The absolute insanity which has taken over western society as it relates to gender ideology can be traced back to one truly twisted individual – Dr. John Money. Born in New Zealand, Money is the father of the current “gender is a social construct” movement which has paralyzed politicians and media over the past decade.
Without diving too deeply into the warped beliefs and research of Dr. John Money, there is a Canadian connection which is important to review. It is well-documented how Dr. Money helped push his nonsense theory upon the medical community and then the public at large.
Money had long held the belief that gender and biology are not always consistent and the former is determined more by environment than by science/biology. However, without a real control group to prove his thesis the good doctor’s theory was just that… a theory.
The Reimer twins – Bruce and Brian – were born in Winnipeg, Manitoba on August 22, 1965 to Janet and Ron Reimer. A terribly botched circumcision of Bruce gave Dr. Money the opportunity for which he had waited. The young parents had heard about Money’s research and theories on gender. Having limited options to address the terrible surgical mishap that resulted in Bruce’s penis being partially severed the couple turned to Money for advice and guidance. The sick mind of Money finally had his control group to prove his theory. Bruce would undergo surgical gender reassignment surgery and be raised as a girl. Since this all occurred when Bruce was an infant he would have no real memory that he was actually a boy.
Dr. Money deemed the “experiment” with the Reimer twins a success and as proof that gender was in fact a social construct. The problem is that if you look at the life of both of the Reimer twins it could hardly be seen as “success”. Bruce became Brenda after undergoing surgery which removed his male genitalia and replaced it with a surgically constructed vagina. He lived as Brenda until he was 14 at which point after telling his parents that he always felt like a boy he was finally told the truth.
Bruce who had become Brenda was now David. He lived a tortured short life – dying in 2004 at the age of 38 by a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
And what of his twin brother Brian? He also died at his own hand, overdosing at the age of 36 on July 1, 2002.
This does not read like a medical “success” in the words of Dr. Money. In reality, it appears to be a horrible, sick tragedy which could have been avoided. Dr. Money was a sick person and should have been spending time in prison for his experimentation on the Reimer twins, which included sexual role play between the young “boys”.
Dr. Money is the messiah of the transgender ideological movement. The truth of why he is should confuse many once they know the background on his “research” into gender. The truth does still matter – this is all you need to know.
I have been paying some passing attention to the WNBA recently due to the emergence of their new superstar Caitlin Clark. The former University of Iowa star busted every collegiate scoring record not only for women but men as well. Over 138 games Clark put up 3,951 points which averages out to 28.4 points per game (it is important to note, “Pistol” Pete Maravich holds the men’s NCAA scoring record for most points. While he did score almost 300 fewer points than Clark did in college he did so in 55 fewer games. His per game average of 44.2 will likely never be surpassed).
After lighting up the competition in college, Clark has emerged on the scene in the WNBA as a true star. She is top-15 in scoring, averaging 16.8 PPG and is fourth in assists with 6.3 per game. The Indiana Fever guard is near the top of every category among rookies and leads in both scoring and assists.
The hype around the arrival of Caitlin Clark was measurable by the fact the WNBA Draft drew 2.446 million viewers on ESPN making it the most-watched draft in the history of the league. The attention continued as Clark’s debut in the WNBA drew over 2 million viewers making it the largest audience to watch a WNBA game in 23 years and the largest cable broadcast of a WNBA game ever!
Clark’s arrival has led to greater television and live audiences which has meant more revenue for a league that has consistently been in the red since it was founded in 1996. A league which many of us sports fans had dubbed the “friends and family” league because that was essentially the audience, has suddenly become relevant, largely due to Clark.
So what has been the reaction to this possible savior – a player who has put the WNBA in the discussion on sports shows, has created social media buzz and has helped the league recognize a once seemingly impossible goal of being financially self-sufficient? In a word, that reaction can politely be described as… puzzling.
Here are some of the inexplicable events surrounding the Caitlin Clark debate and my take on each.
The Caitlin Clark rules
Nobody is saying that any star player in any league should be treated with so-called kid gloves. However, if you are speaking of a possible generational talent who could lead a financially stagnant league out of the wilderness, maybe the league should be sending a message to players who believe that taking liberties with Clark is all part of the game.
You see, one could make the case that in the NBA or NFL or NHL that giving a rookie star player a rough ride is OK because those leagues are “established” and their teams are profitable. However, when the WNBA has been thrown a life-line in the form of a sharp-shooting guard, maybe, just maybe, you take some reasonable measures to protect that lifeline.
The league and even the on-court officials seem to be unaware of the importance that Clark and her health play into the success of the WNBA. This isn’t the 1989 Chicago Bulls’ Michael Jordan in a thriving NBA. The GOAT was literally assaulted on the court in an effort to slow him down. That said, Jordan wasn’t the savior, he was a continuation of the foundation laid over the years, most recently in the 1980s by Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.
Most of this star (mis)treatment of his Airness, which came to be known as the “Jordan Rules”, occurred during play. This was not the case in a game involving Caitlin Clark on June 1 when she was fouled when the ball was not even in play. A hard off-the-ball foul by Chicago Sky guard Chennedy Carter on an inbounds pass inexplicably did not even initially warrant anything more than a common foul (it was upgraded after the game to a flagrant one foul).
There are many takeaways from the incident. The most important of those is that the league believes it is totally OK for opponents of Clark to operate outside the rules when they wish to “send a message” to the rookie phenom.
There are some other puzzling takeaways. First, there are the comments of Adam Silver, Commissioner of the NBA. You would think that the head of the league that has been financially propping up the WNBA for years would want to protect the NBA’s indirect investment. When Silver said in the aftermath of the incident that the foul was a “welcome to the league” moment for Clark and was “nothing new in basketball” I wonder if all the franchise owners in the NBA concurred. While on their face, Silver’s comments may have been correct the commissioner again is not speaking of a league, the WNBA, which has been financially stable. It was poor form by Silver to effectively endorse illegal play which could have led to the injury of the league’s golden ticket.
Another issue I have with what happened to Clark was the response of her teammates. The non-reaction of Clark’s teammates was, in my opinion, stunning. I have played various team sports and there has always been a pack mentality among teammates. When someone goes after your star player there must be a swift and appropriate response by that player’s teammates. The response does two things, it creates a stronger team bond and it draws a proverbial line in the sand. For those who have not played team sports at a competitive level you will not understand this schoolyard justice. When a bully punches you in the nose, you punch them back or they will continue to play the bully. Clark’s teammates clearly missed the memo on this point.
The Mean Girls of the WNBA
“Kudos to all of this women they have really made WNBA interesting… beside three point shooting what does (Clark) bring to the table man.” Chennedy Carter doubling down on her disdain for Caitlin Clark
The above quote is by no means the only one we have seen from WNBA players in relation to Caitlin Clark. The question is why? What can be the explanation for such vitriol directed toward a player who quite literally is breathing life into what was a stale league? I am searching my memory to remember this type of treatment for another “next one” player in any league and anyone can correct me if I a wrong but I just cannot recall this level of hate for a player.
