Community Input On Education Policy Banned

[Zeitgeist]

It’s becoming very clear that mere opinion-based school board policy such as “gender affirmation” of students by educators without informing parents is being mandated without parent input.  Even school trustees representing a large number of parent opinions are being banned from meetings merely for questioning such policy.  This is not an open or fair process.  What’s more, these board policies, which are highly experimental, may be causing lasting damage to children, constituting child abuse.  It’s time for parents across Canada to band together, push back, and take legal action if necessary.  The silencing of parent voices that represent a significant percentage of the population sets a very dangerous anti-free speech precedent.  Parents are feeling powerless and school boards seem to face no obligation to table different opinions and defend their policies.  One end of the political spectrum is dictating policies.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-school-trustee-trans-policy/wcm/46c5cc0e-6e49-49d2-9cc4-43760f19e642/amp/

[Michael Hardner]

The article doesn't explain all the allegations, which are in this report:

https://calendar.ddsb.ca/meetings/Detail/2023-02-06-1945-Special-Board-Meeting/9c68e08c-aeea-4a86-b655-af9e00f4e0ed

She also complained that the school shouldn't talk about White Supremacy....

[Zeitgeist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The article doesn't explain all the allegations, which are in this report:

https://calendar.ddsb.ca/meetings/Detail/2023-02-06-1945-Special-Board-Meeting/9c68e08c-aeea-4a86-b655-af9e00f4e0ed

She also complained that the school shouldn't talk about White Supremacy....

Do you know why?  You don’t know how those words are being used to describe a very wide swath of cultures and how loosely that term is applied to people, including students for innocuous perceived privilege.  It’s got nothing to do with intent either.  You’re oblivious to the inquisitions underway.  How long since retirement, Mike?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

  You’re oblivious to the inquisitions underway.  How long since retirement, Mike?

Yeah, I post a link and some info and you go after me .... not surprising though ...

[herbie]

when I read this article this morning I wondered how log it would take for the peanut gallery of this forum to post threads defending a hater as the victim.

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I post a link and some info and you go after me .... not surprising though ...

That report is an extremely politicized opinion piece cloaked in legalease.  “Well-settled” human rights are referenced as being abrogated with no explanation as to how.  What a sad disaster.  Parents should be livid that their interests are silenced by a political faction that has railroaded the education system.  

Edited February 16, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I post a link and some info and you go after me .... not surprising though ...

Aaaaand downvote...

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The article doesn't explain all the allegations, which are in this report:

https://calendar.ddsb.ca/meetings/Detail/2023-02-06-1945-Special-Board-Meeting/9c68e08c-aeea-4a86-b655-af9e00f4e0ed

I didn't get that far into the report, but the report itself is just a bunch of unsubstantiated "allegations", but allegations is actually too strong word. It's really just whining. 

How is this even worth writing into a report?

Quote

4. Trustee Stone retweeted a post dated May 2, 2022 (https://twitter.com/coachblade/status/1521141518471360512) that purposely misgenders trans athletes and perpetuates dangerous falsehoods against transgender women, which not only contradicts the DDSB’s stated values and policies, but also violates the Ontario Human Rights Code policy on preventing discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

What she did wasn't against trans, it was in defence of girls. They shouldn't have to play rugby or fight in MMA against biological men, period. 

It's just brain-dead leftist drivel to say that it's fair for women to have to compete against men in general, but especially in combat sports. 164 lb men don't have to compete against 186 lb men in boxing if they don't want to, and they don't, for very good reason - because there's a huge difference between them. The difference between 154 lb men and 154 lb women is even bigger, and to deny that is just leftist dogma/drivel/stupidity.

Layla Ali is considered one of the greatest women of all time in boxing. She fought up to 168 lbs. How do you think she'd do against Sugar Ray Leonard? Tommy Hearns? Roberto Duran? Hector Camacho? Oscar De La Hoya? Shane Mosley? Ike Quartey? Arturo Gatti? Mickey Ward? Manny Pacquiao? Would she win a single round against even one of those guys? Would she last a round? Would you even watch her fight against one of those guys? Gross. 

