‘Government Lunacy in Canada’

“Forced speech is the most extreme infringement of free speech. It puts words in the mouths of citizens and threatens to punish them if they do not comply. When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself. Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”

“‘Bill C-16’ received Royal Assent June 19, passing into law a little over a year after Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced it in the House of Commons.

“The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that everyone can live according to their gender identity and express their gender as they choose,” said Wilson-Raybould.

“The law adds ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ to the list of prohibited grounds in the ‘Canadian Human Rights Act’ and amends the ‘Criminal Code’ to protect ‘transgender’ and “gender diverse” Canadians from ‘hate speech’…” 

“The problem with ‘C-16’ is that it could be used as a means of applying force of law against millions of Canadians who deplore discrimination against those experiencing gender dysphoria, but nonetheless believe that every person is born male or female… ‘C-16’ will no doubt serve as guidance for ‘human rights’ commissions and tribunals, along with other governing bodies, to decide against those who believe that the two genders are male and female.”
Christian Elia, executive director of the ‘Catholic Civil Rights League’ 

–‘Senator warns transgender law will be challenged’,


“When University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson posted his now-notorious ‘YouTube’ video {See below} spelling out his refusal to use ‘non-gendered’ pronouns, activists expressed their outrage. ‘Non-gendered people’ {Seriously?} have the right to be accommodated and respected, the protests went, and Peterson must use language consistent with those ‘rights’. These objections illustrate what few activists or politicians will openly acknowledge: “Human rights” are now a zero-sum game. Giving rights to some, means taking them from others. 

{The problem began with the assigning of ‘group’ rather than ‘individual’ rights.
‘The Strange Case of Canadian ‘Legal Equality’ (Charter Section 15) {March 8, 2016}:
https://canadiansforlegalequality.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/the-strange-case-of-canadian-legal-equality/ }

“On Thursday, the Senate passed ‘Bill C-16’, the ‘Liberal’ {Party} government’s legislation that adds “gender identity or expression” to grounds of discrimination in the ‘Canadian Human Rights Act’. ‘Bill C-16’ was in part the motivation for Peterson’s video. The act applies to federal subjects (including airports, banks, the military and federally-regulated industries), while equivalent provincial codes apply to remaining areas of personal and commercial activities (including most workplaces, schools, universities, hospitals and so on). Most provinces recently added the same or similar terms to their {ever-growing} ‘discrimination’ provisions.

“Few Canadians realize how seriously these statutes infringe upon freedom of speech. The ‘Ontario Human Rights Commission’ has stated, in the context of equivalent provisions in the ‘Ontario Human Rights Code’, that

refusing to refer to a {‘self-identified’} ‘trans’ person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.”

“In other words, failure to use a person’s {ridiculous} pronoun of choice — “ze”, “zir”, “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education”, fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court. This peril is exactly what Peterson warned of in his video, for which he was mocked for scaremongering.

Human rights were conceived to liberate. They protected people from an oppressive state. Their purpose was to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and censorship, by placing restraints on government. The state’s capacity to accommodate these “negative rights” was unlimited, since they required only that people be left alone.

“But freedom from interference is so 20th century. Modern human rights entitle. We are in the middle of a culture war, and human rights have become a weapon to normalize ‘social justice’ {‘communist’} values and to delegitimize competing beliefs. These rights are applied against other people to limit their liberties.

“Freedom of expression is a traditional, negative human right. When the state manages expression, it threatens to control what we think. Forced speech is the most extreme infringement of free speech. It puts words in the mouths of citizens and threatens to punish them if they do not comply. When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself. Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.

“‘Bill C-16’, like provincial human rights codes, does not make specific reference to speech. In the Senate, supporters of ‘C-16’ fell over each other denying that the legislation would compel language. When Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould testified before the Senate’s ‘Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’, she specifically denied that the bill would force the use of gender-neutral pronouns. 

Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould appears on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, Nov. 8, 2015 (CTV News)

“There are reasons to doubt her sincerity {!}. First, human rights commissions say otherwise. Along with human rights ‘tribunals’ {A contradiction in itself, since tribunals limit human rights}, they have primary control over the meaning and application of code provisions, something the justice minister must know. Human rights commissions are not neutral investigative bodies, but advocacy agencies with ‘expansive’ {‘Leftist’} agendas. In comparison, courts and governments play only a minor role in interpreting these statutes.
{Which is a fundamental breakdown in both Canadian law and democracy…}

“Second, Senator Donald Plett proposed an amendment to the bill that would have clarified that it was not the bill’s intention to require the use of particular pronouns. The minister flatly rejected it, as did ‘Liberal’ {Party} and most “independent” {‘Liberal’} Senators. In fact, like its provincial counterparts, ‘Bill C-16’ will give ‘transgendered’ and ‘non-gendered’ people the ability to dictate other people’s speech.

“Some Senators expressed the view that forcing the use of ‘non-gendered’ pronouns was reasonable because calling someone by their preferred pronoun is a reasonable thing to do. That position reflects a profound misunderstanding of the role of expression in a free society.

“The question is not whether required speech is “reasonable” speech. If a statute required people to say “hello”, “please” and “thank you”, that statute would be tyrannical, not because “hello”, “please” and “thank you” aren’t reasonable things to say, but because the state has dictated the content of private conversation.

“Traditional negative human rights give people the freedom to portray themselves as they wish without fearing violence or retribution from others. Everyone can exercise such rights without limiting the rights of others. Not so the new human rights. Did you expect to decide your own words and attitudes? If so, ‘human rights’ are not your friend.”

–‘Meet the new ‘human rights’ — where you are forced by law to use ‘reasonable’ pronouns like ‘ze’ and ‘zer’,
Bruce Pardy, National Post, June 19, 2017
(Bruce Pardy is professor of Law at Queen’s University. He testified against ‘Bill C-16’ before the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee.)

COMMENT: “If you are changing from one sex to another, use the well-used ‘he/she’. You did not create a new species simply by doing a plumbing job.”
“Insanity is dictating speech via coercion.”


Professor Jordan Peterson is at the centre of a freedom-of-speech battle at the University of Toronto. (Dave Abel–Postmedia Network)

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson: ‘Fear and the Law’

‘Jordan Peterson’s Opening Words at Senate Hearing’

‘Senate hearing on Bill C16’

‘U of T Debate on Bill C-16 and Human Rights Legislation’
“Here is the debate held Nov 19 at 9:30 am at the University of Toronto on ‘Free Speech, Political Correctness and Bill C-16’. Participants included Dean David Cameron, who introduced the debate. Mayo Moran, a law professor, who moderated it, psychology Professor Jordan B Peterson, speaking out against the legislation, and Professors Brenda Cossman and Mary Bryson, who defended it.”

‘Best of Jordan Peterson – On Gender Identity’

‘Jordan Peterson: You Don’t CHOOSE A Gender!’

‘Jordan Peterson On Gender Differences’

‘Prof Jordan Peterson speaks at University of Toronto protest’

‘Professor Jordan Peterson Swarmed by Narcissistic SJW Ideologues after UofT Rally’

“In a few weeks, it’s highly probable that political insanity will prevail, and ‘Bill C-16’ will be passed—a bill Prime Minister Trudeau ordered his Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to bring to fruition. In his “Mandate Letter” to her, Justin Trudeau sets out this assault on Canada:

“Introduce government legislation to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the ‘Canadian Human Rights Act’, and to the list of distinguishing characteristics of “identifiable group” protected by the hate speech provisions of the ‘Criminal Code’.”

“This has now been done. Despite the legal and logical presentations of people like Dr. Peterson, Jared Brown, and Paul Dirks before the Senate hearings, ‘C-16’ will almost certainly become law. I suspect it won’t take long before the crosshairs of the politically-absurd ‘Human Wrongs’ minions and the hate speech police—who offend so easily—will target the voices of reason and any who refuse to conform to insanity.

“Like the University of Toronto’s’ Dr. Jordan Peterson, culturally-brave lawyer Jared Brown and Pastor Paul Dirks, I too will become a victim of my wilful adherence to logic, common-sense, science, and refusal to embrace crack-pot delusion, whether it involves a person, government or the law.

“I will not be forced to address a biological man in a skirt as “she”—regardless of testicle status or penile performance or lack thereof; nor will I “affirm” a confused child—egged on and abused by sex activists and/or “progressive” parents—in their conflicted feelings of wanting to be a princess, a unicorn… or the opposite sex, and to self-identify as such.

