Jump to content

Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism


Recommended Posts

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/court-victory-for-teacher-silenced-for-transgender-book-criticism

An Ontario judge has declared that human rights legislation “does not prohibit public discussion of anything,” in a free-speech victory for a teacher who was shut down when she raised concerns at a school board meeting about transgender-themed books in elementary school libraries.

“What happened here should not happen in a democratic society,” Ontario Superior Court Justice James Ramsay said in the case of now-retired teacher Carolyn Burjoski.

“The Human Rights Code does not prohibit public discussion of issues related to transgenderism or minors and transgenderism. It does not prohibit public discussion of anything.”

The judge was ruling on an attempt by the Waterloo Region District School Board to have Burjoski’s defamation lawsuit against the board and its former chair, Scott Piatkowski, thrown out.

Burjoski’s ouster from a board meeting on Jan. 17, 2022 drew international attention. She was ejected after discussing publications she said are available in the libraries of kindergarten to Grade 6 schools. She had begun to argue the books made it seem too simple and “cool” to medically transition to another gender when Piatkowski cut short her presentation.

She launched a defamation lawsuit, which the board sought to have thrown out. In a Nov. 23 ruling, Ramsay dismissed the bid and ordered the board to pay Burjoski $30,000 in costs. He said her claims have merit and should be allowed to proceed, adding the comments made against her were “defamatory.”

 

 

This is a fantastic win.  If you have seen what she said and the books she referred to and the passages in it she definitely had a point, and they  threw her out and hounded her into the hospital for daring to stand up for children.

This is a major victory against the woke hard left trans/gay community and their brown shirts who seek to silence anyone who DARES to even consider questioning their logic.

30 grand just for legal fees and the defamation suit is still to come.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...

This is a fantastic win.  If you have seen what she said and the books she referred to and the passages in it she definitely had a point, and they  threw her out and hounded her into the hospital for daring to stand up for children.

This is a major victory against the woke hard left trans/gay community and their brown shirts who seek to silence anyone who DARES to even consider questioning their logic.

.....

"Fantastic win"?

"Major victory"?

=====

I simply don't see such an issue in such a way. 

I'll be honest: Kids changing gender/sex? I oppose. They're too young to know/decide. Older people? Live and let live. 

Edited by August1991
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, August1991 said:

"Fantastic win"?live. 

Yes.

Quote

"Major victory"?

Umm yes - was your account hacked by a parrot?

Quote

I simply don't see such an issue in such a way. 

Well you don't seem like the kind of person who believes much in free speech so that's understandable.

Quote

I'll be honest: Kids changing gender/sex? I oppose. They're too young to know/decide. Older people? Live and let

We're on the same page there but this really wasn't about the gender wars the trans and gays have started recently.

This was about a teacher who's served for decades who had legitimate concerns about kids in grade one being exposed to graphic accounts of sex and glorification of being transgender without context of the problems associated, and when she attended a school board meeting to discuss it (and was quite respectful, i've seen the vid of it) she was nastily dismissed and then the school hounded the hell out of her and mistreated her so badly that she retired. They claimed she'd violated the civil rights act and that they would seek to charge her if she didn't go away.

Destroying someone's life just because they question whether a book involving sex and sexuality is appropriate for grade 1 is beyond inappropriate.  She should have been allowed to raise her concerns for discussion and been treated fairly after. 

 

That's why this is a victory. It's sending a clear message - if you try to cancel someone and destroy their life for just discussing a subject you don't want discussed or questioning if something is appropriate - there could be serious ramifications. People should be free to discuss anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

I'll be honest: Kids changing gender/sex? I oppose. They're too young to know/decide. Older people? Live and let live

Most people side with you, which is why its a hot button topic.

Kids should be off limits to gender ideology. They are far too young to understand it.

Let kids be kids.

Definitely live and let live when you reach 18 years of age. Do as you please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. ..  had legitimate concerns about kids in grade one being exposed to graphic accounts of sex ...

