Free speech isn’t a tricky concept. It just needs to be applied universally and especially to the opinions and words of people you disagree with. Take some time and read the whole essay, it is worth your time.
“Another meme popular with the enemy is “calling bigotry an opinion is like calling arsenic a flavor”. Again, in plain English, “any opinion that I personally define as bigotry should not be tolerated”. To the jihadist or the Christian fundamentalist, any criticism or mockery of their own religion constitutes bigotry. And so it goes. The crux of the thing is who gets to define “bigotry” or whatever category of opinions is deemed intolerable and thus not protected free speech.
The people who make these kinds of assertions always assume that it is they, or people like them, who would have the power to define what is intolerant and thus intolerable. Don’t forget that in the near future it could be president DeSantis and a passel of legislators like Marjorie Taylor Greene who will be empowered to make that decision. The principle of free expression of opinion as an inviolable and seamless, yes, moral standard would stand robustly against them, because it would stand equally against any such attack regardless of which views are being suppressed. Once you decide certain opinions are worthy of suppression on whatever grounds, you have no principle to stand on when your opponents turn on you and try to suppress yours.”
We must guard against this sort of degenerate mob justice. See the entire article here.
“When talking to people about the state of universities in Canada, many deny the negative impact of “woke-ism.” My current “lived experience” in a province with a reputation for supporting free speech, however, indicates otherwise. It was challenging sacred cows associated with the “woke” character of Indigenization, trans activism and “anti-racist” initiatives, in fact, that led to my firing from my tenured position at Mount Royal University in December 2021.
For those unfamiliar with the word, “woke-ism” (spelled wokism in this publication) is the colloquial term for the postmodern tactic of reducing scientific objectivity to subjective authoritarianism, imposing its arbitrary interpretation of what is acceptable. Also referred to as “reified postmodernism” by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, the authors of the hilarious but revealing “grievance studies hoax,” this reactionary response to the intellectual progress driven by the Enlightenment tries to prevent certain ideas from being discussed under the auspices that the identities of oppressed groups must be “made real.”
Collision course: Frances Widdowson’s run-in with wokism got her fired from Mount Royal University in Calgary but she was still not prepared for the unruly mob of protest she faced in Lethbridge.
If, for example, a trans activist believes that they are completely debilitated as a result of “misgendering fatigue,” or if an Indigenous person is convinced that 215 students were murdered and dumped in a mass grave in a Kamloops Indian Residential School apple orchard, these views must not be contradicted because it is argued that such disagreement will “deny the humanity” of those who are oppressed, and disempower them. This, we are told, constitutes “hate speech” and “discrimination.”
Despite my costly collision with wokism at Mount Royal University in Calgary, I was still not prepared for what was to transpire at the University of Lethbridge earlier this month. I had been invited by philosophy professor Paul Viminitz to give a talk, to be entitled “How ‘Woke-ism’ Threatens Academic Freedom.” I was about to experience the fury of current wokism. UofL President Mike Mahon originally stated that the talk would be allowed to proceed because of the institution’s policy on freedom of expression. Woke faculty and students responded with intensifying pressure, leading Mahon to cancel my appearance a few days later.
Cancelled: University of Lethbridge (UofL) President Mike Mahon initially cited freedom of expression as the reason why Widdowson’s lecture should proceed; under pressure, he changed course and shut it down. (Source of photos: University of Lethbridge)
I remained adamant that I should go to the university to challenge Mahon’s assault on academic values (and repudiation of his institution’s freedom of expression policy). So on February 1 I arrived at the university to give my talk in a “Speakers’ Corner” type of format. But as I walked out of the elevator of University Hall and into The Atrium – a large public space on campus – I was amazed to see a crowd of about 700 people filling the main floor and upper level. While some in the audience had come to hear me speak, and a number were just curious onlookers, many were openly hostile to my presence, some brandishing signs declaring “RACISM IS NOT FREE SPEECH.”
Free speech is a large part of the basis of our democratic society. The issue is popping up much more frequently now in Canadian Society as it would seem that certain opinions have been deemed ‘untouchable’ and thus must be avoided or cancelled within the public sphere.
What I don’t understand is why so much of the Canadian political left has completely fumbled the ball on this issue. If you have a counter argument or refutation of Jordan Peterson’s views then bring those views to the public sphere and criticize his arguments. Demonstrate where they fall short, or where they are just plain wrong – but do it with evidence and coherent arguments – not just banning Peterson from speaking.
Banning and cancelling people should, and I repeat should, raise serious concerns on the Left asrestriction of personal liberties and speech are positions that the Left once defended (I imagine the classical Liberals still do, the activists not so much).
So, disagree with JP? Awesome. Bring your arguments to the table and show where he’s wrong. But for heaven sake, don’t stop him from speaking.
Be very concerned when certain groups of people consider themselves untouchable and their ideas sacrosanct. Religious belief on the right and on the left (gender religiosity) is poisonous for a society that values free speech and communication.