Most times when a player like current young guns Connor Bedard (NHL); Victor Wembanyama (NBA); Trevor Lawrence (NFL) are being spoken about by veterans n their league it is in a positive manner. The respect is almost tangible. This is not to say that these young stars get a free pass on the playing surface but outside of the game they get the flowers they deserve from opponents.
This is not the case with Clark. Not only is she being abused on the court she is getting abused off it as well. There are multiple theories as to why but I think the possible reasons can be attributed to old fashioned jealousy and at least to some degree, race. Charles Barkley, a veteran of the NBA wars and a current NBA television analyst offered a candid take on the “cattiness” (his word – not mine but for the record I agree with his choice of words) of some WNBA players as it relates to Caitlin Clark.
Barkley focused mostly on the jealousy factor but there are those who have raised the specter of race as what may be behind some of the negative treatment of Clark. You see, Caitlin Clark is a white woman not only competing but exceling in a league dominated by black players. Almost two-thirds of all WNBA players are black. By comparison, just over one out of every ten players are white. Could it be that all the discussion of race over the years has gotten in the heads of some of the black players in the WNBA? I do not know definitively but in support of by belief is Angel Reese and how she has been treated. Reese is another WNBA player drafted this season and one who is putting up impressive numbers but is not receiving the same type of flames on or off the court from other players. By the way Angel Reese is black.
By contrast, the NBA has a number of white stars which the league and their fans embrace – most notably, Luka Doncic and three-time league MVP Nikola Jokic. While there are some NBA analysts such as Kendrick Perkins who have ridiculously brought up race to explain why, for example, Jokic has won multiple MVPs, most players just marvel at the play of Jokic and Doncic. Race doesn’t matter in the NBA. The league lived through the greatness of Larry Bird. The league and their fans understand when they see a “baller”, regardless of that player’s skin colour.
The biggest stage requires its biggest attraction – the Olympic slight
This last point is probably the one which can be filed under “what the hell were they thinking?”. In this case, the “they” is USA Basketball and the “what” is leaving Caitlin Clark off this summer’s Olympic team.
When the USA women’s basketball roster was announced this week it was an opportunity for USA Basketball to cash in on the celebrity of Caitlin Clark. Let’s be clear, it is not as if including Clark would have been controversial from a talent perspective. What it would have been from a purely marketing point-of-view is… smart.
I will never claim to know a great deal about basketball but it does not take a marketing genius to understand that including Clark on the roster for the Paris Games would have been a financial boon for women’s basketball. All of the millions of Caitlin Clark fans would have been hanging on every interview by the star and most importantly watching every minute of every game in which Team USA played (not to mention, buying all those Clark jerseys). People point out that Clark would have likely seen limited minutes, but so what? Her sitting on the bench would have drawn more viewers and sold more merchandise than a team without her as part of the roster.
I see a bit of a parallel with another young superstar in another sport. Back in 1991 hockey fans were salivating at the chance to watch an 18-year-old Eric Lindros compete on the international stage. Hockey Canada seized on that wave of interest and named Lindros to their 1991 Canada Cup roster. Recognize that Lindros who was a runaway number one draft pick at the NHL Draft in June of the same year had not played a single NHL game and you can see the comparisons. The difference is that Hockey Canada put aside all the cliches of saying Lindros had to “pay his dues” or leaning on tired assertions that he would “be a distraction to the team” and simply gave the fans what they wanted – the best young star since Mario Lemieux was drafted in 1984 playing on the stage with the best players in the world.
The decision by USA Basketball to leave Caitlin Clark off their Olympic roster guarantees one person for sure (and I am certain many others)- the author of this piece, will not be tuning in to watch even a single minute of women’s basketball at the Olympics.
Intersectionality has become a woke mantra for the oppression Olympics
As a society we cannot look anywhere without someone or some group claiming some type of victimization. Words like “marginalized”, “oppressor” and “racialized” have become part of the verbal tool-kit of the race and gender hustlers who, make no mistake, aim to profit from weaving, at best an exaggerated story and at worse a largely fabricated narrative.
There are far too many examples of this disingenuous story-telling on which to shine a light so I will just select three to examine. Buckle up, this may get bumpy.
FREE -FREE PALESTINE! (from Hamas?)
Ever since the October 7 attack by a group of Hamas-led terrorists I have had a desire to take in information from both sides to create an informed opinion. Forming an opinion is quite easy. You seek out a diversity of opinions on a subject and determine the credibility of not only the material but the source. What I have found on one side is a subset of that dogmatic toolkit of words I mentioned in the opening.
Me and my friends often played drinking games (shh, don’t tell my kids) where we would be forced to take a drink every time we heard a word. I do not suggest you do any version of this game with the words “genocide” or “occupier” or “settler colonialism” or “apartheid state” as the triggers to take a drink when you watch any interview featuring a pro-Hamas… oops, I mean pro-Palestinian speaker. I promise, should you play this drinking game, you will be face first on the floor after a few sentences from the person speaking in support of the Palestinians.
Don’t get me wrong, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians caught in the literal cross-fire of the current conflict between Hamas and Israel (note, I do take issue with the portrayal by the media and politicians of women and children as “innocents”. The assumption from this is that NO women and NO children have/are participating in terrorist activities. That is just patently not true and is designed to play on the emotions of the public.). However, unlike the group of students at Harvard who signed a letter, before the bodies of Israelis (many of whom were civilians) slaughtered on October 7 had even been counted, laying FULL responsibility on Israel – I have critical thought on my side. Turning Israel into the demon in the October 7 massacre, while seemingly justifying the actions of the attackers is in a word… absurd. There is absolutely no justification for the barbarism that occurred on October 7 in Israel. Full stop.
Further to the discussion of the oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who really is oppressing them? Since 2005 when the Israeli government unilaterally exited from Gaza the real oppression of the citizens of that tiny strip of land truly began. You see, Hamas who were elected to govern Gaza in a free election in 2006 have done nothing to improve the life of Gazans. Unless you believe that somehow building a network of terror tunnels beneath Gaza or launching rockets into Israel somehow has improved the life of the average person living in Gaza.
Hamas, which ironically was founded not as a radical Islamic terrorist group but as a humanitarian aid organization, has done nothing but make life unbearable for the people who put them in power. International aid and support poured into the region after 2006 and most of that has been used not to build infrastructure to support the possibility and hope of a new Palestinian state but rather to fund a truly genocidal goal – the eradication of Israel.
There has been much discussion of Israel’s “blockade” (take a drink) of Gaza by those on the pro-Palestinian side, especially but not exclusively on university campuses. Do some of these useful idiots who masquerade as intelligent students not realize that prior to October 7 thousands of Gazans travelled freely to Israel for work? Do they also not know that one of the border entry points into Gaza, the one at the southern city of Rafah, is controlled by Egypt and NOT Israel? Have none of these people heard of Google?
The leaders of Hamas have profited immensely from the oppression narrative. Many of these individuals are not in the devastated Gaza strip wondering when the fighting will stop but rather they are living in the lap of luxury in Qatar. Remember, follow the money.