“I will not “respect” or refer to a woman, who pauses her testosterone hormonal abuse treatment so she can have a baby before chemically transitioning to a really strange-looking person, as a man. Nor will I share in her selfish delusion by lying to her child that she is a man. She is not.

We are in a cultural war, and there is nothing civil about it.

“Because I believe in freedom of speech, thought and belief; and because I take seriously our shared responsibility to fiercely protect children, I will cause disruption in the streets and in the schools whenever harm invades.

“I will equip voters and arm students with truth and facts…

“I will not be forced to “respect” a sex activist’s right to engage in their “sex positive” self-indulgences until such time as I am no longer required to foot the taxpayer bill for curing their 100% preventable diseases. I will not agree to fund their phony “Not-For-Profit” political organizations that devour government funding like they were eating pizzas; nor their sex-change operations, hormone replacement therapies or the $900-a-month ‘Truvada’ pill regime…(there’s a lobbying effort underway right now by the sex activists to make all other hard-working Canadians pay for this).

“I refuse to “embrace” the agenda of sexual “diversity”. I’ll oppose and expose the indoctrination of children through the government-monopoly public schools by weak-minded conformist teachers who embrace such notorious nonsense and who wilfully abuse children and deceive parents.

“The good news is that when those of us who refuse to conform, comply and compromise are finally locked up, I can declare myself to be “gender non-binary”, and on that day “identify” as being “male-gendered”, and then demand—as a delusional and unstable sex activist, and armed with my new rights under the ‘Human Rights Code’ (they always get what they want)—and then demand to be placed in the same prison as Canada’s most articulate and intelligent free-speech patriots, Dr. Peterson, Jared Brown and Paul Dirks!

“Once there, we can reminisce about a once-great nation called Canada, and how—if only Canadians hadn’t elected a not-so-bright drama teacher as their Prime Minister—we could have stopped the insanity.

“Hmm, just a thought: it might be better for those guys to identify as women and meet me in a women’s prison! They’d probably enjoy it more—and be far safer!”

–‘Embracing Insanity, Celebrating Fascism—Welcome to Canada!’,
Kari Simpson
Executive Director, CultureGuard,
May 29, 2017


“In the world that exists outside the leafy confines of university campuses, with their tenured professors on comfortable salaries and student agitators in search of a utopian culture, the fevered debate taking place over the use of ‘gender-specific’ pronouns must seem more than just a little ridiculous.

“Who cares about a stupid pronoun, you may think. Just what is a pronoun, anyway? For most people, grammar studies ended somewhere around the sixth grade, along with phonics. (And anyone who can remember what phonics was all about, drop me a line). Anyone for a dangling modifier? Care for a conjunctive adverb? Or would you prefer to share a gerund? (You can have the reds, but save the black ones for me).

“A pronoun is a word that stands in for a noun. ‘Him’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘they’, ‘it’, ‘I’ and ‘you’ are all pronouns. Boys are ‘him’, girls are ‘her’. No controversy there, right?

“If that’s what you think, you haven’t been on a campus lately, and lucky for you. University Of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson has been engulfed in a raging controversy because he objects to being ordered to use whatever pronoun his students may demand, even if it’s not one 99% of Canadians would recognize. 

Protesters were outside the public library for a talk by controversial University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson. (ELIZE SCHULZKE — POSTMEDIA)

“If a student wants to be identified as ‘xe’ (or ‘ze’, or ‘zee’), Peterson is supposed to refer to him as ‘xe’. If an individual demands to be identified as “they”, Peterson is supposed to say “they”. “Hir”, pronounced “here” can stand in for ‘her’, ‘him’, ‘his’, ‘they’ or ‘theirs’. He’s supposed to memorize all the options, note each individual preference, and alter his vocabulary accordingly.

“The aim of the exercise is to remove any hint of gender from the language. It’s the goal of people who feel that being identified as male or female is a trap, or a prison, and wish to break free. They do not “identify” as either of the conventional genders, and feel their perspective should be recognized and respected by others, and that the language should be adapted to suit their needs.

“Peterson objects. He says 98% of males “identify” as males, and 98% of females see themselves as females. He notes that New York City’s ‘Commission on ‘Human Rights’ has recognized 31 gender identities, from ‘Femme Queen’ to ‘Non-Op’, to ‘Hajira’, ‘Pangender’, ‘Gifted Gender’, ‘Butch’, ‘Two-Spirit’ and ‘Person of Transgender Experience’.
“Man” and “Woman”, thankfully, made the list, but there are any number of others that could be added, such as ‘cisgender’, ‘bicurious’ or ‘variant’. 

