Category: Canadian Only

Posted on

The New Lindsay Shepherd: Statistics are now Violence (Infanticide #2)

(University of the Fraser Valley former teaching assistant, Valerie Flokstra)

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/

2. Review Of The Subject

The original article, along with partial audio is available here. Posted by Andrew Lawton.

Apparently, discussing abortion critically, is not permitted. Their former teaching student, Valerie Flokstra, seen above, found that out the hard way. Flokstra was called into a meeting with various faculty members, Nancy Norman, and Vandy Britton, to discuss how ideas are “potentially harmful”. University of the Fraser Valley, (British Columbia, Canada), openly promotes social justice in their teaching program. See below. Oddly, no written commitment to free speech, or open inquiry.

The case is widely being compared to Lindsay Shepherd, who in November of 2017, was summoned to such a meeting at Wilfrid Laurier university (WLU), for showing a TVO clip of Jordan Peterson debating gender pronouns related to transgender persons. The inquisitors were: Nathan Rambukkana, Hernert Pimlott, and Adria Joel. See below.

In fact, Valerie Flokstra cites Lindsay Shepherd in her decision to record this meeting with the faculty. Seeing how badly Shepherd was treated forced Flokstra to take defensive measures.

Another key difference is that Shepherd released the recording of her meeting immediately to the media. She found there to be various forms of retaliation and hostility to her at Wilfred Laurier University. Flokstra, on the other hand, waited until she graduated to avoid such retaliation.

Some have observed, it seems moronic that these professors wouldn’t have any reservation about holding such a meeting, and playing these games. In the Shepherd case, Professors Rambukkana and Pimlott effectively had their academic careers and reputations destroyed. Given the international coverage Shepherd got, it seems highly implausible that the UFV wouldn’t all know about it.

In the Flokstra matter, she had claimed that premature births were contributing to autism diagnoses. She questioned that women who have abortions but have children later in life more often have premature births. Statistics were cited, see here. And this led to a reasonable suggestion that abortions will lead to higher autism risks later.

If A = B, and B = C, then does A = C? Makes sense.

If prior abortion ==> higher risk of premature births later, and
If premature births ==> higher risk of autism, then

Does prior abortion ==> higher risk of autism? Seems like a reasonable conclusion. At least is cannot be dismissed out of hand.

However, Professors Norman and Britton would have none of that. They questioned Flokstra for bringing it up, and attributed a variety of negative motivations for doing so, such as pressing her own religious beliefs.

Norman and Britton engaged in Orwellian double speak. Instead of the “critical thinking” that many champion, Flokstra was told she needed to engage in “critical mindfulness“.

Flokstra was told that if she had strong opinions, she was free to write them down and hold onto them, but always to consider any potential harm that may come to students rather than saying them.

Norman and Britton also tried to explain that Flokstra shouldn’t be “shutting down students” by bringing up certain opinions. However they were dismissive when repeatedly told that “they were the ones currently shutting her down. The mental gymnastics of the pair….

Norman and Britton tried to explain that they weren’t trying to “shut down” Flokstra, but rather that they just didn’t want her to speak about various topics. Telling someone politely to shut up is apparently not shutting them down.

Norman and Britton were also dismissive of Flokstra’s assertion that these were university students in her class, not high school students, and that a higher degree of discussion should be expected of them.

Normal and Britton explained that they were (not) shutting her down, not because of the actual harm that was coming from having topics such as abortion discussed. Rather, she was (not) being shut down because of potential harm that could come from discussing these topics.

In both the Flokstra and Shepherd cases, absurd comparisons were made. Shepherd was told that showing a video uncritically of Jordan Peterson was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler. Flokstra was told that sharing certain views in a way was like a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) group on campus. Rather than make factual, logical arguments why certain topics are “off-limits”, ridiculous rhetoric is used.

Only a partial audio (8 minutes out of almost an hour long meeting) is available for article. The summary of the meeting is that the 2 professors spent the entire time trying to shut Valerie Flokstra down, but then using double talk and word games to deny that is what they were actually doing.

Benjamin Boyce, a YouTuber in Washington State, released this fine review of the fiasco. The College Fix also did a great piece, and more are coming out.

A thought on universities: If people are going to be shut down in this manner (or any manner), a little honesty would be nice. Drop the word games (a la Shepherd and Flokstra), and just be upfront that this is what you are doing. If schools are places that do not support free speech and open inquiry, then just say so. Start calling yourselves “INDOCTRINATION CENTERS” instead of “HIGHER LEARNING CENTERS“. Ideas cannot be analyzed properly if the cannot be discussed openly.

But of course, if such honesty were used, admissions would pretty much stop altogether.

Funny, this problem is non-existent in trade schools. But then, they actually provide skills.

