Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No - I said I supported her and the decision from my first post I think.

You supported the decision but not for her sake at all. You said it was because it 'showes the system balances rights'.  But then your further statements disparaged her position at times and other times were ambiguous.

And this is the hard part talking to you - you make statements, then attempt to re write their meanings later. That has come up a number of times in this conversation alone. 

 

Quote

3. Yes, probably.
4. They can speak but we don't have to let them in to every discussion.

And again you're wrong.

They dismiss her becasue they consider her a Chud. You agree. Yet you claim that she should have been allowed to speak and should not have been denied. Those two statements are in conflict.  Followed by "we don't have to let them into every discussion" - and given we're discussing the school board and it's actions you are once again supporting silencing people you don't like such as what happened to her. 

And you're wrong. You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion a public group like the school board has.  They have EVERY RIGHT to discuss their concerns the same as everyone else.

So while you try to pretend you don't support the school boards decision to violate her rights and toss her - your words make it clear that you do .

I'm sure you'll attempt yet again to vigourously redefine what you meant but either you're an 1diot who cannot express himself clearly on numerous occasions OR you simply aren't being honest about your stance, flipping back and forth as it suits.  I tend to favour the latter as the most likely answer. 

 

Quote

5. Well, apparently they DO.  Is it right ?  No, not always.  I try to be careful about such things but guess what I'm wrong too sometimes.  The right of "everyone" to speak isn't disputed.  But when you start talking about details... what kind of speech, what kind of meeting, what topics ... you are automatically stepping away from the 'chud' moniker by being careful and thoughtful.  

It's never right.  And passing off your own hatred and bigotry towards others who you would silence and whos rights you would violate as "i'm wrong sometimes too"  is simply a joke.

Followed by "the rights of everyone to speak isn't disputed, but not everyone should have the right to speak, i should get to assign caveates as  i see fit".

 

Do you know why you have to go back and "creatively reinterpret" what you said previously so often? Its for the simple reason that your thoughts and beliefs conflict with what you want people to think you believe.

You don't believe in free speech.

You don't believe people should be allowed to express their ideas even if different than yours,

You don't believe anyone who you don't personally approve of should be given a voice.

But you want people to think you do.

So you walk this weird line between "Everyone should speak - but not everyone should speak".

You're no conservative. You're a totalitarian left wing socialist who believes that personal rights come second to your vision of what a 'proper' society should be. You're the farthest thing in the world from being conservative  (I know, i know)

 

[DUI_Offender]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1-second Google search found this: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/02/15/87-books-removed-florida-schools-pornographic-violent-inappropriate-data-shows/

Well the Nazis also banned books when they came to power, declaring them "pornographic" so this is no unprecedented in history. BTW, you may want to find a more reliable source than "The Daily Signal" which is pretty much a borderline Nazi site in itself. 

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

https://www.facebook.com/TorontoDragQueenStorytime/  I found your FB page!

How mature, Skippy.

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 for leftard dimwits to get control of other people's children. 

lol...I'm always amazed about the absolutely batshit insane conspiracy theories that people will believe. 

[DUI_Offender]

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh my! 

Hey folks...is there a list for potential sex offenders? I think we have a candidate here. If nothing else but a "groomer".

People who think like you are often sexually attracted to young children.  Not always, but far more than the general population. Once again, another forum member projecting his sexual deviancy onto others, as a deflection technique. 

[OftenWrong]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I use the term to warn people off them.  It's kind of like 'troll'.  Therefore she is not one.
2. Yes, I will try to be clear.  i don't think i changed my mind but I was probably unclear fair enough.
3.  I used different wording to describe each ruling separately.  One could interpret the different words I used to be contradictory, or ... not.  I'm not so careful with my writing here so as to preclude any contradiction at all from arising from my words.  And since you do not trust me at all, you saw the contradiction.  That's my take on it.  With the last post above I hopefully clarified.  My primary focus on here is always to focus on our public sphere and its supporting institutions. 

I do support Trans rights but not unequivocally and furthermore I understand that the concepts are new and strange and that THAT has to be considered.  I also recognize my own biases in not giving enough respect to opponents at times, so I have to go back and look at examples to see if I overstepped or made a mistake.  Talking through these things clarifies, smoothes over mistrust and reinforces institutional strength IMO.  ( That's why I consider myself conservative... I know, I know, I know...)

