Dallas Brodie, once the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, has emerged as a lightning rod in British Columbia’s political landscape due to her insistence on questioning the narrative surrounding the Kamloops Indian Residential School. Expelled from the BC Conservative Party on March 7, 2025, Brodie’s assertion that “zero” child burials have been confirmed at the site—technically accurate, as no remains have been excavated—ignited a firestorm. Her refusal to retract her February 2025 social media post, despite pressure from party leader John Rustad, and her subsequent mockery of subjective “truths” in a March 6 online discussion, underscored her quest to challenge what she sees as unverified claims. Brodie’s stance, while divisive, reflects a broader frustration among some Canadians with the lack of empirical evidence behind widely accepted residential school narratives, positioning her as a figure demanding factual accountability in a debate often steeped in emotion.
The Canadian media, however, has largely framed Brodie’s actions as denialism, amplifying a narrative that paints her as a villain rather than a skeptic. Outlets like CBC and The Globe and Mail emphasized her expulsion and her inflammatory tone—such as mimicking survivors’ testimonies—while downplaying the absence of physical evidence at Kamloops, a point she repeatedly highlighted. This selective reporting constructs a fabricated storyline that prioritizes moral outrage over nuanced discussion, failing Canadian society by stifling inquiry into a complex issue. By focusing on Brodie’s personal conduct rather than engaging with her central argument, the media has diverted the conversation from truth-seeking to character assassination, leaving the public with a polarized, oversimplified version of events that obscures the need for factual clarity.
Compounding this failure is the response from some Indigenous leaders and communities, whose rejection of Brodie’s evidence-based critique has hardened the discourse. Groups like the Métis Nation British Columbia condemned her as a denialist, dismissing her call for verification of the Kamloops claims as an attack on reconciliation itself. This reflex to brand dissent as heresy—rather than address the lack of excavated remains—entrenches a narrative that equates questioning with disrespect, sidelining legitimate debate. Such denial of the truth, or at least its ambiguities, transforms a potentially unifying pursuit of facts into a battleground of identity and guilt, alienating Canadians who seek clarity rather than dogma.
The fallout from Brodie’s case reveals how these dynamics erode public trust and degrade civic dialogue. Her expulsion from the BC Conservatives, followed by the defection of two MLAs on March 7, 2025, signals internal party fractures but also mirrors a broader societal rift. Media-driven narratives that vilify skepticism, paired with Indigenous insistence on unchallengeable “truths,” have created a climate where questioning official accounts invites ostracism rather than answers. This poisonous blend has left Canadians less equipped to grapple with the residential school legacy, as discussion deteriorates into accusations of racism or betrayal instead of a shared pursuit of what actually happened—a failure that undermines reconciliation more than Brodie’s provocations ever could.
Ultimately, Dallas Brodie’s quest, however flawed in delivery, exposes a critical flaw in Canadian society: the inability to confront uncomfortable questions without fabricated narratives or entrenched denialism. The media’s rush to condemn rather than investigate, and the refusal of some Indigenous voices to entertain factual uncertainty, have roughened a debate that demands precision and honesty. As Brodie sits as an independent MLA, unrepentant in her stance, her case serves as a warning—Canadian society risks losing its capacity for truth when inquiry is sacrificed for comfort. Until the media prioritizes evidence over outrage and all parties embrace open scrutiny, the dialogue around residential schools will remain a casualty of its own abrasiveness, failing the very history it seeks to honor.
“James Lindsay presented a compelling critique of critical social justice and its ideological foundation in critical theory. He argued that this worldview fundamentally rejects objective truth, reason, and evidence-based methods, which are essential for genuine progress. According to Lindsay, critical theorists prioritize “strategic” theories over true or false ones, seeking to advance political agendas rather than to understand reality.
Drawing on examples from feminist and social justice literature, Lindsay illustrated how critical theory undermines fields like engineering, climate science, and education by prioritizing social power over truth. He contended that while these disciplines traditionally rely on rigorous methods to solve problems, critical theory disregards such rigor, treating knowledge as a mere tool for enforcing power dynamics. For Lindsay, this ideological shift threatens progress, as it ignores that “reality is the thing you run into when your beliefs are false.”
