.
“Every piece of infrastructure in Canada has been developed from the white patriarchal lens,” she said. “So more racialized people, more women need to get involved in the development of AI so that it doesn’t continue to be built in a way that’s going to harm us again.”
Whoops! Did you catch the turn into Marxist Critical Theory? I certainly did – That damn AI developed through the lens of ‘dominant culture’. Beginning with a conclusion and then looking for evidence based on your assumptions almost always leads to bullshit results.
Just no. AI was developed by a diverse body of people from across the world, let’s not shoehorn your ‘critical perspective’ into this.
“AI bias revealed itself in training, Qroon said, adding that at times when experimenting with the AI, it would try to minimize the tragedies that Indigenous people went through.
“And that’s why it was very important for us to integrate the Indigenous community into this process and get their perspective and get the instructions from them.”
The AI making the decision to not follow a trauma informed narrative? Huh. Well that will need to be fixed ASAP.
“Gwin said that her hope for the project is that it helps take the emotional labour of education off Indigenous people — and free them up to do things besides moderating comment sections.
“I think there might be concerns that people think that this AI tool will take jobs away from Indigenous people, but it’s not, that’s not what it’s for. It’s there to do the work that we don’t want to do.”
Yes, censorship is such an emotional labour. Much better to let a machine – an entity with even less capacity for nuance – take the reins.
“But it also means changing the internet and Canadians’ hearts and minds about who Indigenous people are.”
You mean changing minds in a positive way, right? Because this just looks like social and emotional manipulation in service of maintaining a oppressed/oppressor narrative that benefits no one in Canada.
Don’t believe me, go check it out yourself. Try searching up the Cass Report, WPATH, or the Tavistock Clinic. The memory hole is real over in CBC land.
Buried in the French language press a telling incident of transgender activist violence against Canada’s National Broadcaster for daring to tell the truth about irreversible puberty blockers and surgical child mutilation (aka Gender Affirming Care).
This is a translation from the LA PRESS website –
“An investigation was opened by Montreal police into acts of vandalism committed on the premises of Radio-Canada in Montreal earlier last week.
Gestures claimed online as a response to the recent broadcast of a report by the program Investigation into gender transition therapies among minors.
At 2:20 a.m. on March 13, a call was made to 911 concerning misdeeds committed at the building of a “media company” in the Ville-Marie borough, the Ville-Marie police department confirmed. of Montreal (SPVM). “Upon their arrival on the scene, the police noticed that there were broken windows at one of the entrances to the building,” explains a spokesperson for the police force, Caroline Chèvrefils. According to the first information available, “one or more suspects” caused this damage before fleeing, she adds.
The investigation is still ongoing and no arrests have been made at this time. The SPVM intends to view images from surveillance cameras that captured the scene. The state-owned company confirmed on Saturday that it had been the target of these acts of vandalism. “Suspects actually damaged three windows in our building and then fled,” said its spokesperson, Marc Pichette. This is an unfortunate act of vandalism.
» Claimed online On Friday, an anonymous press release was published on the Montréal Contre-information website, a platform used by anarchist activists to claim their actions. The text suggests that these acts of vandalism are intended as a response to the recent broadcast of a report on the program Enquête sur les therapies de transition de sexe. Broadcast on February 29, the report in question, entitled Trans express, focuses on the issue of adolescents who wish to change their gender and the fact that the Quebec health system “responds very quickly to their requests for medical transition by prescribing blockers, testosterone and mastectomies.” “Is it normal for a 14 year old girl to get a prescription for testosterone within minutes? »,
We can read in the description of the investigation, on the show’s website. However, the text published on Montréal Counter-information accuses the state corporation of “using its large platform to amplify transphobic speeches close to those of the extreme right”. “This report represents an ideological shift which serves to legitimize the transphobic demands of the far right, which will fuel violence against trans communities, which are currently increasingly targeted,” continues the text, the authors of which remain unknown.”
Hmm…
A quote directly contradicting the THIS NEVER HAPPENS narrative bullshit we constantly hear from the activist Left:
“On January 30, 14-year-old Sachay, alone, comes to a private chic clinic for his medical appointment. The girl identifies herself as transgender and, to initiate her transition to the other sex, she needs a prescription of male hormones, testosterone. It has not been referred by any doctor, psychologist or therapist.
In this way, it hopes to avoid the long waiting list of public clinics.
In less than three bminutes, Sacha describes to the doctor who receives her her tortuous relationship with her body, which she claims to hate from the age of 12. Having been diagnosed with an eating disorder in doubt, Sacha is convinced to be transgender after watching a video of a transgender young man on the Internet. He also realized “that he was not in the right body” after being diagnosed with an eating disorder.
After asking the girl if she had the support of her parents, the doctor goes on: “Do you consider any surgeries in the future?” Sacha doesn’t grab it right away: “Surgery… like?” “Mastectomy, remove the chest”, says the family doctor, before giving him the coordinates of the Montreal clinic where these operations are carried out.
When injected in the long term, the testosterone she wishes to obtain from the doctor may make a woman infertile. The possibility of a future pregnancy is raised in one question: “I understand that it is a little far away for you, at 14 years of age … Fertility, is it something you want to keep before you start?”, the doctor says. “Uh… no. I always knew I didn’t want a child”,” replied Sacha. “OK,” chained the general practitioner.
After nine minutes of consultation, Sacha gets his prescription: 30 mg testosterone to be injected once a week.”
17 minute Gender Assessments by ‘qualified doctors’ following the feelings based WPATH guidlines:
“Contacted by our team, the doctor says he adheres to the guidelines of WPATH, the international grouping of transgender health professionals. The body recommends a complete physical, psychological and social assessment before starting the medical transition of an adolescent.”
The suicide coercion ploy spelled out:
“This includes an Ontario study that transgender people in transition are 27 times more likely to commit suicide than those who have completed their transition. Or, this statistic on the probabilities of suicide attempt that would increase by 93% among transgender youth “without strong parental support”.
For the former holder of the Research Chair on trans youth and their families, this is a figure that comes to the fore. “Parental support is the number one protective factor among trans youth”, argues Annie Pullen Sansfaçon.
But other researchers are protesting against the use of these statistics among parents of transgender children. “It is ethically irresponsible to present these suicide statistics to parents”, “reacts” Samuel Veissière, an anthropologist for medicine and associate professor of psychology at UQAM. “When studying young people in gender questioning showing very high rates of suicidality and compared to other young people referred to in mental health, we talk about about the same rates.”
“This kind of message, according to Samuel Veissière, is tantamount to a form of coercion to impose the affirmative model on parents.”
Nor would there be any evidence that the take of blockers would soothe these young people with black ideas, psychiatrist Michael Landen continues. “There is no evidence that puberty blockers or hormones of the other sex reduce the suicide rate. None”, says the doctor and researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.”
Way to go Radio Canada!
The Radio Canada investigation has inspired other activists to post their fact free rebuttable hit pieces online. See how many false assertions you can spot along with the outright lies here.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…