I do believe that Palestinians living in Gaza have been oppressed. The question is who is the oppressor? For me (and many rational people) the answer is obvious… Hamas.
D.E.I. (Division – Exclusion – Indoctrination)
OK, I cannot take credit for coming up with the acronym above but it sure does accurately capture the true meaning of the DEI movement that has swept through our society. Nowhere is DEI actually about “diversity”, nor “equity” nor “inclusion”- no matter what the claims in support of this belief from the race hustlers.
What is “diversity”? To the aforementioned race hustlers of the world diversity can be judged by one shallow characteristic – skin colour. OK, yes disabled or LGBT (I refuse to add the rest of the alphabet to the acronym. Consider it my silent hetero protest against the identity politics madness) are also included as a nod to how they have allegedly been oppressed. Now, if you are a trans/disabled/black woman you are at the top of the oppression spectrum known by progressives as intersectionality and thus are coveted by employers, politicians, media and advertisers.
Here is the problem. None of these traits which make up each person operate in a vacuum. Would Lebron James’ or Barack Obama’s family be more disadvantaged than a poor white family from Appalachia? Would the gay black woman who grew up in an upper middle class family in the Forest Hill area of Toronto be more oppressed than a poor white straight man living in Winnipeg? According to the logic of the race hustlers the answer is a resounding… yes.
The idea that we cannot look beyond immutable characteristics of individuals such as race and sex to help form a real understanding of how that person is or is not oppressed, seems counter-intuitive. Some of the poorest municipalities in the United States are majority white areas. Also, academics such as Thomas Sowell have pointed out that married black couples have far greater household income on average than single parent white households. These two facts support the truth that disadvantage is not necessarily connected to the colour of a person’s skin. Cultural factors such as an absence of fathers in the household or a generational reliance on welfare are just two factors which should be part of the discussion.
The dogmatic doctrine of DEI has led to companies making it a central factor in hiring. Many employees are required to participate in “anti-racism” training (brainwashing?) which at the core is designed to identify the oppressed class and the oppressor class. Simply put, if you are a white straight male you are by default, a member of the latter group. Those in the group need to “recognize their whiteness” and “check their privilege”.
The so-called oppressed group has been told that they are victims. Everything is always about race. According to leading anti-racism academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo racism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Absolutely everything that happens in our society can be traced back to race. Any rational person can see how divisive this ideology can be. Labelling anyone as part of the privileged or disadvantaged group before knowing their stories, which have played a part in shaping their lives, removes any nuance to the debate.
Behind this movement is the almighty dollar. I have pointed out before how many billions of dollars are now dedicated to DEI initiatives. Companies have added entire departments dedicated to promoting this divisive doctrine. Post-secondary institutions now have disciplines and departments fully dedicated to pushing this agenda. Courses like Gender Analytics: Gender Equity through Inclusive Design or Human-Centred Design for Inclusive Design offered at the University of Toronto are just some of the now common cult-like DEI offerings at so-called institutions of higher learning.
There is some hope that the identity politics which has taken hold is being challenged and the pendulum will swing back to a place of sanity. Chris Rufo, a conservative pundit, has coined another acronym – EMC (Equality: Merit: Colour-blindness) which is beginning to receive widespread support. This is the concept that these three pillars should be the over-arching consideration for companies and universities when the hire/promote/admit individuals. What a novel concept – the most qualified candidates will get the job/promotion/spot in a program REGARDLESS of their group identity – equality instead of equity.
The US Supreme Court also cast a vote for the EMC side of the debate by striking down the common use of affirmative action admissions at post-secondary institutions. (The irony of affirmative action admission standards is that it disproportionately negatively impacted Asians more than any other group. So much for white privilege) Hopefully, the Supreme Court ruling will help turn off the DEI money faucet.
BLM (Buy -Luxury-Mansions)
Looking back at the events of 2020 I believe that a fire was ignited. Some will say that it was a purposeful fire – like a controlled burn. I maintain that the fire was more like wildfire – devouring everything in its path, an out of control conflagration, one which society is collectively still fighting to get under control.
Some may argue that this actually began in 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained momentum with a some high profile cases. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Matt Lauer were just three celebrities who were exposed as abusers. These A-list celebrities made it easier for women (and in a few cases, men) to come forward with their stories of abuse.
However, if MeToo was the kindling, George Floyd was the gasoline which caused the societal blaze we are still dealing with today. The problem is that, as it is with many causes, there are those who seek to sow false narratives and profit from these narratives. In the case of the tragic events surrounding the death of George Floyd those people have become known in many circles as “race hustlers”.
These race hustlers are comprised of both individuals and groups. At the top of the food chain of these profiteers is one group that was founded over ten years ago but only gained widespread acceptance in the wake of the George Floyd incident. That group is of course Black Lives Matter or BLM for short.
I mentioned these leeches in the previous section on DEI but I did not provide a definition. Let me step back for a moment and explain the meaning “race hustlers”. When you think of a hustler you get an image of a con artist who has one real goal – to separate a “mark” from their money. So a race hustler is simply someone who uses race to profit in an unsavory way.
I remember all the black squares appearing on social media in the wake of George Floyd’s death. I also remember anyone like me who said let’s wait to hear the whole story before we make a conclusion being publicly shamed and ridiculed for not getting in line with the narrative that white police officers were “hunting” young black men on the streets of the United States, and yes even here in Canada. Rationality and critical thinking made me conclude that this narrative was not only false, it was dangerous and divisive.
The black squares on social media paved the way for the race hustlers (the black square and the response to those who resisted to post it reminded me of this scene from a Seinfeld episode). They had been given the legitimacy to push their narrative which led to the majority of the population in many western countries to feel a collective guilt for the death of George Floyd. Guilt often is wielded by some to get the public to open their wallets.
For those of you who go grocery shopping or to the LCBO to grab a bottle of wine, think how often you are greeted by a request for a donation to a variety of charities. It doesn’t stop with the more formal requests inside the store but it often continues with you being greeted by a request from presumably homeless individuals for money as you exit the building. I have learned to numb myself to the feeling of guilt when asked for money regardless if the request comes from a legitimate charity or a less fortunate person because if I didn’t say “no” I might soon become the person looking for help.
The death of George Floyd led to the type of guilt gouging mentioned above multiplied many times over. The difference this time was that the guilt was coupled with judgement for those who didn’t feel right about what was going on around them. The emotion of the events had led people to just throw away their ability to question the legitimate nature of those who seemed to be sowing the seeds of guilt and division. The proverbial fox was in the hen house.
BLM collected, by some calculations, almost $100 million USD in less then one year. Wallets were not just opened, they were emptied. And it wasn’t just guilty individuals, it was corporate guilt as well. Companies, big and small, were falling over each other to give to BLM or other similar charitable organizations.
So what happened to all that money? It went to help at-risk black communities or fund programs designed to improve the lives of those experiencing “systemic racism”, right? Guess again. The money donated has essentially evaporated and the only real beneficiaries seem to be individuals connected with BLM. Don’t believe me, read it for yourself .