2. The school hounded the hell out of her and mistreated her so badly that she retired.

3. They claimed she'd violated the civil rights act and that they would seek to charge her if she didn't go away.

4.  She should have been allowed to raise her concerns for discussion and been treated fairly after. 

5. ... there could be serious ramifications.

6. People should be free to discuss anything.

I'm very happy with the ruling, chiefly because it shows that the system is able to balance the rights of free expression and those who need to be protected.

So, can those who make extreme and fatalistic claims about the state of our public sphere and institutions please take note

IOW liberalism lives.

That said, we have a clear indication that dialogue will continue.  If you are following what is happening, it would be great help to be precise and accurate in your language.

1. The article doesn't say that at all.

2. This is a framing of the actions of an institution that suspended someone they suspected of policy violation.  The language you use make it seem like it was a vengeful campaign but that's not supported by the source.

3. I didn't see that in the article.  Charge her?

4. Agree.

5. I highly doubt that there would be serious ramifications for the School Board members.  I don't see any indication that they acted unprofessionally in the ruling, just that they were wrong to disallow her comments.

6. With limits.  School board meetings are not the place to talk about everything.  Some parents think that you should be allowed to talk about whether transgenderism is real at a school board meeting.  I think it's irrelevant to the day-to-day business of running a school board.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. Kids should be off limits to gender ideology. They are far too young to understand it.

2. Let kids be kids.

Vague and unhelpful. Teenagers who question their gender exist.  Trans people exist.  We should be explaining how our communities function with such minorities for the purpose of public health and civics.

"Let kids be kids" is a mindless feel-good statement like the term "parents' rights" that doesn't clarify anything.  

If we're going to care about the kids, let's not be hypocrites and make a conversation that goes nowhere to actually help them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Teenagers who question their gender exist. 

Notice I said kids, right? Anyone under the age of 12, should be off limits to gender ideology.

Their brains at young age, see things rather literally. So when you tell such a person that gender is infinite, they take it literally and can't read between lines or see nuance.

I'm black and grew up in the hood. I had to learn street smarts at a very young age. I saw consequences for failures to do so, as young as 6, seeing an older friend getting stabbed, with him urging me to run, all the while I couldn't compute the blood, wounds and what was going on as he broke free and ran towards me.

I was surrounded by white middle class kids in school. By your logic, they should be taught street smarts, to make me feel included. 

Be taught about drugs really young.

About poverty really young. A fatherless home. Life and death decisions that will result in you being successful, dead or in jail simply based on who you choose to follow.

About what prostitution is, because you saw one get beat a hair away from death by a furious pimp who was owed money. About being paranoid  when someone reaches into their pockets during an argument, as you have had guns and knives pulled on you.

So on and so forth.

You will confuse the living daylights out of kids who don't have to experience what I did. Who have two parent homes. A suburban upbringing.

Don't understand why I ate the same sandwich daily. Bologna, two slices of bread, and mustard, while they had feasts.

All this information without context, isn't trying to inform anyone.

12 onward is the earliest you would remotely start introducing these concepts in school.

Gender ideology should be based on fact however, not activist renderings.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We should be explaining how our communities function with such minorities for the purpose of public health and civics.

I see it like the kindergarten teacher I knew who prided themselves on teaching critical race theory to students.

She would proudly beam about standing all students against a wall, and enumerate perks that once you associate one into your life, would allow you to walk forward.

IE "Which one of you have two parents?" "Which one of you have a car for your house".

Long story short. By the end, all white kids would have walked across the class, and the immigrants were standing against the wall.

It had its effect, as the white kids felt horrible for all the things that they had, as if they had anything to do with the plight of those other students.

Its guilt and shaming. Doesn't, how you put it, do anything plus is..

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Vague and unhelpful.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Vague and unhelpful. Teenagers who question their gender exist.  Trans people exist.  We should be explaining how our communities function with such minorities for the purpose of public health and civics.

"Let kids be kids" is a mindless feel-good statement like the term "parents' rights" that doesn't clarify anything.  

If we're going to care about the kids, let's not be hypocrites and make a conversation that goes nowhere to actually help them.

