I kind of need to know now, what the fuck is going on in Ontario with their interpretation of Human Rights and Discrimination. What I do know is that we do not solve present day discrimination by race, by MORE discrimination by race. This bizarre Kafkaesque excerpt from the C2C website.
On November 10, 2022 – lightning fast by HRTO standards – I heard from the Tribunal again. It was a brief but formal Decision that reasserted the SummerUp program’s legality and ended with an Order declaring, “The Application is dismissed.” In her decision, adjudicator Eva Nichols took issue, again, with the idea that I had a right to bring forward such a case when I had not “faced any form of discrimination on a protected ground” and because I had confirmed I was not bringing the application forward on behalf of another person, namely my son.
But it was the Decision’s Kafkaesque mental process that stood out. Nichols pointed out that “colour and race are among the protected grounds” under which discrimination is prohibited. But, she wrote, “They are not terms that are defined in the Code.”
“No fixed definition”: The HRTO now holds that race is a “social construct” that can be based on mutable characteristics from beliefs and manner of speech to clothing, diet and leisure preferences – things long considered stereotypes.
Instead, the OHRC “offers the following definitions in its Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination…The Commission has explained ‘race’ as socially constructed differences among people based on characteristics such as accent or manner of speech, name, clothing, diet, beliefs and practices, leisure preferences, places of origin and so forth…Recognizing that race is a social construct, the Commission describes people as ‘racialized person’ or ‘racialized group’ instead of the more outdated and inaccurate terms ‘racial minority,’ ‘visible minority,’ ‘person of colour’ or ‘non-White.’ There is no fixed definition of racial discrimination… [emphasis added].”
So race is a legal grounds on which discrimination is prohibited. But it has no definition – and in fact can be based on things like what we eat or what we do for fun. In other words, on racial stereotypes the use of which, in the not so distant past, would themselves have been considered outrageously racist. Nor is there a definition of racial discrimination per se. The Tribunal’s decision did, however, specify one thing racial discrimination can’t be: “[19] It is important to note in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that an allegation of racial discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of colour is not one that can be or has been successfully claimed by persons who are white and non-racialized [emphasis added].”
In other words, according to the Tribunal, white people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their whiteness. (It’s not true, however, that such a claim has never succeeded. A group of white employees in B.C. not only won their case against that province’s Human Rights Tribunal but also successfully defended their claim in court that they were unjustly fired due to their “wrong” race.)
The belief that white people cannot suffer discrimination because they are white is not only held by the HRTO, but is often expressed in the media and by activists. (Source of right photo: alecperkins, licensed under CC BY 2.0)
It’s difficult to grasp which of the two major elements of the HRTO’s decision is more troubling: that blatant acts of discrimination are excused, and in fact are not even considered worthy of consideration if the person discriminated against is white, or that the OHRC is redefining race and racism as based on “social constructs” – habits and practices, like clothing and leisure preferences, that long were considered stereotypes.
“The “serious issues related to governance” identified by Rodrigues arose as a result of the disconnect between the conclusions and directives of the PDSB review and the real-world situation in the schools. The senior administrative team at the time knew that racism in the schools was, at most, one part of the reason for lower achievement and higher discipline rates among black students. They knew that to address these issues would require a broad, community-based set of actions many of which would not be supported by the woke activists who blamed all the problems black students were experiencing entirely on “systemic racism”. The reluctance on the part of senior administration to blame the entire problem on racism and embrace Kendi-style “antiracism” as the antidote meant that they had to go. They were cut loose (with a reported severance package of half a million each for Director Peter Joshua and his Associate Director Mark Harmon).
“As supervisor, I have worked with board staff, the Board of Trustees, community members, students, and parents over the past 2 and ½ years to rebuild relationships and trust that had been eroded over a significant period of time. When I accepted the appointment, I assumed control over a board that lacked capacity to effectively govern in the interests of all students of the board. Administrative leadership and elected leadership lacked the capacity and, in some cases, – as noted in the Investigator’s Report – the willingness to provide the leadership required to ensure that the diversity of students and families in the PDSB was well served.”