No topic in a liberal democratic society should be off the table for reasonable debate. Yet here we are in 2022 with a seasoned educator being silenced and suspended for raising safeguarding concerns over ideological transgender literature being made available to children. Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself.
The studies regarding medical transition are not conclusive, yet here in select transgender children’s literature everything is a-fucking-okay. This is an issue worth discussing in public and in great detail at the *very* least.
“An Ontario school board is facing charges of censorship this week after shutting down a teacher’s presentation to the group, saying her comments about books on transgender issues violated the province’s human rights code
Carolyn Burjoski was discussing publications she said are available in the libraries of Kindergarten to grade six schools. She had begun to argue the books made it seem too simple and “cool” to medically transition to another gender when her presentation was cut short by the Waterloo Region District School Board’s chair.”
Ms. Burjoski’s presentation was about safeguarding children from potentially dangerous medical treatments. Seems reasonable right? (Wrong)
“Scott Piatkowski ruled she could not continue and the board eventually voted 5-4 to back up his decision. The fallout has continued since.
Though controversial and opposed by most transgender advocates, concerns have been voiced before — including by leading figures in the movement itself — that gender-dysphoric young people are sometimes pushed too aggressively into medical transition.
Piatkowski latertold a local CTV station , however, that Burjoski’s comments were actually transphobic and “questioned the right to exist” of trans people. Meanwhile, the organization took down its recording of the meeting — a regular, public session of elected officials — and had YouTube remove another copy of the video for alleged copyright infringement.”
Piatkowski and the Board have taken down the meeting off of youtube, fortunately the meeting recording has appeared elsewhere.
Go here and judge for yourself if *ANYTHING* Ms. Burjoksi says or presents is in the least bit ‘transphobic’ or in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Code (nothing is).
Time Stamp Highlghts:
2:01 – Book called ‘Rick’ – That is about why Rick doesn’t think about naked girls. He goes to a ‘rainbow club’ and identifies as ‘asexual’. Counterpoint – Maybe Rick doesn’t have sexual feelings yet because Rick is a child. Also a book that sexualizes and objectifies girls might not be appropriate reading for young girls (ed. or really *any* educational setting)
2:59 – The first warning from Piatkowski directed at Ms. Burjoski on the unfounded basis of her presentation somehow being against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
3:55 – Book called ‘Shane’ – The main character dismisses the very real consequences of being sterilized. The book also makes medical transition seem like an easy cure to emotional and social distress. (ed. it most certainly is not).
4:16 – Ms. Burjoski shut down by Chair Piatkowski for alleged breach of Ontario Human Rights Code.
Watch the whole thing, but like any zoom meeting its disjointed and frustrating to watch especially when those who value critical analysis and freedom of speech are shut down.
There is nothing wrong with the board’s policies. They accurately reflect the requirements of the Human Rights Code and the case law interpreting it. The problem is the Board’s interpretation.
The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in the employment, housing and the provision of services on prohibited grounds of discrimination which include “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.”
It also prohibits harassment in employment or housing. Harassment “means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” The board’s human rights policy elaborates on this definition and explains that harassment consists of conduct directed at an individual such as insults, epithets, persistent teasing and offensive jokes based on a protected characteristic. Nothing in Ms. Burjoski’s presentation could possibly fit this definition.
The Ontario Code does not attempt to regulate speech in general. Section 13 prohibits publication of a “notice, sign, symbol or emblem” that indicates an expression to discriminate but it is subject to a proviso that it shall not interfere with freedom of expression.”
Yeah… So it would seem that these ‘human rights violations’ are really just important and valid concerns with gender ideology that desperately need to be discussed in context of their application in Public Schools.
Also Ms. Burjoski was then summarily excommunicated from her staff and students for her heretical statements.
“And then the teacher was given what she calls a “stay-at-home order” and told not to communicate with colleagues or students, though she’s still being paid and is slated to retire soon. On Thursday, she says her union rep informed her the board had appointed an outside investigator to examine her actions.”
Yep. Did you think that freedom of speech is a valued tenet of our society? Try speaking out against the gender-religion and see how far you get. Suspended in Burjoski’s case for wanting to discuss the appropriateness of sexualizing children and child safeguarding against still largely experimental medical gender therapies.
“In her first interview on the affair, Burjoski said she was “flabbergasted” by what happened at the meeting and Piatkowski’s remarks afterward
“I am not a transphobic person. It’s crazy that just because you ask a question, the first thing people do is call you that,” she said. “We do need to have a conversation about the intersection of biology and gender. We’re not having those conversations in our culture because, look what happened to me.”
She said the order to stay away from school was likely meant to make an example of her: “The message is clear: no dissent is allowed.”
No ideology is above reproach and measured critique by members of a free and open society, yet here we are watching a teacher be excommunicated for questioning the transgender doctrine in the context of prioritizing the safety of children.
If you are not asking questions about what transgender ideology is and how it affects children (and society) it is time to start. How many more people are we going to let be silenced in the name of transgender orthodoxy? Thankfully Ms. Burjoski is not going quietly. Support her legal fund as she fights not to be silenced for making valid criticisms of a potentially pernicious ideology.
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…