For someone lecturing others about "a mindless feel-good statement", you sure make a lot of them.

Ya wanna help kids? 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2201248835511

Watch this. You'll see some of the images in these...helpful books for little kids. Hell Playboy was less graphic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

1. For someone lecturing others about "a mindless feel-good statement", you sure make a lot of them.

2. You'll see some of the images in these...helpful books for little kids. Hell Playboy was less graphic.

1. I accept your lecturing of me here.  Call out my mindless feel-good statements and I will explain and/or recant.
2. Well... I can't tell exactly which books are for kids and which aren't, and the context for everything in that video.  I think it's fine to oppose books being openly available to pre-teen children and to ask to have certain books for parents to be aware of.  But that's dialogue.

What is NOT dialogue is this zealot calling everything 'pornography'... and I have no doubt she is exaggerating.  I would ban her from all meetings and libraries for accusing people of being pedophiles and using that lie as a device to cancel books that other parents want to make available to their kids.

If you think she is acceptable to be included in the dialogue then you have to accept hard-left people who outright accuse others of things without basis also.  That's called a principle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Notice I said kids, right? Anyone under the age of 12, should be off limits to gender ideology.

2. I'm black and grew up in the hood. I was surrounded by white middle class kids in school. By your logic, they should be taught street smarts, to make me feel included. 

3. Be taught about drugs really young. About poverty really young. A fatherless home. Life and death decisions that will result in you being successful, dead or in jail simply based on who you choose to follow.

4. You will confuse the living daylights out of kids who don't have to experience what I did. Who have two parent homes. A suburban upbringing.  All this information without context, isn't trying to inform anyone.

5. 12 onward is the earliest you would remotely start introducing these concepts in school.

6. Gender ideology should be based on fact however, not activist renderings.

7. I see it like the kindergarten teacher ...

 

1. Look at that !  We had a dialogue and arrived at some clarity.  So let's continue by replacing "kids" with "pre-teens" and I'll bet I will agree with a lot more of what you write.

2. Well, your take on what being Black (in Canada? Toronto?) is kind of negative to me, but that's your experience.  If you were a parent - not sure if you are - I would like to hear what you would suggest teaching kids to make them aware that Black culture is a thing. 

3. Actually, this sounds pretty compelling.  I defer to your experience here.  There used to be a program called 'scared straight' wherein convicts would go to schools and lecture kids about their hard lives.  I think that the program wasn't really evaluated and/or seen as successful but ... the broader context of teaching kids about social relations in the community I'm all for that kind of thing.

4. 5. I doubt that.  Even if it's happening a few kilometers away, it's the same community.  And if we're talking teenagers they would be aware of reality through popular culture.  Interesting idea though.

6. "ideology" "activist renderings" ... not specific enough for me to agree/disagree.  

7. Bad teacher... fix the system and include ratting out bad teachers who don't follow guidelines IMO

7. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm very happy with the ruling, chiefly because it shows that the system is able to balance the rights of free expression and those who need to be protected.

So, can those who make extreme and fatalistic claims about the state of our public sphere and institutions please take note

IOW liberalism lives.

That said, we have a clear indication that dialogue will continue.  If you are following what is happening, it would be great help to be precise and accurate in your language.

1. The article doesn't say that at all.

2. This is a framing of the actions of an institution that suspended someone they suspected of policy violation.  The language you use make it seem like it was a vengeful campaign but that's not supported by the source.

3. I didn't see that in the article.  Charge her?

4. Agree.

5. I highly doubt that there would be serious ramifications for the School Board members.  I don't see any indication that they acted unprofessionally in the ruling, just that they were wrong to disallow her comments.

6. With limits.  School board meetings are not the place to talk about everything.  Some parents think that you should be allowed to talk about whether transgenderism is real at a school board meeting.  I think it's irrelevant to the day-to-day business of running a school board.