The woman was correct, and honest, not "perpetuating falsehoods". People like Fallon Fox shouldn't be beating up girls. It's disgusting. 
 

Quote

She also complained that the school shouldn't talk about White Supremacy....

Do you have a cite?

I see comments like this:

Quote

She has made commentary about gender, transgenderism, suggested that schools are ‘encouraging’ gender dysphoria and denied the scope of white supremacy and systemic racism. 

which don't deny that we should talk about white supremacy at all. It just means that we shouldn't lie about it. Leftists like to lie about it. 

 

Bottom line is that she was elected to her position and I didn't see any evidence that she was saying or doing anything disqualifying. I just a lot of whining and stupidity from leftist toads. 

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I didn't get that far into the report, but the report itself is just a bunch of unsubstantiated "allegations", but allegations is actually too strong word. It's really just whining. 

How is this even worth writing into a report?

What she did wasn't against trans, it was in defence of girls. They shouldn't have to play rugby or fight in MMA against biological men, period. 

It's just brain-dead leftist drivel to say that it's fair for women to have to compete against men in general, but especially in combat sports. 164 lb men don't have to compete against 186 lb men in boxing if they don't want to, and they don't, for very good reason - because there's a huge difference between them. The difference between 154 lb men and 154 lb women is even bigger, and to deny that is just leftist dogma/drivel/stupidity.

Layla Ali is considered one of the greatest women of all time in boxing. She fought up to 168 lbs. How do you think she'd do against Sugar Ray Leonard? Tommy Hearns? Roberto Duran? Hector Camacho? Oscar De La Hoya? Shane Mosley? Ike Quartey? Arturo Gatti? Mickey Ward? Manny Pacquiao? Would she win a single round against even one of those guys? Would she last a round? Would you even watch her fight against one of those guys? Gross. 

The woman was correct, and honest, not "perpetuating falsehoods". People like Fallon Fox shouldn't be beating up girls. It's disgusting. 
 

Do you have a cite?

I see comments like this:

which don't deny that we should talk about white supremacy at all. It just means that we shouldn't lie about it. Leftists like to lie about it. 

 

Bottom line is that she was elected to her position and I didn't see any evidence that she was saying or doing anything disqualifying. I just a lot of whining and stupidity from leftist toads. 

Basically the report is a political angle on her remarks.  It’s more alarming evidence of why this country is broken.  

[OftenWrong]

Why is this their mandate, why are they wasting valuable taxpayers dollars to implement some experimental social reform program? Academic education is the mandate. Anything else needs to be challenged.

[myata]

Because: the genie is out of the bottle. Because yes, they can. And, they know it. And they know very well that there's nothing there to stop, check or even limit their drive to the glorious, all-inclusive future. Relax, now... too late.

.. because in about two centuries of the mindless slumber under great democracy lullaby nobody, maybe a handful in the whole place bothered to ask themselves, what a real democracy is, how can or should it be different from an imperial dominion (now left to its own matters by an empire that couldn't care).

Edited February 16, 2023 by myata

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

Because: the genie is out of the bottle. Because yes, they can. And, they know it. And they know very well that there's nothing there to stop, check or even limit their drive to the glorious, all-inclusive future. Relax, now... too late.

.. because in about two centuries of the mindless slumber under great democracy lullaby nobody, maybe a handful in the whole place bothered to ask themselves, what a real democracy is, how can or should it be different from an imperial dominion (now left to its own matters by an empire that couldn't care).

Democracy is but a fleeting dream in a book written by some old man, long long ago. Maybe there never was one. Instead what we have is just like in religious rule, if you do not ascribe to their definition of morality, you're treated as anathema.

"A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine."

I looked up what it means. It's one of the skills I learned, in my school.