I could write multiple posts about the shadiness and outright fraudulent activities of BLM but I don’t want to get mired in the muck of this (Marxist) organization. Let me just say I am glad that I was one of those that kept his wallet firmly closed to this corrupt organization.
All three of the cases briefly outlined above have one cynical thread in common – cash. Remember these sage words of wisdom before you support any initiative – and definitely the three discussed in this piece – “a fool and his money are soon parted”.
So, I have been following the Harrison Butker controversy and frankly, I don’t understand the outrage. People are losing their shit over what Butker said. Don’t believe me? Well, just check out the online petition demanding the Kansas City Chiefs “dismiss” Butker for “discriminatory remarks”.
First, let’s understand, that the petition characterizing what the Kansas Chiefs kicker said as “remarks” is just a little misleading. This wasn’t some post-game interview or even an appearance on one of the many podcasts out there (not, that this matters one iota to me). Butker had been invited by Benedictine College, a Catholic post-secondary institution located in Atchison, Kansas City, to deliver the graduation address. It is important to note that this is a CATHOLIC institution, promoting CATHOLIC values. Anyone can disagree with these values but remember… context matters. The audience was… CATHOLIC. Butker wasn’t speaking to anyone else.
The fact that the speech went viral does not change the audience. Just because some people viewed the speech (or in many cases, just excerpts) and were outraged speaks more about those individuals than Butker. To be clear, anyone can be offended but it’s what individuals do after they are offended which interests me.
Any reasonable person would conclude that Butker – a devout Christian – is walking the walk of the faith in which he believes. I wonder if this school were, say a Muslim school promoting Islamic values if the outrage would be as pronounced? My guess is that with terms such as “Islamophobia” being used pretty liberally by media, politicians and the public the response would be muted.
How did we get here? When did our society become so polarized that we cannot just disagree with another’s opinion? Now, the collective feels the need to silence opposing voices and deplatform the speakers. Harrison Butker is just another in a long list of targets of these attempts at censorship.
This is just an opinion but the cancel police appear far more prevalent on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Don’t mistake me saying this with any possible support I may have for opinions on the far right or far left. I find both equally problematic. It just appears that the silencing of opinions calls are coming predominantly from the left.
Now, on the Butker brouhaha, I have heard the same old arguments like “free speech doesn’t mean speech free from consequences.” While this is true what exactly does that look like? What are the “consequences”? Who is the arbiter of “acceptable” speech?
Increasingly, the answer to the second question is that taking away someone’s professional career is the required “consequence”. To the latter question, the only answer appears to be… the left. And not just the sane/reasonable left formerly known as liberals, but rather the radical left.
For anyone who believes I am over-reacting I give you the case of Nobel laureate scientist Tim Hunt. The esteemed UK scientist had his decades-long career ended so swiftly that it defies logic. The 39 words he said at a conference have “haunted” him. He apologized for saying them but that was not enough for the cancel mob. He had to be “ended”, from a career perspective. That happened effectively during his flight from the conference to his next destination. When his plane landed he was already cancelled.
Keep in mind, this is a 2001 Nobel Prize winner and his crime was saying something that, although offensive, was nothing more than a clumsy mis-step at a speaking engagement of fellow professionals in his industry.
Here are those 39 words.
“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry,”.
Offensive? Yes. Worthy of the vitriol Hunt (and his wife, a fellow respected scientist) received as a result? Worthy of him losing his job and his career? You can decide but in my opinion if there is ever a punishment that didn’t fit the crime in the crazy world of social media/online cancel culture, this may be the best example.
Despite the fact that Hunt and Butker are involved in professions which probably could not be more different they share three things in common which make them an easy target for cancellation. They are both male, they are both white and they are both straight. The leftist mob loves to cancel those from this so-called “privileged” group. With Butker, throw in the fact that he is a Christian and the cancel feeding frenzy on the left becomes fever-pitched.
There is no consistency to the rules the left applies to cancel an individual. The goalposts are constantly moving and in some cases they have been removed altogether. The only rules which apply are that you are more or less of a target based solely on your group identity. As mentioned above, the left cancel mob delights most in figurative trophies of white/straight/males. Give them an opportunity to cancel a POC/LGBT person and the mob loses their taste for blood. According to the unwritten rules of cancellation for the radical left, certain individuals fall under the oppressed category due to their group identity and cancelling them is seen as a leftist sin.
One thing that is heartening is the number of people with a platform who are jumping to the defence of Harrison Butker. Many of those have pointed out that, like me, they don’t agree with everything that Butker said in his speech. However, like 18th century french writer Voltaire pointed out, you can disagree with someone while still defending their right to say it.
There is one thing all of us should remember (well, maybe some more than others based on whether the radical left views you as oppressed or oppressor based on your group identity) that should you tolerate the type of cancellations we see with more and more regularity what happens when the cancel mob comes for you?
The road is long With many a winding turn That leads us to who knows where, who knows where But I’m strong Strong enough to carry him He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother
Bob Dylan from He Ain’t Heavy, He’s my Brother
Happy International Brothers Day everyone! Yes, today is the day when those of us lucky enough to have a brother or brothers (whether living or deceased) should all stop and think about how our brothers have enriched our lives. We can also look back on some of the funny and not so funny moments with our brothers and reflect on how all of these experiences helped in small or maybe big ways to shape who we are as adults.
To my older (and less handsome) brothers David and Kevin I thank them for the memories of growing up as the youngest of three boys. We lived in a household that had a “rub some dirt” on it mantra which was largely passed down to the children from our mother more than our father (if you ever met my mom you’ll understand).
I remember the good and bad of being the so-called “baby” of the family. The good being that when I was very young my mom would often shield me from the verbal and often physical onslaughts of my older brothers. The bad was that this protection had a finite timeline – eventually my mom would cut the cord (if memory serves it probably ended around the time I was ten) so-to-speak and it became survival of the fittest; the law of the jungle; natural selection; welcome to Thunderdome or whatever other term you like to invoke the idea that you have to fight your own battles.
I have too many stories to tell about growing up as the junior member of the Shapiera clan so I will just share this one. Just remember, no persons were harmed (well, not that much anyway) in the story I am about to tell. I call this story…
The Clothesline
My parents decided when I was about five years old that the suburban life was not for them and their young family so they packed up the Nobleton homestead and moved the clan north to Haliburton. (just an aside, our home in Nobleton stood across from what would become Nobleton Lakes Golf Club. Back in the early 1970s when we left the area there was nothing but farmers fields for as far as they eye could see.).
Adjusting to a new town and school was pretty much standard stuff for three young children – it sucked! However, like most kids we survived and were none the worse for wear (well, almost as you will see from this story) as the saying goes .
My parents were extremely busy trying to run a small resort (which they had zero experience in doing when they took it on) to be the doting parents. This was great news for me and my two brothers! This meant we became like feral children after school and almost 24/7 in the summer months. “Look after your little brother” were words spoken by my mother that my brother Dave probably got tired of hearing. I was like a shadow to my brothers when we lived at the aptly named Paradise Lodge on, you guessed it… Paradise Lake.