 

It’s highly relevant to the day to day running of school boards because use of pronouns has become front and centre, to the extent that Ottawa-Carleton no long refers to girls and boys or he/she or him/her.  Everyone is they/them, which seems like a form of dehumanization or at the very least a denial of identity.  It’s an assertion of a grammatically incorrect subject-pronoun (dis)agreement.  It’s compelled speech.  It’s denial of biological reality.  It also seems highly related to the particular self-interest of the board’s transgender Chair.  Similar switching off of the microphone at board meetings has happened when delegates questioned dubious board policies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. It’s highly relevant to the day to day running of school boards because use of pronouns has become front and centre, to the extent that Ottawa-Carleton no long refers to girls and boys or he/she or him/her.  

2. Everyone is they/them, which seems like a form of dehumanization or at the very least a denial of identity.  It’s an assertion of a grammatically incorrect subject-pronoun (dis)agreement.  It’s compelled speech.  

3. It’s denial of biological reality.  

4. It also seems highly related to the particular self-interest of the board’s transgender Chair.  Similar switching off of the microphone at board meetings has happened when delegates questioned dubious board policies.  

1. 2. You can argue the specifics of pronoun use without trying to waste time by arguing whether Trans people should be afforded special consideration or even rights.  It's not necessary and not productive to the discussion and disparages people who are part of the community unnecessarily.

3.  That's where you are wasting peoples' time.  The discussion on that level is out of the range of what the school board has any influence on or cares about arguing.  They're not going to change general policy towards affording rights to Trans people because that's the law, and the general approach of tolerance is not controversial.   

4. 'Dubious' how ?  I will bet that the trustees have a more detailed and nuanced take on the engagement on these issues than we realize (I mean either of us).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. You can argue the specifics of pronoun use without trying to waste time by arguing whether Trans people should be afforded special consideration or even rights.  It's not necessary and not productive to the discussion and disparages people who are part of the community unnecessarily.

3.  That's where you are wasting peoples' time.  The discussion on that level is out of the range of what the school board has any influence on or cares about arguing.  They're not going to change general policy towards affording rights to Trans people because that's the law, and the general approach of tolerance is not controversial.   

4. 'Dubious' how ?  I will bet that the trustees have a more detailed and nuanced take on the engagement on these issues than we realize (I mean either of us).

Discussion of policy is silenced in the name of “human rights” with regularity.  Not only is this an infringement on free speech, it makes it impossible to debate ideas or set policy through careful consideration and discussion.  The overwhelming take-away is that such policies and the newly created “rights” are handed down from on high without public awareness, let alone discussion or questioning.  It creates a sense among the public that a small group of well-funded and highly motivated activists are setting policy that isn’t necessarily in the public interest if by public we mean the majority of people.  I understand the value of minority rights.  However, we’re seeing longstanding rights like free speech, religious rights, women’s rights, men’s rights, etc.

The reason we’re finally seeing populist conservative pushback is because the public is waking up to the tremendous ideological capture of our governments and public institutions, including schools.  The “Huma Rights Tribunal” which exists because of funding and government will has an outsized influence on how our society operates.  It looks far too much like social engineering run by equity activists.  One group is the tail that wags the dog.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I accept your lecturing of me here.  Call out my mindless feel-good statements and I will explain and/or recant.
2. Well... I can't tell exactly which books are for kids and which aren't, and the context for everything in that video.  I think it's fine to oppose books being openly available to pre-teen children and to ask to have certain books for parents to be aware of.  But that's dialogue.

What is NOT dialogue is this zealot calling everything 'pornography'... and I have no doubt she is exaggerating.  I would ban her from all meetings and libraries for accusing people of being pedophiles and using that lie as a device to cancel books that other parents want to make available to their kids.

If you think she is acceptable to be included in the dialogue then you have to accept hard-left people who outright accuse others of things without basis also.  That's called a principle.

1. Meh...we all "pontificate".

2. Dialogue that is not happening. If I remember correctly, the lady didn't call "everything" pornography. She called cartoon porn...pornography.

