Land of the Silver Birch. . . RACIST!!!!

[Boges]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/07/toronto-music-teacher-sues-for-defamation-after-principal-vp-call-folk-song-land-of-the-silver-birch-racist.html

Quote

 

A Toronto music teacher is suing her principal, vice-principal and the public school board for defamation after the administrators sent an email to the school community apologizing that a well-known folk song — “Land of the Silver Birch” — was performed at a school concert, calling it “inappropriate” and “racist.”

In her statement of claim, Violet Shearer, the music teacher at High Park Alternative Public School, said the email effectively suggested that it was her professional judgment and conduct that were “inappropriate and racist.”

Shearer taught the song to her classes at the school and it was performed at a school concert she organized in May 2016, according to her claim.

She is now seeking $75,000 in damages and an “unequivocal apology” from the administrators and the school board.

The school’s principal, Nancy Keenan, vice-principal Edita Tahirovic, and the Toronto District School Board deny in their statement of defence that Shearer suffered any damage to her reputation and said the email was factual and fair comment.

None of the allegations outlined in this story has been proven in court and none of those involved agreed to be interviewed.

 

 

Such a hateful song. 

So even when we're paying respect to First Nations, it's still racist. It's not like Whitey wrote this song.

So do we support the teacher's defamation lawsuit? Or is just an example of snowflakes attacking snowflakes? I think that may be the case. 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Boges

[scribblet]

The teacher has a point not sure it's worth $75K but I don't blame her for being angry.   The fact that it was written by a Native woman doesn't seem to matter and who are we to dissect her reasons for writing it.    This is really over the top snowflakey  :)-

[Guest]

One does get the impression that there are those who cast about for something, anything, about which they can be outraged.  It's almost as though they feel they will be seen as not doing their job properly if they don't meet some quota of people or incidents about which they can remain extremely tight lipped and wild eyed.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

One does get the impression that there are those who cast about for something, anything, about which they can be outraged.  It's almost as though they feel they will be seen as not doing their job properly if they don't meet some quota of people or incidents about which they can remain extremely tight lipped and wild eyed.

Just like the people constantly dredging up stories about snowflakes.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Just like the people constantly dredging up stories about snowflakes.

You say tomato...

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

You say tomato...

So did you.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So did you.

Let's call the whole thing off.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

On 12/7/2017 at 11:45 AM, bcsapper said:

One does get the impression that there are those who cast about for something, anything, about which they can be outraged.  It's almost as though they feel they will be seen as not doing their job properly if they don't meet some quota of people or incidents about which they can remain extremely tight lipped and wild eyed.

The essence of the far left has always been a kind of moral purity which they infuse into all their political and ideological positions - and the zealousness with which they pursue those who fail their purity test (ie, those who disagree with them. And nowhere is this more obvious than among academics, those entitled elitists who have never been held to any standard of truth. There is no other profession which is so well-protected from incompetence or bizarre and outrageous conduct and statements. Witness the Lindsay Shepherd situation or any of the other ridiculous things which have been going on on college campuses. Thus it is among academics that this zealous pursuit of moral purity is the most determined and arrogant, and their condemnation of any they decide fail that test most egregiously arrogant.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

On 12/9/2017 at 10:06 AM, Argus said:

The essence of the far left has always been a kind of moral purity which they infuse into all their political and ideological positions - and the zealousness with which they pursue those who fail their purity test (ie, those who disagree with them. And nowhere is this more obvious than among academics, those entitled elitists who have never been held to any standard of truth. There is no other profession which is so well-protected from incompetence or bizarre and outrageous conduct and statements. Witness the Lindsay Shepherd situation or any of the other ridiculous things which have been going on on college campuses. Thus it is among academics that this zealous pursuit of moral purity is the most determined and arrogant, and their condemnation of any they decide fail that test most egregiously arrogant.