Remember this is the 1970s. There was no internet; no malls (at least not in Haliburton – population 1000, give or take); no cell phones. Should a kid want to have fun it was up to their imagination… and nothing else. We learned very soon that having fun may often involve taking risks. Sometimes those risks were in the form of engaging in an activity which could cause bodily harm, or dare I say, without exaggeration… death. Now, sometimes the harm (both real or possible) caused by the activity would pale in comparison to the harm our mom would inflict upon us if she ever discovered what mischief we were up to – but that may be a story for another time.
Me and my brothers were always looking for new and more risky forms of entertainment. Some of these activities were destructive, others may be viewed as cruel by today’s standards and still others were just straight up zany kids being kids fun. The other category was of the thrill-seeking variety. Think of a 6-10 year-old’s version of base-jumping or sky-diving.
My brother Kevin was always the kid among our small group of young ruffians who was looking to one-up anyone else on the risk-o-meter. If one kid did a front flip off an elevated platform into the lake he would surely set up for a back-flip. He was not always successful when he pushed the envelope but it was almost always worth the price of admission for all in the audience of usually pre-adolescent boys.
One day in the summer when I guess we must have exhausted all the fun in our world for that particular day, Kevin decided to step it up a notch. A summer neighbor who was conveniently not at their cottage that week offered the perfect staging area for Kevin’s latest death-defying (at least it was in the eyes of an eight-year old) stunt.
Back in our youth, clotheslines were almost as common as an electric dryer is today. Every backyard had one. The chosen method of drying clothes came in various formats. Some were at ground level and easily accessible. Others were situated in higher positions, usually set up off a balcony so that they took up less valuable backyard space which was often used for family entertaining and activities.
The aforementioned neighbor owned one of these elevated clotheslines. One end was on a second floor deck and the other was attached to a backyard pole. Like clotheslines, telephone and hydro poles were extremely common. This particular clothesline was tailor-made for a young boy to enjoy a little adrenalin-pumping fun! What a waste to use this device for something as mundane as hanging clean underwear (yes, mothers hung out our unmentionables for the whole world to see. We just prayed that our mom didn’t purchase the ones with seahorses or teddy bears. It would mean some serious ribbing from our buddies if they caught a glimpse of our gitch dangling from the family clothesline)!
You can probably guess what the imagination of an eight-year old boy dreamed up to use a clothesline for which was probably 10-15 feet off the ground. This was not a clothesline in our eyes at all – it was a zipline! How cool would it be and how much of a legend would Kevin be with the local hooligans… I mean boys. He was still only eight so impressing girls never probably crossed his mind yet. Being the man with his friends was far more important.
So that is how my brother Kevin discovered that a thin piece of wire encased in plastic which was used to hold a few pounds of wet clothes was not designed to hold the weight an eight-year old boy. The idea was a great one but the equipment and the execution of the stunt was what was lacking.
My memory is of Kevin barely getting clear of the balcony when we all heard a discernable “snap” as the clothesline broke under his weight!! With legs and arms flailing for what must have seemed like an eternity my brother crashed to the ground below. Writhing in pain he probably didn’t notice the gathered throng (ok, I use the term “throng” loosely. There were probably six or seven of us present) of neighborhood boys were howling with laughter, initially unaware that our local pint-sized Evil Knievel was in a degree of distress.
After we composed ourselves and wiped away the tears from laughing so hard one of us (probably my brother Dave. he was usually the responsible one- plus he was the oldest so he would catch the most heck from mom if one of his brothers was injured on his watch.) ran and told my mother.
I am pretty sure my mom was not thrilled to be dragged away from work during the busy summer months. However, my memory is that mom was far more reserved than she often was once she realized her middle child was hurt in a way that looked more serious than the typical “rub some dirt on it” scrape.
My mom gathered Kevin up and carefully put him in the family car to take him the ten-minute drive into Haliburton presumably for medical attention. We had no idea what the extent of Kevin’s injuries were. Boys are prone to exaggeration so I am sure more than one of us speculated that he would return with a missing arm. I do still remember one of our group saying wouldn’t it be funny if Kevin returned with a cast on his injured arm (Kevin had the sense to use one of those flailing arms to break his fall or surely his head would have bounced off the ground like a super ball). Well, maybe that kid was Nostradamus because that is exactly what happened!
The stunt had gone awry but hey so had numerous ones attempted by the aforementioned Evil Knievel, right? Despite the failed attempt Kevin still achieved legend status – at least for that summer – among the local boys. The moral of the story today would be to show caution and don’t take risks. Back then it was that legends break bones too!
Happy International Brothers Day Dave and Kevin! Love you both!
I think back to my days playing different sports at various levels of competitiveness . The lessons I learned have been carried on through my life and I have passed many of these lessons on to my kids and as a coach to young competitors. Mantras such as always having the backs of your teammates and never pointing fingers when mistakes are made but rather raising up your brothers/sisters in arms are just a couple of these lessons.
However, one that I have strongly conveyed seems to be getting pushback in the world of safe spaces and trigger warnings. That is the belief that words are just words and they will only hurt you if you allow them to rent space in your head. How one responds in a sports setting will likely be reflected when a person is faced with similar circumstances in the real world.
The recent suspension of Landon Sim, the son of former NHL player, Jon Sim was in a word… ridiculous. The star centre of the London Knights was handed a five-game suspension after an on-ice incident in his team’s Ontario Hockey League conference final match-up with the Saginaw Spirit.
Hockey is a physical game and often players cross the line. Liam Arnsby – captain of the OHL’s North Bay Battalion – was suspended for six games for delivering a hit to the head of Linus Hemstrom during an April 3 game. The hit saw Henstrom taken off on a stretcher after spending several minutes prone on the ice.
Mississauga Steelheads defenceman Stevie Leskovar was suspended four games for an on-ice incident. The blueliner slashed Evan Konyen in the face during a battle after a face-off. Fortunately, Konyen was able to return to the game but the suspension recognized that the possible outcome of such a reckless act could have been much more severe.
So what was Landon Sim’s transgression you may ask? He must have done something worse than slashing an opponent in the face and slightly less egregious than laying out a player with a dangerous hit to the head – the kind of hits that have led to the end of player careers (see former NHL star forward Marc Savard as an example), right?
Well, as it turns out the London Knights forward never actually laid a hand on his “victim”. He made the cardinal sin of inflaming the sensitivities of the woke mob by using a word that the language police deem as “misogynist”. No, he didn’t use the “C” word (as in C-U-Next Tuesday) or even the less offensive but still taboo twat (an aside, I love watching British comedy because both of the aforementioned words are sprinkled in liberally to the dialogue by both men and women). He called his opponent a word commonly used as slang for a cat. Yes, for those of you fellow Gen Xers he used a word that we had as part of the competitive verbal tool kit and used often. He called Saginaw Spirit captain Braden Hache… a pussy.