Accept left-wing whining? I can accept left-wing accusations as being opinions of folks...which every one of us has the right to have and express. Thus I...personally...would not tell people to leave, or ban them, for having left-wing opinions. I would argue with them...probably even return their accusations with some of my own. And THAT...Mike...is how people insist on debating today. Hell even in our own parliament they flirt with direct accusations. Civility has certainly taken a beating since...well since Orangemanbad didn't just 'blow onto the scene', he blew the friggin' scene up. For which I salute the odd little fat guy. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Discussion of policy is silenced in the name of “human rights” with regularity.  

2. Not only is this an infringement on free speech, it makes it impossible to debate ideas or set policy through careful consideration and discussion.  

3. The overwhelming take-away is that such policies and the newly created “rights” are handed down from on high without public awareness, let alone discussion or questioning.  

4. It creates a sense among the public that a small group of well-funded and highly motivated activists are setting policy that isn’t necessarily in the public interest if by public we mean the majority of people.  I understand the value of minority rights.  However, we’re seeing longstanding rights like free speech, religious rights, women’s rights, men’s rights, etc.

5. The reason we’re finally seeing populist conservative pushback is because the public is waking up to the tremendous ideological capture of our governments and public institutions, including schools.  The “Huma Rights Tribunal” which exists because of funding and government will has an outsized influence on how our society operates.  It looks far too much like social engineering run by equity activists.  One group is the tail that wags the dog.  

1. Ok, how about "Dehumanization of groups happens in the name of policy discussion regularly" ?
2. It is possible to debate ideas - especially if you do it in the right forum.  Going to a School Board meeting to try to assert that Transgenderism isn't real is a pointless waste of time.  They're there to discuss things that they have control over, not things that they don't.
3. Well, sure.  How is that different from everything else our institutions do ?  Our courts, our elected governments and our universities do not engage with "the" public very much at all.   Some things are given a good amount of discussion - I would put the FTA and same-sex marriage in that group.
4. "A sense" ... but is it founded ?  Does anybody think that there is a mass opposition to inclusion of LGBTQ or same-sex marriage ?  If someone fuels the belief that a small group of well-funded activists are making policy change when it's not the case - well, what's happening there ?  Are we supposed to take everything else they say at their word ?  It seems to me that there's pretty clear hypocrisy there if that is the case.
5. In my experience, if people are doing well economically then they go along with everything else.  When things start to go badly for the economy then scapegoating starts to happen and populists of left- and right- do very well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Meh...we all "pontificate".

2. Dialogue that is not happening. If I remember correctly, the lady didn't call "everything" pornography. She called cartoon porn...pornography.

3. Accept left-wing whining? I can accept left-wing accusations as being opinions of folks...which every one of us has the right to have and express.

4. Thus I...personally...would not tell people to leave, or ban them, for having left-wing opinions. I would argue with them...probably even return their accusations with some of my own.

5. And THAT...Mike...is how people insist on debating today. Hell even in our own parliament they flirt with direct accusations. Civility has certainly taken a beating...

 

1. And I welcome it.  You tell ME when I'm being a hypocrite and I will retract.  I have retracted at least two major assertions that I have made due to mistakes on my part recently.  Is it embarrassing ?  Sure.  But I don't think I can criticize others for being wrong without admitting when I am.

2. Sure... She is saying that the books align with the criminal code of Canada.  Her opinion or purposeful exaggeration ?  Does she really think the cartoons in the clip amount to "porn" ?  Or is she overstating her case to persuade low-information low-engagement members of the public ?

3.  4. So someone accusing you of being a real-world pedophile and racist is ok with you, in that you would consider to engage with them and listen to other points they make ?  Pretty generous of you if so.

5. Right, well - which side are you on though ?  Do you want to dial back to a place where civility and productive discussion can happen or not ?  From the end of that clip it seems like you're a fan but you also say you would just make false accusations yourself.  To me, fixing dialogue at a national level means fixing it at the individual level.  If people have a standard for good conversation, acceptable conversation then how would it not bubble up to our leaders ?

Food for thought anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

An Ontario judge has declared that human rights legislation “does not prohibit public discussion of anything,” in a free-speech victory for a teacher who was shut down when she raised concerns at a school board meeting about transgender-themed books in elementary school libraries.