So when people (often on the left) speak out about xenophobia, they are simply flogging what you call "moral purity" and should be ignored in favor of far right attitudes about people who don't look like them? Gotcha.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Omni said:

So when people (often on the left) speak out about xenophobia, they are simply flogging what you call "moral purity" and should be ignored in favor of far right attitudes about people who don't look like them? Gotcha.

Only if that's actually what they are doing.  The trick is to know the difference, and not just accept blindly whatever anyone on the left says because they in particular have a broomstick up their arse about the issue.  Like in the OP. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcsapper

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Only if that's actually what they are doing.  The trick is to know that, and not just accept blindly whatever anyone on the left says because they in particular have a broomstick up their arse about the issue.  Like in the OP. 

Are you trying to say it's hard to recognize xenophobia? The trick often is to examine the evidence provided to try and shore up the argument, and separating the wheat from the chaff therein. BTW, does that stick hurt? 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Omni said:

Are you trying to say it's hard to recognize xenophobia? The trick often is to examine the evidence provided to try and shore up the argument, and separating the wheat from the chaff therein. BTW, does that stick hurt? 

I've never had one, so I don't know.  If I get upset over an issue, it's usually bad enough that I don't need a broomstick to remind me that I should be upset.

Are we still talking about the OP, or do you have some other example?  Because it does seem like some people have trouble.

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I've never had one, so I don't know.  If I get upset over an issue, it's usually bad enough that I don't need a broomstick to remind me that I should be upset.

Are we still talking about the OP, or do you have some other example?  Because it does seem like some people have trouble.

Then why bring broomsticks into the mix?

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

Then why bring broomsticks into the mix?

It's symbolic of the measures some people will go to to be upset about something they aren't, but think they maybe should be.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's symbolic of the measures some people will go to to be upset about something they aren't, but think they maybe should be.

Oh, I see. Sounds sort of contradictory to me.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Oh, I see. Sounds sort of contradictory to me.

I've never considered the alternative, to be honest.  All those people who claim to be upset about triggers and microaggressions, about fairy tales and folk tunes, about views with which they do not agree but are perfectly valid nonetheless, are actually outraged!?!?

Can we harness that somehow?  AGW wouldn't stand a chance.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I've never considered the alternative, to be honest.  All those people who claim to be upset about triggers and microaggressions, about fairy tales and folk tunes, about views with which they do not agree but are perfectly valid nonetheless, are actually outraged!?!?

Can we harness that somehow?  AGW wouldn't stand a chance.

You'll have to ask them I guess.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

So when people (often on the left) speak out about xenophobia, they are simply flogging what you call "moral purity" and should be ignored in favor of far right attitudes about people who don't look like them? Gotcha.

Case in point... ^^^

No interest in discussion or dialogue, and little knowledge of the subject matter anyway. Decisions based upon the color of immigrants and thus driven to fiery denunciations and smearing of anyone who critiques immigration.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Case in point... ^^^

No interest in discussion or dialogue, and little knowledge of the subject matter anyway. Decisions based upon the color of immigrants and thus driven to fiery denunciations and smearing of anyone who critiques immigration.

My knowledge of the subject doesn't come from typically biased summaries such as the Fraser Institute. 

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

My knowledge of the subject doesn't come from typically biased summaries such as the Fraser Institute. 

Your knowledge of the subject is non-existent, much as your interest in it. You don't know or care anything about it or its costs or possible consequences other than the majority of those involved are not white. That's as far as it goes in your decision to attack and smear anyone who complains about it.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Your knowledge of the subject is non-existent, much as your interest in it. You don't know or care anything about it or its costs or possible consequences other than the majority of those involved are not white. That's as far as it goes in your decision to attack and smear anyone who complains about it.

A challenge begets insults. How typically argus.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

A challenge begets insults. How typically argus.

A SJW enters a topic not to talk about the actual topic but to attack one of the posters, then complains when they're returned.

Snowflakes are so emotional.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

A SJW enters a topic not to talk about the actual topic but to attack one of the posters, then complains when they're returned.

Snowflakes are so emotional.

Been around that block with ya before. As have others. You're entitled to your stance.

[Boges]

How is this song Xenophobic?