The community activists have been well served, but no one else has. The supervisor was disconnected from any actual educational reality on the ground; he did not work out of the board offices but rather at Queen’s Park. He was an unknown ghostly presence in the board and most staff never met him or received any correspondence from him. His role appeared to be to ensure that the local activists, who were demanding the application of Critical Theory (wokeism) to board polices and procedures, were consulted by senior administration at every turn. Under Rodriguez, a major purge took place in which the majority of the senior administration, lifelong educators with a wealth of experience, were shown the door. Since these were firings without cause, this exercise not only degraded the administration, replacing these knowledgeable veterans with inexperienced, ideologically-driven neophytes, it was also very expensive. Millions were spent on severance pay and early retirement packages, which essentially amounted to paying an administrator his or her full salary while they sat at home until they reached that date at which they could retire with an unreduced pension. Of course, receiving these handouts was predicated on keeping their mouths shut about what was really going on at the board. The point is that the effect of Rodrigues’ supervision was the replacement of highly experienced, traditional liberal, and relatively apolitical administrators with inexperienced, identity-obsessed followers of Kendi-style Critical Theory. As you might expect, the resulting impacts on student learning environments and teacher morale have been devastating.
“I have also invested significant time and resources to build the capacity of the Board of Trustees (Board) to position them to govern the PDSB in a manner that is accountable, transparent, respectful, and responsive to the issues and concerns of the communities it serves….”
The only people Rodrigues was accountable to were the race-essentialist activists. He has done absolutely nothing to model respect or responsiveness to community concerns about the hostile and divided climate he has created in the schools and offices of the board, in which all white people (especially heterosexual males) are characterized as oppressors while black people and other “marginalized groups” are cast as victims.
“While the newly elected board has begun its term of office in a productive and positive way, it is appropriate for regular updates to be sent to the minister to confirm that relationships are professional, respectful, and collaborative among the trustees and between the Board and the senior leadership team. The minister would be advised to similarly request confirmation and evidence that the Board is responding to community concerns in a respectful, timely and meaningful manner”.
It is clear from this statement, that while the board may have been handed back control of its operations, Big Brother will be watching. That means that Critical Theory will continue to govern PDSB policy as long as it remains the mainstream thinking in academia generally. And that could be a very long time.”
Divide and conquer is the preferred method on display here. The former board was isolated and those that did not buy into the program were purged in the name of ideological purity.
Any lesson plan that includes a section called “Critical Consciousness” is an immediate red flag. This is the groundwork being put in place to drive deeper the wedge of identity politics in our society via our children. The goal of all CRT is not education, but rather, the creation of activists whose goal is to disrupt society.
The vast majority of children are the same in the inside and the outside, so to speak. They not need to know about the bullshit that is gender identity while in Kindergarten. It is not appropriate, and should not be in LESSON Plans for them.
Kindergarten is not the space to brew activists who will challenge ‘gender normativity’. JFC – Queer theory is pernicious.
Need to know more about Queer Theory and how it targets children? Checkout the brief summary by James Lindsay.
Score one for the kids on this one, they can tell that something abnormal is going on here. This is deviant behaviour has no fucking place in a school. Where is the Administration on this one?
Jfc.
The Admin are standing behind the teacher who thinks its okay to be around students presenting like that. All it takes, apparently, to do perverse shit in the Ontario Public school system is to declare they are transgender and no rules apply to you anymore. Do you think that for one second a real woman, in similar attire, would be allowed to teach class?
This tearing down of normalcy and the values of the majority of Canadians hold must stop. Pandering to mental illness and abdicating child safety in the name of what exactly? Inclusivity?
Newsflash – Some behaviours/lifestyle choices should *NOT* be included in public education milieu.
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.
Facts do not necessarily win political arguments. The sooner the progressive left realizes this, the better. As a progressive lefty I’m consistently amazed by the voting patterns of the common people i.e. the people the political left is supposed to represent. Recently in Canada our most populace province decided to elect an business sense challenged, no political platform, boorish individual who spoke not in terms of political policy, but in catchy, folksy, accessible language:
“His populist message resonated with voters who were unhappy with the provincial Liberals. Ford promised “buck a beer,” ten cents off a litre of gas and major tax cuts. He also promised to cut government spending by $6 billion but didn’t say how.”
Like, jesus christ in a fuckbasket, what kind of platform is that? Anyone with more than two neurons to rub together can see the bread and circuses messaging and the usual conservative trojan-horsery going on here. I’m not sure people get it, so let me state it here. Conservative party policy focuses on maintaining the good times for people who most likely are not YOU. The business elite, the wealthy, the current power structure are all beneficiaries of conservative rule – the hoi polloi – is not.
Not ever.
But hey, my fellow Canadians, enjoy your cheap beer while the newly minted government savages and merrily defenestrates the social safety net and related infrastructure that makes your life bearable. Your vote indicates that you are good with that.
Why I shake my head (more) is that these paradoxical voting patters are nothing new. Sharun Mukand and Dani Ridrik expound on how world view memes (in the Dawkins sense) can influence people to vote against their self interests.