That bolded part right there, all by itself, basically tells you all you need to know...

Anyone who doesn't already know where I'm going with this won't understand it if I explain it to them, so I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm very happy with the ruling, chiefly because it shows that the system is able to balance the rights of free expression and those who need to be protected.

So, can those who make extreme and fatalistic claims about the state of our public sphere and institutions please take note

IOW liberalism lives.

That said, we have a clear indication that dialogue will continue.  If you are following what is happening, it would be great help to be precise and accurate in your language.

1. The article doesn't say that at all.

2. This is a framing of the actions of an institution that suspended someone they suspected of policy violation.  The language you use make it seem like it was a vengeful campaign but that's not supported by the source.

3. I didn't see that in the article.  Charge her?

4. Agree.

5. I highly doubt that there would be serious ramifications for the School Board members.  I don't see any indication that they acted unprofessionally in the ruling, just that they were wrong to disallow her comments.

6. With limits.  School board meetings are not the place to talk about everything.  Some parents think that you should be allowed to talk about whether transgenderism is real at a school board meeting.  I think it's irrelevant to the day-to-day business of running a school board.

 

1 - yes it did. It didn't claim she was right - but it did claim her concerns were legitimate and not banned by the human rights act and she should have been heard.

2 - It is absolutely a vengeful campaign - which is why it's a 'defamation' lawsuit.

3 - Yup. Go do some research  THey were pretty brutal to her.

4 - That's nice

5 -  Of course there could be - they're now defendants in a defamation lawsuit that the judge here has all but said they're likely to lose and that she's got a valid case. The school just had to shell out 30  grand already for her legal fees - the suit could cost hundreds of thousands.  You think thats not going to have an impact on the reputation of the trustees who defamed her?

6 - You don't get to "Think" about it. Which is for the best.  People are supposed to be free to raise any concerns they want that impact or involve the school system the board presides over.  The fact YOU don't think it's relevent or that THEY don't think it's important is utterly meaningless.

Which is what has lead to the lawsuit.

 

She brought up valid concerns, and rather than be allowed to express them she was tossed out and then attacked personally and harassed till she had to quit.

This is a victory - and now the defamation suit can continue and hopefully she'll win there as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, how about "Dehumanization of groups happens in the name of policy discussion regularly" ?
2. It is possible to debate ideas - especially if you do it in the right forum.  Going to a School Board meeting to try to assert that Transgenderism isn't real is a pointless waste of time.  They're there to discuss things that they have control over, not things that they don't.
3. Well, sure.  How is that different from everything else our institutions do ?  Our courts, our elected governments and our universities do not engage with "the" public very much at all.   Some things are given a good amount of discussion - I would put the FTA and same-sex marriage in that group.
4. "A sense" ... but is it founded ?  Does anybody think that there is a mass opposition to inclusion of LGBTQ or same-sex marriage ?  If someone fuels the belief that a small group of well-funded activists are making policy change when it's not the case - well, what's happening there ?  Are we supposed to take everything else they say at their word ?  It seems to me that there's pretty clear hypocrisy there if that is the case.
5. In my experience, if people are doing well economically then they go along with everything else.  When things start to go badly for the economy then scapegoating starts to happen and populists of left- and right- do very well.

So for you everything is about capital.  It’s important that you understand the ideological framework of that lens, which is materialism or Marxism.  Freeland has the same angle.  It’s much more common in our institutions than people realize.  The problem with your perspective is that there is no moral imperative except an economic one.  We are only consumers, exploiters, and workers.  As a Christian and a spiritual person, I have to believe there’s a greater moral imperative centred around the sacredness of each individual and the family.  It’s perhaps a socially conservative position relative to current prevailing ideology, which is EDI, ESG, materialist, and nihilistic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, how about "Dehumanization of groups happens in the name of policy discussion regularly" ?

Says the guy who calls people 'chuds' all the time.

Quote


2. It is possible to debate ideas - especially if you do it in the right forum.  Going to a School Board meeting to try to assert that Transgenderism isn't real is a pointless waste of time.  They're there to discuss things that they have control over, not things that they don't.