“Memorizing and correctly using whatever pronoun any adherent to any of those options demands — plus whatever others may crop up in the future — strikes Peterson as impractical and unrealistic.

“We’re going to have 31 different classes of pronouns?” he asked ‘Postmedia’s Christie Blatchford. “It’s just not possible. People can’t do that. Our language doesn’t allow for that; we can’t remember that; what if we make a mistake?”

“Peterson, predictably, has become the target of ‘social justice’ {‘communist’} champions intent on imposing their views on anyone who dares to disagree. This has become commonplace on campuses, where the notion that education involves intellectual tolerance, the free exchange of ideas, and openness to debate and dissent, is being crushed by fear of reprisal, the threat of ruined careers, and the quisling response of terrified administrations blind to the idiocy of their positions.

“Peterson has already received two letters from the university warning him to cut it out, charging that his refusal to adopt ‘gender-neutral’ terminology is

“contrary to the rights of those persons to equal treatment without discrimination based on their ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression.’”

“People are calling for his head, and holding protests against him. 

Professor Jordan Peterson, right, speaks with protestors at a rally in Toronto. (YouTube)

“The reason this is pertinent is that the federal ‘Liberals’ are proposing a bill to amend the ‘Human Rights Act’ and ‘Criminal Code’

“to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.”

“Once it passes {and it did}, Prof. Peterson’s problems may just have begun.

Goings-on on campus may seem distant to the life most Canadians know, but if university profs are expected to memorize and utilize whatever term of identity an individual chooses to adopt, will it be long before the same expectation is extended to, say, high schools, grade schools, business offices and any public place in which human interaction takes place? Ottawa is already contemplating gender quotas on corporate boards; does anyone doubt it will come under pressure to extend that to include the ‘genderless’?

“Certainly, it couldn’t be long before government offices would be expected to comply with ‘gender-neutral’ regulations. Some poor civil servant, asked who’s next in line, could be chastised on ‘human rights’ grounds should he be dumb enough to respond, “it’s her”. God knows what would happen if he (or ‘hir’) made the same mistake twice. A disciplinary hearing? Sensitivity training? A crash course on pronoun correctness?

“Peterson doesn’t object to using ‘he’ or ‘she’, ‘they’ or ‘it’, which is what the language stipulates. He objects to mangling the language to satisfy an ideological agenda. If the language can be bent to suit every individual preference, it ceases to have rules and becomes yet another victim of political purity, as dictated by whatever identity group has the megaphone today. If a reluctance to do so can result in charges of abuse, public denunciation and a loss of livelihood, the right of free expression doesn’t exist.

“It may be that this latest example of human rights hysteria is already too far along to stop. Politicians are second only to university administrations in their refusal to resist any small group that shouts loud enough long enough. Before it gets much farther, however, here’s a proposal: all Canadian legislatures, provincial parliaments and town halls should be first to comply. All MPs, MPPs, MLAs, mayors, reeves, councillors and trustees should be required to memorize and utilize whatever pronouns a committee of the most committed gender-neutral advocates in Canada can compile, with failure resulting in the sort of public censure Peterson is now experiencing . Once elected representatives have complied, and a study undertaken, implementation by the rest of the population may be considered. But not before then.”

–‘Are zee ready for the dictatorship of the gender warriors?’,
Kelly McParland, National Post, October 27, 2016


We thought that ‘behaviorism’ was dead and buried. But it has now resurfaced under the guise of “gender theory”, which brings up two major questions: how? and why?

Gender theory proposes that the two genders, the woman and the man, are not natural things (having their roots in nature), but somehow an inventionDenying the reality of differentiation in our genes between women and men, followers of gender theory propose that the roles which are more or less determined by nature are actually — for them — freely-chosen options across a range of choices, in which only the will intervenes

“‘Innate’ and ‘acquired’. Here we are with the “genders”, back to the good old days of behaviorism. They are its heirs, often without knowing it.

“For the behaviourist school — with Burrhus Frederic Skinner in the lead — there was no structure given before any behavioral learning. ANY behavior was the result of conditioning. This evil ideology (we’ll see why it is evil) has permeated generations, from the scientific world to the general public, through the media. The demonstration of its non-scientific character did not take away its power of attraction, and we will see later why a patently false theory can lead to sheepish followers.