Do your feet touch the ground when you walk at all? Just wonderin'

 

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Do your feet touch the ground when you walk at all? Just wonderin'

 

Yeah, you're repeating yourself. You know that right?

 

The person who thinks they're smarter than academics, economists, anyone accuses someone else of being arrogant. I guess that's it right?

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

People who think like you are often sexually attracted to young children.  Not always, but far more than the general population. Once again, another forum member projecting his sexual deviancy onto others, as a deflection technique. 

A groomer...making gross accusations to cover his intentions. 

How very obvious. Now where's that list?

[DUI_Offender]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

A groomer...making gross accusations to cover his intentions. 

 

It's ok.

 

There is help for your unhealthy obsession with 13 year old girls, you can still lead a productive life, and keep under the radar of the law. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by DUI_Offender

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

It's ok.

 

There is help for your unhealthy obsession with 13 year old girls, you can still lead a productive life, and keep under the radar of the law. 

Lol.

[I am Groot]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:54 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Vague and unhelpful. Teenagers who question their gender exist.  Trans people exist.

Both are true. But also vague. From what I've read almost everyone who is truly suffering from gender dysmorphia realizes it quite early in life. Well before puberty, in fact. The current environment, in which adults in their thirties and forties are suddenly 'trans' is nonsensically unscientific. 

As for teens, they're subject to fads. How many of those teenagers questioning their gender are doing so because of how fashionable it is and because of encouragement from various quarters? Except we're not allowed to ask. The rote response from authorities is to support their own belief, whatever it is, despite the human brain not being fully developed yet and teens being famously unable to really grasp future consequences.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Both are true. But also vague.

2. From what I've read almost everyone who is truly suffering from gender dysmorphia realizes it quite early in life. Well before puberty, in fact. The current environment, in which adults in their thirties and forties are suddenly 'trans' is nonsensically unscientific. 

3. As for teens, they're subject to fads. How many of those teenagers questioning their gender are doing so because of how fashionable it is and because of encouragement from various quarters?

4. Except we're not allowed to ask. The rote response from authorities is to support their own belief, whatever it is, despite the human brain not being fully developed yet and teens being famously unable to really grasp future consequences.

1. Ok - not for me to say whether what I write is clear so... I meant to juxtapose those statements against the ones from Perspektiv.  Mainly that 'exposing children to ideology' (his statement) needs to be more fully explained in the context of those two things.

2. I don't get it.  Because it's rare for people to feel that way, that's unscientific ?  

3.  Yes - I agree that the emergence of Transgender people is creating an environment where people criticize your point as being anti-Trans.  I don't think it is.  Anybody who raises a concern that people are not screened adequately should be engaged on these concerns respectfully and factually. From a CBC article on the process:  "Before puberty blockers or hormone therapy can be considered, WPATH guidelines recommend that all youth be assessed by a qualified health-care professional who has studied psycho-neurodevelopment in adolescence."  

4. Well the Board of Education certainly fell prone to your assertion here.  They have been brought into a system of dialogue via the judiciary.  I reserve the right that the proces should only be for people who engage in good faith though.  I asserted that some do not but we haven't looked at those examples yet.

[Zeitgeist]

“Human rights!” has become yet another slogan to silence, dismiss, and categorize someone as bigoted while eliminating one of the most fundamental human rights of all: free speech.  When school boards arrogate the authority to discern which discussions are admissible when such presentations contain no slurs against any groups and no slander against individuals, we find ourselves back in front of a Maoist/Stalinist committee for the discernment of counter-revolutionary thoughts and behaviour.

The whole purpose of school board meetings, parliaments, city councils, and town halls is to discuss and debate.  Any time that discussion is squelched, the organization opens itself up to accusations of pushing through an agenda without due process.  It undermines public confidence in the organization and creates conditions for backlash.

When governments fund special interest groups like Egale, which then uses our tax dollars to propagandize, influence, and sue organizations, it’s very hard not to feel like an agenda has been pushed on the public without a public mandate or consent.  The government funded Human Rights Tribunal is similarly run by radical activists.