See - this is what i mean about you attempting to change the channel in a dishonest fashion.  AT  no time did anyone attempt to debate if transgenderism is real.  And to the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER brought that up as the main topic at a school board meeting.  At best they might claim that the school policy may be flawed because they're not convinced all kids who think they're transgendered are transgendered - and that's perfectly legit considering some of the school policies.


But - no, you have to change it to something else.

And the bottom line is this - if it is tied in any way to the schools, then you don't get to 'downplay' it and decide other people should be silenced and lose their rights to speak just because you disagree with them and therefore feel it's pointless.

And you call yourself a conservative. Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1 - yes it did. It didn't claim she was right - but it did claim her concerns were legitimate and not banned by the human rights act and she should have been heard.

2 - It is absolutely a vengeful campaign - which is why it's a 'defamation' lawsuit.

3 - Yup. Go do some research  THey were pretty brutal to her.

4 - That's nice

5 -  Of course there could be - they're now defendants in a defamation lawsuit that the judge here has all but said they're likely to lose and that she's got a valid case. The school just had to shell out 30  grand already for her legal fees - the suit could cost hundreds of thousands.  You think thats not going to have an impact on the reputation of the trustees who defamed her?

6 - You don't get to "Think" about it. Which is for the best.  People are supposed to be free to raise any concerns they want that impact or involve the school system the board presides over.  The fact YOU don't think it's relevent or that THEY don't think it's important is utterly meaningless.

7 - She brought up valid concerns, and rather than be allowed to express them she was tossed out and then attacked personally and harassed till she had to quit.

8 - This is a victory - and now the defamation suit can continue and hopefully she'll win there as well.

1. The part about depictions of sex... the article said her concerns were elsewhere.
2. She is asserting that she was defamed but that doesn't speak to whether it was done vengefully or not.  I didn't see anything in the description that indicated these were personal vendettas.
3. But "charge" her ?  With what ? 
5. Reputation ?  Yes possibly.  But they won't be personally impacted at least not as much as she waas.
6.  Supposed to, why ?  You think that you are allowed to say anything at all in a School Board meeting ?  The fact that YOU think it's acceptable is utterly meaningless.  They have business to conduct, and they don't have to listen to every Chud who wants to expound on his flat earth theories... 
7. Yes we established that.  "Tossed out" = "Suspended" , "Quit" = "Retired with full pension" ... clarity, my son...
8. We shall see... at least if she loses you won't be able to crow that the courts are compromised, there's not any justice etc... which is a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you call yourself a conservative

Its like a born male demanding to be seen no different than a woman at all times. Appendages intact in all. Public showers, gynecologist, you name it.

One issue. They look like Pauly Shore in drag. Oh, and have a penis, prostate and anus.

Using a speculum in the latter to make her feel included, is beyond silly, plus unhygienic, considering where the tool is supposed to go.

It looks fantastic on paper, sounds better for policy, but the elephant in the room then grows so large, not addressing it almost becomes torture for most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Says the guy who calls people 'chuds' all the time.

2. See - this is what i mean about you attempting to change the channel in a dishonest fashion.  AT  no time did anyone attempt to debate if transgenderism is real. 

3. And to the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER brought that up as the main topic at a school board meeting. 

4. But - no, you have to change it to something else.

5. And the bottom line is this - if it is tied in any way to the schools, then you don't get to 'downplay' it and decide other people should be silenced and lose their rights to speak just because you disagree with them and therefore feel it's pointless.

6. And you call yourself a conservative. Bah.

1. Chuds are humans.  I haven't called anyone on here a Chud.
2. It's an example and it does happen/has happened.  People trying to attend a meeting and misgender people, call them mentally disturbed, insult them etc.  To what end ?  The board isn't going to reverse policy based on rights legislation.  It's trolling at best, hate speech at worst.
3. You think nobody has ever denied the legitimacy of Transgender people in a school board meeting ?  
4. Well... if I'm wrong about this then I will change my position on the school meetings.  I seem to remember the big issue in the Eastern Ontario school was that parents had their microphone cut off because they were denying Transgenderism as a phenomenon.  