As I often say context matters. Sim, who had recently recovered from a shoulder injury was responding to a comment made by his opponent. Prior to a face-off Hache said to Sim that he was going to “break your shoulder”. Sim’s response? “No you won’t, you are too much of a pussy to do that”. Really, that is what gets you five games, in the midst of the playoffs no less?
Maybe I shouldn’t admit it but I would have served an unending/overlapping suspension in every competitive sport I ever played. What was said on the ice or on the pitch, where I played a lot of hockey and soccer respectively, was left on the ice or pitch. Usually we said something that may have gotten your mouth washed out with soap at home in my day (yes, this was a thing and I still can’t get the taste of Irish Spring out of my mouth) but was totally acceptable within the confines of the game.
There were two reasons to dig into our urban dictionary of the day during a game. One was because you were angry, which probably meant the other team was winning. The other was because you wanted to get under the skin of youropponent, which probably meant your team was winning.
We were taught that words were just that… words. When an opponent said something a little offside to you your response was under your control. The player delivering the insult was hoping to illicit a response, preferably a physical one, which would lead to a power play for your team , a yellow card or possibly an ejection/red card.
When you returned to the bench after drawing a penalty or getting a player tossed by using nothing but your words you were greeted with pats on the head from your teammates. You had helped the team. Conversely, if you were the player who allowed something as simple as a word (or words) to get you to lose your cool the coach usually found you a not so nice spot at the end of the bench for an undetermined length of time. Your actions were “undisciplined” and “selfish”. You had hurt the team.
What makes the situation involving Sim which led to his suspension even more disheartening for those who believe the world has lost its collective mind is that the player who threatened to break Sim’s shoulder went to the official to report this unforgiveable verbal act. In the world in which I grew up that person would be known as anything from a tattle-tale to a rat. What’s next, telling his mommy so she can call Landon’s parents and tell them what a bad boy he has been?
For clarity, we never saw the word “pussy” as meaning anything other than soft… like a house cat. When we began using the word I would hazard a guess than none of us boys knew that it was also a slang word for part of the female anatomy. Even if we did know, so what? We called each other dicks all the time.
Do you see the problem here? When we start policing words in sports we will be playing a game of whack-a-mole. My kids use words which may be deemed offside that I have never heard before. Should we choose to police language, we will need to establish a full-time arbiter to keep track of words and deem which are acceptable and which will get you banished.
I am going to say something controversial here. I believe this also applies to race and sexual orientation slurs. I say this as someone who has been subjected to slurs. Yes, white people can be the victim of racism as well.
The difference for me is that I was taught to ignore the words. Sometimes I did – sometimes I didn’t. I learned that choosing to ignore the attempts to get me off my game was always more preferable given the potential penalties and the spot in the coach’s doghouse.
No, I am not saying that calling someone a racial/gender/gender identity slur is acceptable. All I am saying is that eventually the referee or the teacher or your mom won’t be there to protect you from the words. What we learned is that eventually the words really didn’t matter to us. Now, instead our kids are being sheltered from the realities of the big bad world where there are people who are jerks. Learning that there are people who will say things that are hurtful is a valuable lesson.
In today’s upside down world we are not teaching our children lessons like stand up for yourself; words are just words but rather we are saying be a victim; words are violence.
For the record, the snowflake culture which wants us to believe that words can be equally as damaging as a punch in the face – we can try that experiment if you want. I have been punched in the face and also been called names like pussy, I will gladly take the latter.
My mother passed away over four years ago and I still miss her to this day. Mom was in her own words a “tough broad”. She enjoyed life and raised three pretty good boys. I was the youngest of the three brothers and I learned a lot of lessons from my mom. I think the hope of every child is that the lessons they learned from their parents will make them better parents if they ever are lucky enough to be a father or mother.
Many of the lessons I learned from mom were of the positive variety. She was always quick to point out that people who have been on this planet longer than you should be afforded a level of respect. With this in mind I am always the first to hold a door for an elderly person or to lend a hand should I see the need. Thanks mom.
Mom also made it clear that men should treat women differently they would treat men. It isn’t that women aren’t capable it’s just that chivalry was a real concept to my mom. Opening doors for women was a staple in my household. I still remember a time when as a young teenager I was met with a good swift slap in the back of the head from my mom when I dared to open a door and walk through it without holding it for her. That never happened again and I still hold doors for all women to this day. Thanks mom.
I also became very aware that my mom was far more street smart than me or my brothers gave her credit for as we navigated adolescence. Mom gave us just enough rope. Sometimes we did not test the limits of that rope and sometimes we figuratively hung ourselves with the leeway we were granted. Helicoptering was not a parenting style with which we were familiar – sink or swim was more the style adopted by mom. I did appreciate that because boy, did me and my brothers have fun growing up under those rules. We were free range kids long before some pointy-headed academic coined that term. Thanks mom.
One other thing I learned from my mom was that sugar coating moments in life will not really be a benefit. Don’t get me wrong, my mom was my biggest cheerleader. However, if I needed a reality check she would give me one. I played a lot of sports growing up and I heard the positive from mom when it was deserved. However, if I played poorly or blamed others for my shortcomings she was not going to let me off the hook. Pointing fingers when I should be looking in the mirror was not something that went over to well with mom. Thanks mom.
Mom also taught me the importance of having your family’s back, no matter what. As the saying goes “you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose but you can’t pick your family”. There was one incident when a 16 year-old version of myself did something that i should not have done and would have faced pretty dire legal consequences (no, I did not murder or assault anyone. No people were harmed in this story) had I been discovered. Let’s just leave it at mom covered my ass and I avoided the formal punishment that would have been a certainty. Thanks mom.
I say “formal punishment” because I still did face other consequences for my actions. You see, my mom was very old school when it came to raising kids – spare the rod and spoil the child and all that tough love parenting stuff.
Mom grew up in a household in Saskatchewan with 13 children (there would have been 15 but two of my mom’s siblings apparently died in some type of fire when they were very young) in an environment which, to put it mildly, did not include the creature comforts we enjoy today. There was no electricity nor running water in depression era Saskatchewan. Life was hard on the Baraniski clan and that experience made my mom tough as nails.
So back to my mom and her tough love approach. Me and my brothers were subjected to some fairly harsh punishment. When I say punishment, I don’t mean the kind like where parents of today take away your cell phone privileges or send you to bed without dessert. No, I mean the good old corporal punishment that most kids today probably have never experienced.
Does this mean that my mom beat us as kids? Should you wish to characterize it that way then I am OK with that framing of how we were punished. My mom had a temper and we knew not to push her to the point where it made an appearance.
Another lesson my mom taught me which still sticks with me is “don’t speak ill of the dead”. I do not bear any physical or emotional scars from any of the physical punishment handed out by mom. Notice, how I never used the word “abuse”. I can’t speak for my brothers, but I never viewed it as abuse. She was doing what she thought was best to help mold us into better people. I think she did OK. I would say I forgive her but I don’t think my forgiveness is necessary. My mom loved us unconditionally. It may not have been the idyllic upbringing but without my mom I would not have learned all the lessons I learned. Thanks mom.