Ultimately, Lindsay called for a return to evidence-based inquiry and the liberal systems that have historically driven human advancement. By defending reason, scientific method, and open discourse, he argued, society can continue to make meaningful progress rather than regress into a cynicism that treats truth as a mere strategy for political ends.
Viewers will find this talk interesting not just for its contents but also for the glimpse back in time by five years, which allows them to see how the views expressed have matured and developed over the intervening time.”
“Increasingly, Western societies – especially the English-speaking countries – are becoming two different peoples speaking two very different languages and believing in two modes of living. One camp believes in some form of objective truth and labels humans as either male or female. They acknowledge there are endless variations in the ways humans express themselves, but they are certain there are only two sexes. The concept of two sexes is so ancient and fundamental to our makeup as a species, we’re still wrapping our heads around having to verbalize what was always common sense. Defending the obvious is exhausting.
Clash of two camps: If universal truths are no longer recognized and everything is a “construct,” writes the author, society becomes increasingly divided even at the level of basic understanding and language. Shown are: (top) the 2023 Drag Up Fight Back protest, San Francisco, CA; (bottom) the meeting against minor children transgender policies, Vancouver, B.C. (Sources of photos: (top) Sheila Fitzgerald/Shutterstock; (bottom) EJ Nickerson/Shutterstock)
The other camp believes in a post-modernist version of constructed truth in which there are dozens of “fluid” genders that negate sex and biology. They also believe that anyone who does not subscribe to this belief is a heretic and as evil as a Nazi. They have the news and entertainment media, most of academia, much of the corporate world, and more and more of the state apparatus (from educational bureaucracies to human rights commissions) on their side.
How do these two camps speak to one another? The two belief systems require very different laws and social norms. If there are only two sexes, the man in my mother’s story is not allowed in the women’s changeroom. If sex is a social construct and can change through self-declaration or self-perception, that man can be a woman and is therefore allowed in the women’s changeroom. Right now, it seems the latter camp is winning and that we no longer share a common understanding of basic truths or even of language. Words like “man” or “woman” that were once universal are no longer.
A society that does not have a shared language cannot share thoughts. A society that is divided on whether or not there is objective truth, outside of personal feelings and emotions, cannot set laws or policies that work for the broadest range of people. A society where women and girls are cowed into silence when a crime is perpetrated against them for fear of being labelled the enemy is a shaky society indeed.”
“We evolutionary biologists (@SwipeWright , @Evolutionistrue , @FondOfBeetles and others) are fascinated by the immense diversity in body and behavior of male and female organisms. We also understand that mammals come in two sexes, male and female, and that these are reproductive categories that are defined by the body plan for the production of either large or small gametes.
@Anthrofuentes knows what we think about all this, so I am confused about why he says in @sciam that scientists like us “maintain that whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex.” Relatedly, he says that “producing ova or sperm does not tell us everything…about an individual’s childcare capacity, homemaking tendencies, sexual attractions, interest in literature…” Um…who is saying that gametes dictate any of this? That sex is binary is obviously compatible with traits like interest in literature varying widely between the two sexes. It is also compatible with the existence of significant differences between the sexes.
Unfortunately, Fuentes has tarred all the members of a diverse group with the same brush, denigrating the motives of those who assert that sex is real, biological, binary and meaningful for social policy. “They are arguing for a specific political, and discriminatory, definition of what is ‘natural’ and ‘right’ for humans based on a false representation of biology…[and] dishonest ascriptions of what biology is are being deployed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy…and to attack the rights of transexual and transgender people.”
Sex matters because even though bodies and behavior vary, being male or female does predict a lot. Women in particular understand this, because we are more physically vulnerable than men. We care about gender-diverse people and their basic human rights, and we are *also* concerned about safety and fairness in places like prison cells and women’s sports. These issues can be debated sensibly without relying on “a false representation of biology.”
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…