Posted on

Child Killer Gets Transfer to “Healing Lodge” Because of her Race

(Interrogation of McClintic)

(Interrogation of Rafferty)

(News on McClintic’s Transfer To Healing Lodge)

As cited in a previous article, see here, all defendants/prisoners are not equal in the eyes of the law. This is a racially discriminating practice that Canada has been involved in doing since the late 1990s.

Here is section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code:

all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Yes, one racial group is allowed to get what amounts to a race based discount. The 1999 Gladue ruling essentially paved the way for this to be normalized across Canada, while the Ipeelee decision expanded the scope to include long term offenders.

Here are the links to the Court decisions of Gladue (1997, 1999) and Ipeelee (2012).

R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

While Indigenous people getting a race-based discount is nothing new in Canada, the transfer of child killer Terry McClintic to a “healing lodge” has the Canadian public flared up.

In 2009, 8 year old Tori Stafford was murdered by Terri McClintic, who was an accomplice to Michael Rafferty. In 2010, both McClintic and Rafferty received life sentences, with a 25 year custodial minimum. In 2014, McClintic was transferred to a medium security prison. Now, in 2018, McClintic is being sent to this “healing lodge”.

Not only is McClintic a child killer, but she viciously assaulted another inmate in 2012, and bragged that she only regretted not causing worse injury. Definitely a candidate for transfer from maximum to medium security prison.

Unfortunately, the federal parties are playing politics with it, while avoiding the real issue. The Liberals, now in government, blame the Conservatives for the 2014 transfer to medium security prison (when Stephen Harper was PM). The Conservatives blame the Liberals for not stopping this transfer. Both blame the other, while saying that they were not able to do anything — that Corrections Canada makes the decisions.

But the real issue that both Liberals and Conservatives dodge is that the entire law giving special treatment to Aboriginal/Indigenous/First Nations peoples. No group should receive “any” special treatment. Raced-based discounts are immoral.

What “should” be done is have the Gladue/Ipeelee rulings overturned. Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed this nonsense, but it can be stopped permanently using Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Marginal note:
Exception
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Marginal note:
Exception where express declaration
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Rafferty/McClintic have frequently been compared to Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka, another male/female child killing couple. Karla Homolka’s mere 12 year sentence outraged Canadians, as does the McClintic transfer now.

Rather than bickering about whose government dropped the ball, this soft bigotry of low expectations needs to end. Legislate this nonsense out of Canadian law.

Update on the Story: On October 3, the Liberals, NDP and Green Party voted against a Conservative motion that would have kept Terri-Lynn McClintic in prison. See this link.

Further Update on the Story
On November 8, the Liberals have announced they will make new rules to send McClintic back. However, it doesn’t address underlying racist nature of the law — different sentencing rules based on skin colour, or even on ”how someone identifies”.

Posted on

Ontario Gov’t Using Notwithstanding Clause to Shrink Toronto City Council (Bill 5)

Ontario Premier Doug Ford. (Source: HuffPost)

Ontario’s new Conservative Premier Doug Ford is attempting to shrink the Toronto City Council almost in half (from 47 to 25 members).  The main argument is that the ever expanding size of the council does nothing to actually improve representation and effectiveness.  Rather, it just leads to increased staff and costs for taxpayers.

Faith Goldy, currently running for Mayor of Toronto in October 22 election posted a YouTube video seen HERE, commenting on it.  An amusing video.

On July 30, 2018, Bill 5, the “Better Local Government Act” got its first reading.  August 14 saw it receive 2nd and 3rd readings and be passed.  However, the Toronto City Council voted to proceed with a legal challenge against it in court.

The Council claimed that the bill violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  See HERE for a link to the text of the Charter.

On September 10, an Ontario Superior Court Judge ruled that the Provincial Government’s decision violated Section 2(b) of the Charter, which states: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …… (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”.  Specifically, the Judge ruled that the Bill violated Torontonians’ right to “freedom of expression”.

To put it in more detail, because of the ongoing Mayoral and Council elections, cutting the Council size, it substantially interfered with municipal voters’ freedom of expression and the “right to cast a vote that can result in effective representation”.

However, the Ontario Government has decided to re-introduce the Bill, and instead rely on a different part of the Canadian Charter, Section 33, which is the “Notwithstanding Clause”.  In short, this provision allows a Provincial or Federal Government to pass laws even though a Court considers them unconstitutional.  33(1) reads as follows:

“33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”

To be fair, Section 33(3) of the Charter states that legislation passed this way will cease to have effect after 5 years.

The “Notwithstanding Clause” has been a part of the Charter since its inception, but has very rarely been used.

Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

There is an interesting twist to this story: The Charter effects both the Federal Government, and the Provinces and Territories. (See above for Section 32). However, Canada is also governed by the Principle of Paramouncy. In short, in the cases of competing laws, the highest power will succeed. Put plainly, Federal law tops Provincial law, and Provincial law tops Municipal law. There is a good deal of logic to this, as Federal law would mean nothing if cities and Provinces could simply legislate their way aroung it.

An exception to this of course: is that the various levels of power cannot legislate if doing so steps outside their legal boundaries. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution spell out exactly whose powers are whose.

Hypothetically, the Federal Government could invoke “their” Notwithstanding Clause in order to override “Ontario’s” Notwithstanding Clause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least for now.

A very interesting use of the Notwithstanding Clause. Shows at least the Ontario Government is serious about cutting the size of government. We shall keep an eye on it.

AN UPDATE TO THE STORY: On, September 19, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeals stayed the order of the Ontario Superior Court, effectively giving Premier Ford the go ahead to shrink Toronto City Council. An interesting note here — while the Court of Appeals did say that shrinking the Council in the middle of a municipal election was unfair, unfairness by itself is not a reason to stop Bill 5.

Posted on

Ontario Universities Ordered to Protect Free Speech, of Face Budget Cuts

Ontario’s new Premier, Conservative Doug Ford, ordered colleges and universities across the province to come up with free speech policies.

They have until January 1, 2019 (one semester), to comply.

This is welcome news at least in principle.   Free speech must unrestricted, otherwise it no longer is free.

The original program from TV Ontario, a publicly funded show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

Audio of the infamous Shepherd/Rambukanna/Pimlott/Joel recording

Lindsay Shepherd/Dave Rubin, Decemebr 1, 2017.

It will be interesting to see the policy once it is actually fleshed out, and how the schools will deal with it.

Further, will schools still be able to censor (even if on a reduced basis) by claiming that topics are hate speech or inciting violence?

It will be of interest to read up on the Chicago Principles, aka the Chicago Statement, which serves as a model for free speech and open inquiry in the U.S.

To fully understand this proposal, some backstory and context is necessary for the readers.

One of the main incidents was in November 2017, when Wilfred Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd made international news.  The Waterloo university staff had reprimanded her for showing part of a TVO clip (which was public TV anyway).

Needless to say the incident (which was recorded), caused a backlash against WLU specifically, and universities generally.  Lindsay herself made many media appearances, and took free speech/open inquiry as a calling.

Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, L-SOI, and has deliberately sought speakers with different and controversial viewpoints.   One event was a debate on pro-choice v.s. pro-life.

However, one event was cancelled when Faith Goldy was scheduled to talk, on March 20.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/20/faith-goldy-talk-at-wilfrid-laurier-university-shut-down-by-fire-alarm-after-protest.html

As an aside, Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson (the prof referred to as ”Hitler”), both have legal claims pending against Wilfrid Laurier University, and the 3 staff members from the meeting: Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, Adria Joel.

Suppression of free speech is not at all limited to Canadian schools.    There are many examples of this happening in the U.S. as well.

(a) In 2015, Mizzou (University of Missouri), was involved in a series a race-related events.   It also involved a faculty member, Melissa Click, asking to ”get some muscle over here” to remove a journalist covering an event.

(b) In 2017, there were violent riots across Berkeley University in Berkely, California.  Berkeley holds its ”free speech week” every year.   Typically conservative and controversial speakers are invited to give new views to students.  While protests are frequent, this onethis one ended in arson, when Milo Yiannopoulis came to speak.

(c) In 2017, In Evergreen State College (in Olympia, Washington), biology professor Bret Weinstein actually caused a mob takeover of the school when he emailed that the ”day of action” was a bad policy.  This was a day where whites were to ”leave for a day”, an inversion of the ”day of absence”, where black students and faculty leave for a day.

(d) Less dramatic incidents of speakers being shouted down are  rampant throughout the news and on YouTube.  An interesting observation is that it is almost exclusively ”left-wing” protesters trying to silence ”right-wing” speakers.

Author’s Note:  This is certainly a step in the right direction.  While I certainly applaud any news the promotes and defends free speech, there are many details I would love to ask Premier Ford.  Here are a few:

(1) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban groups they do not agree with, such as men’s issues awareness, and pro-life groups?  Will they be able to weasel around this law by saying it ”protects marginalized people”?

https://chimeratsk.com/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/

(2) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban political groups and talks it disagrees with?  One such example being University of Toronto banning the Canadian Nationalist Party, even though the founder specifically says they are not a race-based party.

U of T bars Canadian Nationalist Party from hosting rally on campus

(3) What measures will be put in place to ensure that colleges/universities can’t still suppress free speech under false claims of hate or bigotry?

(4) How will this actually be enforced?

I left university years ago.  Thankfully, as a STEM student I largely avoided this nonsense.  However, evidence of attempted suppression is everywhere.  I too despise actual hate speech and calls to violence, but false claims seem to be a convenient tactic to simply silence dissenting views from being heard. Still, this is a promising step.