Our current federal government has made this mistake too many times, kowtowing to special interests at the expense of the public, both figuratively and literally.  It’s the grandstanding, “Look, I’m progressive. I’m sending a big delegation to the climate conference (in private jets). I’m funding Indigenous activists (who are going to sue our governments and denounce Canada as settler colonial).  I’m welcoming millions from all different cultures into Canada (who will need housing and some will denounce Canada as settler colonialist and commit terrorist acts).”

Canada has shot itself in the foot on constitutional rights and Canadian traditions.  This attack on free speech is just one example among many of anti-Canadian forces in our institutions.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

It's ok.

 

There is help for your unhealthy obsession with 13 year old girls, you can still lead a productive life, and keep under the radar of the law. 

As i recall it was you who brought up the 13 year olds, apparently all meeting at a friends place to watch double penetration porn.  Said it happened to you all the time when you were a kid 

[DUI_Offender]

Just now, CdnFox said:

As i recall it was you who brought up the 13 year olds, apparently all meeting at a friends place to watch double penetration porn.  Said it happened to you all the time when you were a kid 

"Three's Company" is porn?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

"Three's Company" is porn?

It is according to  you.  Honestly if you can't be bothered to read what you write i'm not sure why the rest of us should bother.

[DUI_Offender]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It is according to  you.  Honestly if you can't be bothered to read what you write i'm not sure why the rest of us should bother.

More projection.

It appears you lack basic comprehension skills. I will have to dumb it down.

If I were you, I would consider filing a lawsuit against your special education institution.  They failed you miserably.

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And you're wrong. You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion a public group like the school board has. 

That depends on how the meeting is being run. If it's run according to Robert's Rules of Order time can certainly be allocated for the discussion of anything but there is a process to follow. If you're suggesting trying to shoehorn your issue into EVERY issue under discussion is appropriate for a public meeting you're endorsing a chaotic aimless meeting that won't accomplish much if anything.  It usually comes down to having an experienced effective chairperson keeping things on track. The effectiveness of your board usually reflects that fairly quickly.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

   When school boards arrogate the authority to discern which discussions are admissible when such presentations contain no slurs against any groups and no slander against individuals, we find ourselves back in front of a Maoist/Stalinist committee for the discernment of counter-revolutionary thoughts and behaviour.

By this principle, you would allow the pro-child sex group NAMBLA to speak then, right?

 

Come ON, man... live in the real world.  If you want government to work even less efficiently then accommodation of holocaust deniers and fringe dwellers is a great plan.

 

And I don't see how you would keep them out using your principles here.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[suds]

So the Judge determines that Burkowski did not do or say any of the things her accusers accused her of, and surmised that to (further) justify their incompetence to the public they attempted to 'assassinate her character'. Sound familiar?

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by suds

[suds]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

When school boards arrogate the authority to discern which discussions are admissible when such presentations contain no slurs against any groups and no slander against individuals, we find ourselves back in front of a Maoist/Stalinist committee for the discernment of counter-revolutionary thoughts and behaviour.

There's one way to fix that.....  the voting booth.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

By this principle, you would allow the pro-child sex group NAMBLA to speak then, right?

 

Come ON, man... live in the real world.  If you want government to work even less efficiently then accommodation of holocaust deniers and fringe dwellers is a great plan.

 

And I don't see how you would keep them out using your principles here.

Easy, organizations/speakers like that are clearly against the longstanding values of the organizations and their members, by the very definition of the organizations. Why would an organization that opposes pre-marital sex allow child sex, let alone pedophilia?   Get real. The Holocaust denier wouldn’t get any traction and would soon realize this, but again the contravention of organizational values is clear.  Are you saying that opposing young children reading books about transgenderism and sex is morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust or promoting child sex?  You don’t make sense.  

Edited December 2, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Perspektiv]

8 hours ago, I am Groot said:

From what I've read almost everyone who is truly suffering from gender dysmorphia realizes it quite early in life.

Every single gay person I know, just knew they were different from very early on.

Am asexual. I knew from a very young age, that I had serious touch aversion. Later in my teens, I *really* knew I was different. 

Nobody needed to help guide me. I just knew. Most I knew who were like me, by nature were gender nonconforming. 