[myata]

At least some folk in some (other, though) places try to think. Oh well.

[Nationalist]

I didn't read the whole pdf but, why are schools doing this? What exactly is the point?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Why is this their mandate, why are they wasting valuable taxpayers dollars to implement some experimental social reform program? Academic education is the mandate. Anything else needs to be challenged.

Socializing community values has always been a part of schooling.

Patriotic lessons, events such as Remembrance Day and good morals and civics are not a problem but when values change, those that hold traditional values are often left behind.

There's no easy rules for such situations, but it's the responsibility of the administration to facilitate such divisions in a pragmatic and positive way for all.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Democracy is but a fleeting dream in a book written by some old man, long long ago.  

Rights aren't subject to democracy, and the way things are going you should be thankful for that.

[OftenWrong]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Rights aren't subject to democracy, and the way things are going you should be thankful for that.

I'm not sure I like your tone...

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Socializing community values has always been a part of schooling.

Patriotic lessons, events such as Remembrance Day and good morals and civics are not a problem but when values change, those that hold traditional values are often left behind.

There's no easy rules for such situations, but it's the responsibility of the administration to facilitate such divisions in a pragmatic and positive way for all.

There's reflecting community values by teaching them in school, and there's leading the way. Who gets to lead the way?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

There's reflecting community values by teaching them in school, and there's leading the way. Who gets to lead the way?

The people lead the way.. marketplace of ideas and all that.  That IS where democracy lives... and it's a balance for sure.

But once the majority decides something new with regards to , and the courts back them up ... you have a change in values.  Once they decide a black person is a person, and a fertilized egg is not... the system makes that the rule - for everybody.  

You have to trust that process ... to a degree.  

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm not sure I like your tone...

Can you imagine a situation where a majority of Canadians become non-religious ?  Probably going to happen in the coming decades.  And they start deciding things like Churches should be forced to hire LGBTQ clergy ?  Democracy could deem that it has to happen right ?

[myata]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Patriotic lessons, events such as Remembrance Day and good morals and...

And now they just don't know where to stop... or how. Like do they really have to, why?

[myata]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Democracy could deem that it has to happen right ?

The difference: in a democracy, a real one, any law, policy, government decision has to reflect the will of the people. It's not that the people are always right, just that you know where it's coming from. Think of a jury trial.

And in a quasi-democracy, oligarchy, technocracy, aristocracy and all the way to totalitarianism you a) don't know and b) cannot know why certain decision was made. That is really, the only essential difference.

And now, choose one. You are completely free in your choice but you cannot have both, no don't mind sweet fairy tales.

Edited February 16, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

And now they just don't know where to stop... or how. Like do they really have to, why?

Stop ?  Did you want them to stop Remembrance Day ?

Why would they ever "stop" updating what is taught in schools ?

The world changes, like it or not.

[myata]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why would they ever "stop" updating what is taught in schools ?

Exactly my point. Why would they stop doing anything that they like. Like who or what else is there, in a happy democracy? Your benevolent ru- oh never mind that, democratic government always knows best what is good for you, dear. Before you even known it yourself just relax now, will ya.

Edited February 16, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Why would they stop doing anything that they like. Like who or what else is there, in a happy democracy?

2. Your benevolent ru- oh never mind that, democratic government always knows best what is good for you, dear. Before you even known it yourself just relax now, will ya.

1. I already explained that democracy is only part of the balance.  You assume that they're following their personal likes versus following what the community needs but it's immaterial.

2. It's not about me, but I'm sure it makes you feel better to see it that way.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You assume that they're following their personal likes

No, you aren't getting it. They are following the call of their hearts, to do good for the society, all of it and at once. And, they have bottomless well of (public) dough only need a bucket deep enough. And, they know there's nothing to stop or limit their goodness zeal not written anywhere in the great picture book nor otherwise. So why wouldn't they do it? Why wouldn't you, in their place?