Interestingly, Shepherd herself has questioned the merit and effect of “forcing” universities and colleges to adopt free speech guidelines. After all, how committed can they really be?

Posted on

Call Yourself a Woman, get Cheaper Auto Insurance

Car insurance rates in Canada can be very expensive, especially for men.  Provinces such as Alberta and Ontario charge men much higher rates than women, especially at a younger age.  The rationale is that statistically speaking, men get into more serious car accidents than women.

But one person (can I call her a man, or him a woman?) has come up with an interesting way to get around that.  This is the story: Here and here.

The person, known as ”David”, got his Alberta birth certificate changed from ”M” to ”F”, then got insurance as a ”woman”.  It cost about $1100 less a year doing this.

Alberta had made it easier to change the gender on documents in an effort to make the process easier for transgender individuals.  Clearly, this was not the intent of these legal reforms.

However, the LGBTQ Community has objected, claiming that this is making a mockery of the laws meant to protect them.   Some in the government have claimed that this is in fact perjury and fraud.

Curiously enough, many Canadians have been left with a sour taste given all of the SJW policies, including what is seen as excessive trans accomodation and the blurring of actual biological differences between the sexes.

Author’s Views: I have no issue with people living as the people they wish to be or feel that they are.   As long as it doesn’t infringe on myself or others, people are free to be who they are.  However, the fake outrage that is so often on the news is very offputting.

My own leanings are somewhat conservative/libertarian, and my beliefs are that people should be treated equally and fairly.  No prejudice, no special treatment.   And different rates for men and women is discrimination.

I do think it is an amusing way to combat the prejudicial practice of charging men higher rates for insurance.  A sense of 2 wrongs making a right.

 

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-16: Adding Gender Identity to Human Rights Code and Criminal Code

(Jordan Peterson before the Canadian Senate on Bill C-16)

June 19, 2017, Bill C-16 received royal assent, becoming law. In a nutshell, amended both the Canadian Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Code to include “gender identity or expression” to the books.

For the Criminal Code, it added “gender identity or expression” to the list of protected groups which violence against would be viewed as a hate crime (if that were the motivation for the offence.

For the Human Rights Code, “gender identity or expression” would be added to the list of protected grounds which discrimination against would be illegal.

In the above video, Professor Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto), claims that this bill will lead to “compelled speech”, and that the wording leaves the possibility that it will be abused. There are obvious flaws with the bill (more on that later). But here are the quotes from the HRC and CC, both before and after.

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 2; 1996, c. 14, s. 1; 1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E); 2017, c. 3, ss. 9, 11, c. 13, s. 1.

REPLACEMENT
Canadian Human Rights Act

1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

REPLACEMENT

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

***********************************************************
Criminal Code

ORIGINAL

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12.

REPLACEMENT

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6

***********************************************************

ORIGINAL

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

REPLACEMENT

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

***********************************************************

Now for the problems:

First, what exactly is “gender identity”? On the surface, it seems to imply transgendered/transsexual people, who are actually “transitioning” from one sex to another. However, the bill fails to define or clarify this. Is it a transitioning person? Do they have to have completed it? Is there a certain standard?

Second, what exactly is “expression”, in the context it is being used? Would drag kings/queens or performers fall into this category? Is it someone who just dresses or acts in a less than usual manner? For this to be included into human rights and criminal code legislation, the wording needs to far more clear?

Third, if a person chooses to identify as anything other than male or female, are others obligated to address them as such?

Fourth, in terms of “having their needs accommodated” (with respect to the human rights code), what does this mean? Again, without specifying whether a person is actually transgender or just doing this temporarily, how would any employer or school be expected to be able to comply? Likewise, when looking at the wording “… without being hindered in or prevented from”, this is impossible to comply with, without more information.

Fifth, and regarding the Criminal Code, this seems incredibly dangerous to add. Hate crime laws are often not a good idea (as identity seems to be more important than the actual offence). But here, adding the vague wording “gender identity or expression” as a means of increasing a sentence does not seem wise.

Sixth, will these laws stifle legitimate concern and debate on the issue of transgenderism? The health and societal considerations — not to mention high suicide rates — are of a public concern to discuss. The science of “gender dysphoria“, the underlying medical condition, is still far from settled. If open discussion and debate can be viewed as “hate speech” or as “discrimination”, will this have a chilling effect on free speech?

Seventh, and referring to the above Peterson video, is gender supposed to be viewed from a biological or sociological perspective? (See the video).

Again, if this were specifically meant to protect individuals transitioning, and/or those with gender dysphoria, it would be a lot easier to support. However, the wording seems vague, and open to misinterpretation.

The public at large seems apprehensive about these changes, and with good reason.