I was always gender nonconforming. Adding gender norms that are more confusing wouldn't have helped me, and many others. Most will figure their own shit out.

Just like a person experiencing gender dysphoria, will just know. 

Many are seduced by the trend, but many will also sue the living daylights out of doctors who didn't give them time to figure their shit out, without making permanent changes to their bodies.

I knew a girl who split her tongue in half, tattooed most of her face in reptilian print, and got her eyeballs colored.

Last I heard of her, she was (shockingly) homeless and likely can't get a job.

Teens make dumb decisions all the time.

Sure adults do too, but they are then at an age where its their own choice and consequence to do so, vs adults pushing bullshit onto them.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

By this principle, you would allow the pro-child sex group NAMBLA to speak then, right?

Yes - You Let Them Speak.

Assuming it's related to the schools you let them speak and share whatever they want to.  Then you consider it and in their case probably point out what they want is illegal and also oh hell no and thank you very much and F*ck off -  but you listen to them first and then you make that determination.

 

Why is this so hard for you? YOU DON"T GET TO SILENCE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE THEM.

 And you pretend to be a " conservative "??

You know - a lot of people feel the same way about the transgender lobbies as you seem to about nambla - so if they're on the board is it ok to tell them they can't speak?

You couldn't be much further to the left.  Cancel culture is a terrible way to run democracy

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Easy, organizations/speakers like that are clearly against the longstanding values of the organizations and their members, by the very definition of the organizations.

2.  Are you saying that opposing young children reading books about transgenderism and sex is morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust or promoting child sex?   

1. Well, you are basically asking for the system we have now but run by people who share your values.  The people in charge now reject speakers that don't accept the stated values of the board.  You don't want a different system, just different people with different values.  Fair enough but how do you think you are going to replace an entire system ?  It's not so simple right ?

2. I'm only asking you to take a systemic look at it.  Any authority is going to use a framework to instill values that they have.  They will have a process that ostensibly strives for objectivity, balance etc.  The system in place now claims to be that.  You don't believe it.  So as far as I can see you have you vs. them.  And I don't see how you would be able to put a system in place that's much different.

I would rather discuss these things at a systemic level at this point.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Yes - You Let Them Speak.

2.  YOU DON"T GET TO SILENCE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE THEM.

3. And you pretend to be a " conservative "??

4. You know - a lot of people feel the same way about the transgender lobbies as you seem to about nambla - so if they're on the board is it ok to tell them they can't speak?

5. You couldn't be much further to the left.  Cancel culture is a terrible way to run democracy

1. Ok.  Well at least you are principled.  I can't imagine that happening though.
2. I would like to silence all-caps for sure.  Your assessment that "I don't like them" is a guess at best.
3. I would bet that among conservatives there would be a good chunk unwilling to let NAMBLA speak at a school board meeting.
4. I just asked the question.  Your response is principled, take the win.
5. Lots of so-called conservatives love cancelling. DeSantis, for example.

But I appreciate your argument.  Thanks for the discussion.

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - You Let Them Speak.

Assuming it's related to the schools you let them speak and share whatever they want to.  Then you consider it and in their case probably point out what they want is illegal and also oh hell no and thank you very much and F*ck off -  but you listen to them first and then you make that determination.

The above is a lot different than when you said;

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You DO have to let them into EVERY discuion a public group like the school board has.  They have EVERY RIGHT to discuss their concerns the same as everyone else.

Everyone gets at least one opportunity to speak, more if they succeed at securing a motion that makes their issue a business matter for the board to address in subsequent deliberations and motions that act on those deliberations. Without these your issue is tabled and the board/discussion moves on to the next item.  If you insist on ignoring the rules that govern the discussion you could find yourself in a pickle.

You have issues with following well-established processes.  Nothing would ever get done in any discussion especially in a public one if it treated evidence the way you do for example - demanding impossible evidence then citing its absence and insisting your proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. IE refusing to acknowledge the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

It sounds like the board screwed up how it ran things which led to this becoming a federal case.  Most public boards I've been on or seen in action had an accounting or municipal officer to keep the board from doing something outside the rules usually due to misunderstanding their scope of responsibility but sometimes to try and push the envelope on issues.