B. F. Skinner

“It would be caricaturing the behaviourist school to say that the learning process used on colonies of rats or pigeons, and generalized to humans, does not exist. Of course it exists! Pavlov’s dog really starts salivating at the sound of the bell. Where behaviourists have gone wrong (and it was not always so innocent), was to postulate that all behaviors were the result of sequences of stimuli/reflexes. The animal — and human — was, according to this ideology, a ‘tabula rasa’, a blank sheet of paper, on which one could print anything, since there was no innate structure of existing learning — taken at its widest sense.

Comparative ethology has demonstrated the existence of these innate structures. They are the actual conditions needed so learning can happen.

“‘Everything is gained, nothing is innate’. This begs the question, whoever at the time was pushing the reverse proposition, just as radically wrong (‘everything is innate’)…? Parts of innate and acquired coexist and interfere with each other in any organism, humans as well.

“To try to demonstrate — as behaviorism has painstakingly tried (and in vain) — that living is nothing but a set of mechanisms, that man is “nothing else” than an evolved primate, that life is “nothing else” than a physico-chemical process, that we are “nothing else” than empty organisms just waiting to be filled — all of this has rightly accused behaviourism of being reductionist and when it is applied to man, to be potentially dehumanizing.

“The fact that the behaviourist school has seduced so many despite the fact that it poses as a watermark the denial of autonomy and freedom, can be explained by the human taste (innate?) for simplistic ideologies, by the tendency of some scholars to only seriously consider what can be numbered and quantified, and, conversely, by a “modern” repulsion to any mention of a hereditary trait.

“It is not irrelevant that the debate between nature and nurture has become particularly virulent in France, a country of egalitarianism and distrust of anything that resembles a heritage… Existentialist philosophy has seduced many (‘one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman’) and it is one of the milestones that illustrates this negative passion for what is innate, even though this part of the innate is minuscule — as well as fundamental — as genetic research has tought us for a long time. Genetics, among us, smells like sulfur!…

“It is also an ethical issue. Man as the sole result of its environment (natural and / or social), and therefore malleable on demand, deeply hits at any humanist convictions related to the beauty of diversity…

To postulate that animals, or men, are an “empty organism” is to admit that the “social engineer” can make him act as he sees fit.

“Today, criticizing behaviorism and its offshoots gives the impression of having to fight against geocentrism, since the jury seems to have been out for a long time. The supporters of “all is acquired” were, long ago, sent back to their dangerous illusions, at least in the scientific world.

“Yet this doctrine continues to poison minds, and sometimes even the best minds. This raises the question of “why”. Why a patently false and pernicious doctrine — whose inhuman aspect is expressed through the now possible development of manipulation techniques — why such an ideology continues to have followers (conscious or not)?

“The answer is the same as when looking at the process of evolution — If something exists, it is useful for something. 

Konrad Lorenz

“Konrad Lorenz, the great ethologist, summarized this “something” succinctly: the will to power.

“For beings whose sole desire is to manipulate the masses, it is an unexpected satisfaction to hear that man is only the product of influences and learning that his material and human environment has imposed on him since his earliest childhood.” 

“It is no wonder that politicians and generally communicators of all kinds have a passion for the “all acquired” theory, and (sometimes) with the world’s best of intentions, (with which the road to Hell is paved.)

“With expressive energy, the “gender” theory professes that one is not born a man or woman, but becomes one. One recognizes here a replica of existentialism and a fiesty feminism that we had hoped to have disappeared, for the good of women and men.

“Based on these false premises, the “gender” theory can only be attractive to simple and dominating minds… It would therefore instinctively be tempting to deal with this fad with contempt…

“However (and here I’ll make enemies Right and Left), it is not inaccurate to say that one “becomes” a woman or a man, and not just because of a Y chromosome getting added to an X chromosome. Whether in utero or after birth, and under the influence of hormonal secretions (such as testosterone), the male predisposition in a physiological female, or female predisposition in a physiological male, can indeed reveal itself.