Happy Mother’s Day. Love you mom – miss you every day.
Watching the NHL playoffs one can’t help but notice how the advertising landscape has changed. Same-gender couples are not only featured in ads they appear to be the dominant representation of relationships in these ads. Oh, there are still heterosexual couples featured, they are just usually purposely mixed-race couples.
The shift in individuals featured in advertising while not representative of our population does not really bother me a great deal. It has given me and my white male friends an opportunity to engage in a new game – spot the white guy. There is a hierarchy of points in this game to spotting a white male.
The point system is below:
gay and single: 1 point
gay and in a relationship: 2 points
heterosexual andmarried or in a relationship (biracial): 3 points
heterosexual and married or in a relationship (non biracial): 5 points
heterosexual single male: 10 points (1 bonus point if the white guy in this ad is intelligent)
I am not going to march in the streets, post protest TikTok videos or boycott these companies to condemn the obvious virtue signaling advertisers are part of by checking diversity boxes. (full disclosure, I have boycotted all Gillette products since this ad went viral). I can recognize a diversity agenda in advertising but if it doesn’t really have a major impact on me or society I will chuckle at the obvious and move on (note, I still take delight by the result in over-the-top attempts to pander to people who are not even part of a company’s target audience while simultaneously alienating their core customers. The resulting decline in sales could be predicted by a first year marketing student. I am looking at you Bud Light and Target!)
Now, notice I said if something doesn’t impact me (or my family) I am not too fussed over how companies all are in lock-step with this woke agenda. Well Tim Hortons, you have stepped into that world. No, it’s not the fact that most of your ads are not really accurately representing our population. Tim’s has made the egregious error of messing with my hockey cards for no real reason other than to promote an agenda! Big mistake!
To what exactly am I referring? Well as the saying goes “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
This week I ordered my one milk/no sugar medium coffee and as I often do when they are available, I also buy a pack of hockey cards. Now, I already find it annoying that you only get three cards in a pack. I also am further ticked off that Tim’s has upped the price from $1 to $1.50 for the current series. However, the final straw may be that the company, in a far-too obvious attempt to show how virtuous they are, have started including more and more cards featuring PWHL players. When I opened my pack, I was quietly optimistic that I may find a card featuring McDavid, Bedard or maybe just maybe Gretzky. Instead, I was greeted by three cards with PWHL players. I was more than a little disappointed. I was ticked!
Now before anyone reading this goes to the typical tropes and starts calling me a “sexist” or “misogynist” let me explain my annoyance with this agenda being pushed by my go-to coffee spot. First, remember the cost for these cards. Paying a buck was bad enough but increasing the cost by 50 per cent is a bit of sticker shock in this current economy.
The cost could previously be at least partially justified because of the collectible value of some of these cards. I have been lucky enough to open packs in the past with single cards which have a retail value in the low three figures. Most of the cards are worth less than what I pay but at least there is the hope I get one of those higher value cards.
Here is my beef with the PWHL cards. Each pack features an insert card. These are the most valuable cards. With all due respect to the women players, the collectors are looking for McDavid, Bedard and Matthews (well, maybe not Matthews ;)) not Nurse, Poulin and Knight. The former trio are the cards which will hold their value, long term. Truth be told, I have checked the current value of the PWHL cards and some have shockingly high values. That said, any collector knows this value has been artificially inflated and they will drop like the value of an Auston Matthews card after another first round playoff exit.
Tim Horton’s should have proposed an all PWHL set (maybe with a few NHL legends included to increase interest). Shoehorning the PWHL cards into a set which, as previously stated, are more than a little overpriced will only sour collectors. The collectors are the people who drive the sales of these cards and like it or not I predict a backlash in the form of reduced sales of the current set. I am sure Tim’s braintrust will never admit their error but the proof will be in sales.
I know people will say “you should support women’s sport and just suck it up.” Why in the ghost of Guy Lafleur should I have to spend money to support anything, including women’s hockey? I don’t support AHL hockey. My money – my choice.
So in closing, I have one piece of advice for Timmies. Stop screwing with my hockey cards and stick to making coffee!!
I found an interesting website which listed some worldwide spring festivals and events which happen annually, usually without fail. As a Montreal Canadiens fan living in enemy territory his entire life I can’t help but think that the list is incomplete.
That’s me, the smart one in the middle. How can you tell I am the smart one? Well, just look at what I am wearing…
Yes Leaf fans, I am talking about the annual event where you all start with that sense of renewed hope only to have those hopes predictably dashed – the Stanley Cup playoffs.
I often wonder aloud sometimes why Leaf fans put themselves through such torture. They remind me of Bill Murray’s character in the movie Groundhog Day. They seem destined to relive the same sequence of events again… and again… and again.
At least in the movie Murray’s character finds a way to break the cycle of reliving the same day over and over. The Leafs and their fans have lived the same nightmare since… yes, 1967.
I am told this year will be different – “this is our year”. This is the year that the Leafs will slay the dragon – aka the Boston Bruins – and get over that proverbial hump. This is the year that the regular season offensive juggernaut known as Auston Matthews will finally show he is a primetime player. This is the year that the Leafs goalies will actually steal games rather than cough them up. This is the year… blah, blah, blah.
I hear from Leaf fans who tell me all the time that the Habs have suffered through 30 years of a drought without a Stanley Cup. To that I say, they are absolutely correct. I have become frustrated with my team’s playoff futility but then there are those 24 Cups – 10 in my lifetime – to hang my hat upon. Also, I am at least comfortable in the knowledge that the Canadiens have reached the Cup final as recently as 2021 and for what it is worth are the last Canadian team to hoist Lord Stanley’s mug.
The two guys in the photo above with me (my two older – but by their choice in favourite hockey teams apparently not wiser – brothers) were ages three and five when their beloved Buds last even made a Cup final (yes, I know they defeated the Canadiens to win the Cup that year but being only 18 months old at the time the pain was not even memorable and honestly any sorrow has been long erased by the ten Cups the Habs have won over my lifetime – but I digress).
Now, I may be fuzzy on the laws in Ontario over 50 years ago but I am sure neither of my two brothers could even legally enjoy a celebratory beer the last time their team was the toast of the NHL. No offence, but as a Habs fan just give me a paper bag to hide my face in public should it ever come to pass that my team is the laughingstock of the NHL as the Leafs have become.
Teams in other sports have shaken the label of loveable losers. The Red Sox, Cubs and White Sox in baseball. The Nuggets in the NBA. Even my Broncos (on back-to-back occasions I might add) passed on the NFL torch of perennial bridesmaids to the Buffalo Bills.
The Leafs stand alone as the NHL team with the longest record of championship futility. Every Canadian team, barring the Winnipeg Jets (to be fair to the Jets, they weren’t even eligible for a Cup until the WHA merged with the NHL in 1979. Also, the Jets left Winnipeg in 1999 and did return until 2011 – yet again, I digress) have at least been as far as a Cup final, if not won it all, since the Leafs last finals appearance in 1967.
Here are the cold, hard, heartbreaking numbers for the Leafs and their fans relative to their Canadian cousins regarding Cups and final appearances since 1967:
Montreal: 12 Final appearances; 10 Cups
Edmonton: 6 Final appearances; 5 Cups
Calgary: 3 Final appearances; 1 Cup
Vancouver: 3 Final appearances
Ottawa: 1 Final appearance
Winnipeg and Toronto: doughnuts
(note, the former Quebec Nordiques franchise has also won 3 Stanley Cups albeit as the Colorado Avalanche)
What would add real insult to injury for Leaf fans would be if the Winnipeg Jets reached a Cup final, or God forbid, actually won the Holy Grail.
By the way, who have I picked to be the team left standing at the end this year? The Winnipeg Jets.
When did we become so divided? Every politician seems to be falling over each other to engage in support for one group or another. Colour me skeptical but I find myself saying “follow the money” when trying to sort out the reason why our group identity has taken precedence over our individual identity.
Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (MLK “I have a dream” speech text). Today, I think we are moving further away from the dream MLK once had for his nation and I believe by extension, the entire free world.
Canada often mimics its neighbour to the south when it comes to many social discussions and even laws. Yes, I know there are many differences, like gun and abortion laws but the fundamental beliefs of a democratic society – equality, freedom and liberty – are mirrored in both nations. It has become apparent that Canada has taken a troubling turn at not upholding these core tenets.
Often, the narrative being put forward by media and politicians in Canada is that it is the USA and its government which is a threat to democracy with some of their actions and policies. Quite the contrary to this narrative, I believe that there are countless examples of why Canadians should be alarmed at how quickly we have moved in the wrong direction and there has been a slow erosion of those three principles of a social democratic system.
The individual or the collective
I am a big believer that what makes every individual unique is their own story and experiences. The colour of our skin, our gender, our religious beliefs – even our physical characteristics – are not usually unique. For example, there are approximately two billion Muslims on the planet and a slightly higher number of Christians. Being either Muslim or Christian does not make us unique in any sense. Find me a religion which has one member and I will give in on the uniqueness factor. The same can be said of gender (just two genders people, don’t care what the criminal Dr. John Money said back in the 1960s) or race.
Despite the irrefutable fact that our uniqueness is not dictated by things like race, religion or gender we are using those very traits to divide all of us into pseudo-tribes. Fancy academic terms like “intersectionality” are used to determine the level of victim-hood which should be assigned to each person. Should you be a black/trans/handicapped person you have hit the jackpot in the oppression Olympics. Conversely, if you an able-bodied white/male/heterosexual you are a member of the highest order of oppressors.
Think about the illogical way in which academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have framed the debate on a person’s so-called “privilege”. Using the theory of intersectionality employed by “progressives” to determine a person’s societal privilege as an example, Lebron James and his children are less privileged than a dirt poor white family from the Appalachia region in the United States.
This way of thinking has polluted our political discourse so that absolutely everything must be looked at through a lens of gender, race, religion, etc. etc. The problem with this thinking is that more and more categories seem to be added to the mix every day. How many groups are we going to consider as part of the discussion before it distorts the discussion on most issues so much that we never really address the core problems?
Canada’s descent
So earlier I took the position that Canada has numerous relatively recent examples of why we are headed down a dark road as it relates to basic fundamental rights. Now, rather than looking at the individual we look at the collective. Does this sound like it has any similarities with an existing political system (hint, it’s the one responsible for close to 100 million deaths of citizens under that system in various countries during the 20th century)?
The collective has trumped the individual in almost every political discussion. Think I am exaggerating? All one needs to do is look at some of the measures taken by our federal government during the COVID “crisis”. Phrases like “we are in this together” hid the fact that mandates and rules impacted some individuals far more than others. For example, government workers and restaurant workers clearly were not in “this” together. Most (if not all) government workers kept getting a pay cheque (with full benefits) whether they were working or not. The hospitality workers were sent home given a paltry $2,000 a month from the government and told they should be grateful. Really?
Think of our education system. It essentially became a shell of what it was before COVID. We shut down schools and our children were forced into government mandated isolation. This was all done under the same banner of “we’re all in this together”. The problem is that we weren’t, and it is not even a debate. Children, who were shown to be the least vulnerable group to be impacted by COVID were cut off from their peer group and were impacted from a mental health standpoint in more ways than they ever would have been from COVID. (watch this exchange on The View between Dr. Phil and the hosts who seem to have bought into this nonsense Dr. Phil spitting facts on The View)
There are far more examples of the politics by identity politics approach. I could go on all day how what I say as a dangerous trend has permeated our political system. The question is why is this happening?
I believe this is all about money and also playing on the ignorance of the typical voter. Call me skeptical but I believe generally a politician values the desire to be re-elected rather than the importance of doing what is in the best interest of citizens. Politicians achieve the former by appealing to specific groups or identities. You hear all the time about how well a politician is polling among groups like women, ethnic voters, gays, etc. The same politicians will sacrifice what is truly right to curry favour with a voting block that can get them re-elected.
How is this about money you may ask? Well, simply put, federal politicians can collect a pension after two terms in office. The federal Liberals actually quietly moved the 2025 fall election date later so that MPs would be eligible to collect their pension. Had the original date remained, defeated MPs who had not reached the date to be eligible to collect a pension would have left office with nothing if they were defeated. The Liberals framed this as being respectful of the Indian community as the original date fell withing the celebration of Diwali. How gracious of the Trudeau government to do this for the Indian community, right? Well, not really. The government could have moved the date for the election prior to Diwali. However, that would mean that a Liberal government which is on the verge of being decimated would have more than a handful of members who would not reach eligibility for a federal pension.
The other part of the money equation is the industry which has developed around identity politics. How many universities now have departments that are either directly or indirectly tied to Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI)? How many companies have officers or sometimes whole departments devoted to DEI? Who hasn’t encountered mandatory corporate training for all employees in the area of DEI? By some estimates DEI is a $9 billion industry in the USA and will grow to about $15 billion by 2026. I won’t get into a lengthy debate but there is sufficient evidence to show this is not money well spent (of course, unless you are collecting a pay cheque as part of a DEI initiative or department).
I also mentioned the ignorance of the voter as part of this equation. I know in Australia there is a system in place to increase voter turnout. Eligible voters who do not cast a ballot in an election can be fined. Sounds great in principle, right? However, given the lack of awareness and an unwillingness to seek out information by what I would argue is the majority of voters I would say this only compounds the problem. Politicians pander to the lowest common denominator among voters, I know it will never become law but I almost would like to see a basic civics test as part of the voting process. This would weed out the low hanging fruit among voters who are continually preyed upon by politicians.
I guess this is my way of saying that people did actually die for our right to vote. Immigrants often come to Canada from countries where selecting your government through a democratic process is a pipe dream. The least we can do is treat the process with the respect it deserves. Stay informed, be a political free agent and please don’t throw your vote away.
OneDadWithABlog 