“Importantly, identity and worldview memes do not prevail equally across all subgroups of the population. Political entrepreneurs target these memes toward the electorally critical subgroup. Our model predicts that identity polarisation and support for policy memes will both see their greatest rise within the lower- and middle-income group of the majority-identity group. These are the potential switchers to whom the memes will be targeted. We should not expect those memes to operate as strongly among the wealthy who belong to the majority group or the minority-identity group of all incomes.
Increased inequality raises the reward to the rich from successful ideational politics. The returns from discovering a policy meme that persuades the median voter, for example, that lower taxes are in the interests of not only the rich, but also the low-income median voter are much higher when inequality is high. Similarly, an effective identity meme that catalyses identity around issues such as gay marriage, women’s rights and immigration can also serve as a ‘wedge’ giving low-income voters a reason to vote for the high-income party. As one team of economists concluded in 2015: ‘Despite the large increases in economic inequality since 1970, American survey respondents exhibit no increase in support for redistribution … demand for income redistribution in the US has remained flat by some measures and decreased for others.’ This is remarkable. And it happened, as our research framework suggests, thanks to the role of ideas as a catalyst for policy change. The elite, along with an allied ‘political-ideational complex’ (including academics, think tanks and talk-radio), successfully disseminated the worldview that rising inequality was an inevitable byproduct of structural changes in the global economy, which in turn necessitated the adoption of financial deregulation, low capital-income taxes and the embrace of globalisation.
Ideas and interests both matter for political change, and the two feed into one another. On the one hand, economic interests drive the kind of ideas that politicians put forward. As Kenneth Shepsle, professor of government at Harvard University, put it in 1985, ideas can be regarded as ‘hooks on which politicians hang their objectives and further their interests’. However, ideas also shape interests. This happens because they alter voter preferences and/or shift their worldviews ex-post, in both cases shifting rankings over policy.”
Fuck. I wish the notion of concise writing would make a comeback in academia. There are the makings of a great article in this piece, but it is severely hampered by clunky, inaccessible writing.
The gist is that you make people focus on an bullshit issue(s) that has little relation to the actual levers of power in society. Once elected, on said mountain of bullshit, its like “Oh, by the way, along with your buck-a-beers, we’ll be needing to privatize healthcare (and other policies that screw the Average Joe and Jane sideways).
This isn’t magic, folks. Honest.
“For those who view politics in terms of a narrow and static notion of interests, the electoral support for Trump, Brexit and other populist movements seems to pose a puzzle. It seems as if many poor people are voting against their self-interest. But the puzzle is more apparent than real. It is rooted in a habit of thinking of interests only in economic terms, and also as fixed. Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon understood well that interests are malleable. With the right message and framing, Bannon noted in 2013, you could change the political calculus by shaping popular perception of self-interest: ‘Trade is No 100 on the [Republican] Party’s list. You can make it No 1. Immigration is No 10. We can make it No 2.’
What appears to be culture might be economics – the consequence of identity or worldview memes marketed by economic elites for their own self-interest. For example, Reagan used the imagery of a ‘welfare queen’ to attack unemployment benefits and the welfare state. So identity politics was being deployed by him to ensure that voters supported the Republican low-tax economic agenda. Similarly, what might look like economics might be shaped by cultural predispositions that provide voters with their interpretive frameworks – such as Merkel’s celebration of the ‘Swabian housewife’ when making the case for austerity.
Defeating autocratic and nativist political movements will likely require strategies based on both ideas and interests. As we have seen in recent elections, proposing policies that are better suited to the economic needs of middle- and lower-income voters will likely not be enough. Successful challengers will also need to come up with narratives that help to reshape peoples’ worldviews and identities”
What a long way of saying is that left needs to up its bullshit game, so we can baffle the brains of the populace and then introduce policy that will actually benefit them.
Interesting conclusion though, is that the right consistently wins through the bait and switch that treats people as if they were feckless, greedy, morons. Yet, the left politic seems hesitant to do so, as if somehow the patronizing authoritarian method is somehow disdainful and wrong. I’m at the point of ‘fuck it’ and do what works already, because I’m tired of the Right being the sole benefactors of this proven, winning political strategy.
(The best part is that the Right always accuses us lefty types of elitist authoritarian tendencies, all the while exemplifying the best practices of the former. Like, okay, then let’s do this then, and beat them at their own shitty game.)
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.
Need to know more about Queer Theory and how it targets children? Checkout the brief summary by James Lindsay.
Facts do not necessarily win political arguments. The sooner the progressive left realizes this, the better. As a progressive lefty I’m consistently amazed by the voting patterns of the common people i.e. the people the political left is supposed to represent. Recently in Canada our most populace province decided to elect an business sense challenged, no political platform, boorish individual who spoke not in terms of political policy, but in catchy, folksy, accessible language:
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…