“These are the hormones that antagonize or confirm the belonging to one’s biological sex; then, the “acquired” takes charge of reinforcing the direction that has been taken: woman, “typically” feminine, or man “typically” masculine, or women and men with less “typical” behaviors to the extreme of bisexualism and trans-sexualism. In the latter case, the carnal envelope corresponds little or not to the “feeling” of the individual, but not for the reasons claimed by proponents of an archaism that is claiming to be modern.

“This is not culture, but nature, that speaks the loudest…”

–“Gender Theory, an Anachronism that Pretends to be Modern”, Eric Martinle,
Open Forum René-Pierre Samary, March 13, 2013


Original in French:

“To get an idea of what’s in store for us next, Australians would do well to look at the debate over gender identity in Canada, where things have gotten, shall we say, mind-bogglingly odd.

“A video clip of the Ontario panel show ‘The Agenda’ recently made the global rounds on social media. Nicholas Matte, a professor of ‘Transgender Studies’ (good grief!), made the following assertion:

“Basically, it’s not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex . . . That’s a very popular misconception.”

“He spared the audience an explanation of this remark, but assured everyone that the scientific consensus, as well as his credentials as an “historian of medicine”, backed him up.

“The context of this discussion was the passage of ‘Bill C-16’ in the Canadian House of Commons. This law would “add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination”. The sticking point, however, has been the expansion of language: an infinite number of gender identities demands an infinite number of invented pronouns, like ‘zie’, ‘zir’, and ‘hir’.

“Herein lies the key criticism of the law’s potential reach: ‘misgendering’, or referring to someone by unwanted or incorrect pronouns, is not a mere social solecism, but something much more. On ‘The Agenda’, Matte argued that the law was necessary, because misgendering amounted to abuse, a hate crime, and an act of violence. He levelled all these accusations against fellow panelist Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor who has become infamous for his refusal to bow to the linguistic demands of campus activists.

“Three cheers, and make them rather hearty ones, for Jordan Peterson. Up with whacky gender pronouns, he will not put. His stance is based on the classically liberal idea of free speech, as well as — and I don’t think this is too grandiose a way of putting it — a defence of civilisation. In this atmosphere of campus intolerance, of which speech codes are just one part, Peterson finds the totalitarian cast of mind, echoes of the Soviet Union, and an assault on our very notions of reality. Abandoned and denounced by his ‘University of Toronto’ colleagues, he marches on, a one-man army against the postmodernists, radical Leftists, and ‘social justice warriors’. I find Peterson persuasive and — this adjective will be outlawed soon, so dash it, here I go — manful…”

Roz Ward. (Picture: David Geraghty)

“The Victorian government has delivered an unexpected Christmas present to Australian conservatives: a parting of the ways with {Communist} Roz Ward, the co-founder of the controversial ‘Safe Schools’ program. Score one for the ‘cisheteropatriarchy’, as the kids call it.

“It may not be in the spirit of Tiny Tim to gloat over someone’s misfortune and dismissal at this time of year, and many people would resist the impulse. But I am not among such people. Since her emergence in the public spotlight, the problem with the criticism directed against Roz Ward is that it has not been relentless enough.

“‘Safe Schools’, as most Australians have come to realise, combines a praiseworthy anti-bullying component with more than a few of the fashionably crackpot notions of gender and queer theorists. Originally intended for both primary and secondary school students, the program presents {foolish} ideas like ‘gender fluidity’ and the ‘social construction of gender’ as unshakeable facts, rather than postmodern fads.

“A few of the program’s pedagogic tools also raised eyebrows. For the four and five-year olds, who may have a lingering affection for the gender binary, there is the children’s book “The Gender Fairy”. In this narrative, the eponymous hero guides two transgender characters along the path of social transition. In my boyhood, back in the distant 1990s, I liked best the ‘cisnormative’ adventures of ‘Noddy’, ‘Big-Ears’, and ‘Mr Plod’. Today, no doubt, they would be denounced for corrupting the minds of Australian youth.

“To the bill of complaint against ‘Safe Schools’ one might also add the inappropriate role-playing activities, wherein teenagers imagined themselves without genitalia; the advice for teachers, who should refrain from heterosexist terms like ‘boy’ and ‘girl’; and, finally, the infliction of the program upon students without the consent of their parents.