Isn't my position on speakers asking a question legitimate ?  If you agree with me then we are at a crossroads: if indeed that happened you will agree with me that that's not a legitimate line of questioning yes ?  Inappropriate for a meeting of that type ?  If it didn't happen, then I have to agree with you that the parents were talking about policy in the domain of what the board was doing and should have been able to speak ?

5. I don't get to decide anything any more than you do.  The Board and parents and citizens decide what's ok.  Nobody gets to veto the other side and get their way.  

6. Yes, because I favour Transgender rights.  Freedom means you p1ss people off who hate the site of a transgender girl... Maybe the offended person will skulk off... maybe they'll get an apology...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. And I welcome it.  You tell ME when I'm being a hypocrite and I will retract.  I have retracted at least two major assertions that I have made due to mistakes on my part recently.  Is it embarrassing ?  Sure.  But I don't think I can criticize others for being wrong without admitting when I am.

2. Sure... She is saying that the books align with the criminal code of Canada.  Her opinion or purposeful exaggeration ?  Does she really think the cartoons in the clip amount to "porn" ?  Or is she overstating her case to persuade low-information low-engagement members of the public ?

3.  4. So someone accusing you of being a real-world pedophile and racist is ok with you, in that you would consider to engage with them and listen to other points they make ?  Pretty generous of you if so.

5. Right, well - which side are you on though ?  Do you want to dial back to a place where civility and productive discussion can happen or not ?  From the end of that clip it seems like you're a fan but you also say you would just make false accusations yourself.  To me, fixing dialogue at a national level means fixing it at the individual level.  If people have a standard for good conversation, acceptable conversation then how would it not bubble up to our leaders ?

Food for thought anyway.

1. Healthy.

2. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/carter-in-the-classroom/parents-face-off-over-graphic-content-and-lgbtq-books-in-school-libraries/2817649/

Watch the video. The graphics can't even be shown clearly on TV news. Yet were found in elementary schools. Now...while all the Libbies...or most of 'em anyway...whine away about "book burning" and other such nonsense...There are actually laws that are there to prohibit this sort of adult oriented material from being in your grandchild's elementary school library. Those laws exist for a reason...right?

3&4. Book Burners...NAZI...Fascist...etc versus Pedophile. So fcking what? Freedom to express your opinion...remember? That the sort of crap evident in the clip in the link above, makes mothers a tad...expletive...is fairly understandable...wouldn't you say?

5. Leaders are supposed to "LEAD". Things don't "bubble up"...they seep down.

Food? Mike I just finished making a fudge chocolate cake with milk chocolate icing. I'm quite sure it'll be yummy...and I'm equally sure my wife is-a-gonna gimme raw Hell about eating it, when she gets back from work. ;)

 

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Watch the video 

2. Book Burners...NAZI...Facist...etc versus Pedophile. So fcking what? Freedom to express your opinion...remember?  

3. Leaders are supposed to "LEAD". Things don't "bubble up"...they seep down.

4. Food? Mike I just finished making a fudge chocolate cake with milk chocolate icing. I'm quite sure it'll be yummy...and I'm equally sure my wife is-a-gonna gimme raw Hell about eating it, when she get back from work. ;)

 

1. I can't tell what was blurred out but it seems like it shouldn't be given to under-18 to me.
2. You're not addressing my point.   If you think it's ok to effectively lie about people in the midst of talking about an issue that you're trying to resolve together ... it sure isn't "so fcking what" in my books.  Why would you trust anybody who did that to come to a solution ?  You'd just be eradicating their position entirely, which means you'd go nowhere.  

IOW - "they're going to lie and cheat so I will too"  

Doesn't lead to anywhere good from what I can see.

3.  They don't though.  They look at polling, they see what's happening in the world.  Same-sex marriage came about because regular folks stopped opposing it.  Or, more accurately, the ones against it started dying off.

4.  You are lucky to have a wife to support your cake habit.  Enjoy your afternoon nap i guess.. I'll go take mine now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...