“In response to the public backlash and an independent review, the Turnbull government has made a few changes: the weird stuff is out and the anti-bullying emphasis stays in; there is an expiration date for federal funding and the program will ultimately be absorbed into a new government initiative, the ‘Student Wellbeing Hub’. Score another one for the cisnormative hegemony, or rather, let us simply call it good sense…

“Roz Ward is a useful, if frightening, demonstration of what happens when Left-wing academics and their ideas intrude upon wider society. Once upon a time, I have been told, postmodern jargon and critical gender theory were confined to the abstruse and unreadable journals of the academic Left. Now, it’s all available at a school near you.

“In recent profiles in the ‘Guardian’ and the ‘Saturday Paper’, Ward downplays the radical elements and bemoans the attention paid to her own Marxist politics. Such a focus, she says, is a distraction from the good work she’s doing. This is nonsense, as she knows very well. In a 2015 lecture at Melbourne’s Marxism conference, Ward argued that:

“Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender, and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways.”

“…After banging on for a while about how terrific the Russian Revolution was, Ward continued:

“It will only be through a revitalised class struggle and revolutionary change that we can hope for the liberation of LGBTI people . . . it’s only the working class that shares the interests of all oppressed groups in society, because we can only meet the needs of everybody by taking collective ownership of everything.”

“That last part strikes a sinister note, at least among anyone with a sense of history and reality. It should be clear, though, that Ward and her co-thinkers are the real thing: they’re real revolutionaries, and we should do them the courtesy of taking them at their word

“As I noted, Australians would do well to pay attention. Roz Ward is out and the schools are somewhat safer, but the gender wars, on the Australian front, are just getting started. Things could get a whole lot worse. When they do, the arguments and model of Jordan Peterson will be part of the intellectual weaponry on which we must rely.”

–‘Are the Gender Wars Just Getting Started?’,
Timothy Cootes, ‘Quillette’, Dec.23, 2016


‘LGBTQQIP2SAA’ – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender.

“Two Q’s to cover both bases (‘queer’ and ‘questioning’);
–I for ‘Intersex’, people with two sets of genitalia or various chromosomal differences;
–P for ‘Pansexual’, people who refuse to be pinned down on the Kinsey scale;
–2S for ‘Two-Spirit’, a tradition in many ‘First Nations’ {‘Siberian settler communities’} that considers sexual minorities to have both male and female spirits;
–A for ‘Asexual’, people who do not identify with any orientation; and
–A for ‘Allies’, recognizing that the community thrives best with loving supporters, although they are not really part of the community itself.”


“In the beginning, there was male and female. Soon, there was homosexuality. Later, there were lesbians; and much later, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers. But anyone who thinks LGBTQ is the full count of contemporary sexualities is sadly out of date. For example, the transgendered have for some time been divided into those who are awaiting treatment, those have had hormone treatment, those who have had hormones and surgery, and those who have had hormones and surgery but are not happy and want it all reversed.

“Enter the ‘Australian Human Rights Commission’ with some exciting new developments. In an extraordinary document entitled “Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity”, the AHRC has come up with a further list of “genders” which they require us to recognize, and on whose behalf they want our federal government to pass anti-discrimination legislation. To date (by the time you read this, the AHRC’s family of sexualities may have increased and multiplied), these are:
cross dresser,
drag king,
drag queen,
third gender,
third sex,
and brotherboy.
(No, I don’t know what “neutrois” means).

“So, if we add these genders to the LGBTQ list, we get 23 in all, not to mention the divisions within the transgendered group. For PR purposes, however, the “gendered” community now identifies itself as LGBTQI (the “I” stands for “intersex”).

“Rather than abbreviating, I think they should add all the other letters of the alphabet, then we would all feel protected and not discriminated against. Being Indian by birth and having married an Australian of Anglo-Celtic origin, I am all for diversity, but I am not going to commit to “neutrois” until someone tells me what it means…

The fact is that in international law, the only binding definition of gender is contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which states:

“…the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any meaning different from the aforementioned definition.”

–‘Gender bending: let me count the ways’,
Babette Francis, MercatorNet, 21 March 2011


‘Danger: Children In Charge’ (Photo: CANADIAN PRESS – Mark Blinch)

See also:
Danger: Children In Charge’ (Trudeau’s LGBT Flag) {July 7, 2016}:

Undermining Fair Competition’ (Transgender) {April 11, 2017}:

A man is still a man — Political Correctness Meets Biological Reality {June 9, 2015}:


1984’ — George Orwell
Download and/or Online text:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: