There are many areas of concern with this Supreme Court decision, and perspectives on the issues. One of them is that the Supreme Court has entrenched a metaphysical idea as fact. Because there is no proof of any kind that there is such a thing as transgenderism--aside from actual physical transgenderism as a born condition. "Transgender" is a theoretical concept at best, and there is no historical de facto condition of it, as there is for homosexuality. How we got from "gender identity" as a protected right (something we already had anyway, since everyone is some kind of gender, and everyone has some kind of identity) to metaphysical "transgenderism" being declared fact is something I don't understand.
Great article, thanks. The actual court wording is really disturbing. It basically says that activists can say whatever they want to attack people who oppose gender ideology. Whether they can DO whatever they want isn't clear. Presumably physical violence is still illegal. My question now is, if trans activists and their fellow travelers can SAY whatever they want, can gender ideology critics say whatever THEY want, also? Or does this go only one way? In any case, although truth and reality are under assault, including now by ALL of the Establishment, reality has a funny way of eventually re-asserting itself. I am confident that in the long run, the liars and frauds will get their comeuppance.
I have to say, given the state of the culture and its continued decent into irrationality, I can honestly say I am pretty proud to be part of the genuine counter-culture.
They are coming for you folks the work camps concentration camps and mind control camps cant be very far behind. My comments stop right here this is probably the last time anyone will see me posting under my name and with personal details. Time for that VPN I think its called but from now on my thoughts remain my own and I will post under a nom de plume because I am damn sure they will be coming for me too.
A word of caution from a street crime cop who worked major cases in Canada and abroad for many years we rely on informants to make most cases do not make the mistake of watching holywood films because snitches come from all walks of life so here are a few examples. Satans Choice, Hells Angels, Paradice Riders and other hard core biker groups I had snitches from all off them. I have had school teachers nice little ladies, prostitutes, gamblers, drug dealers, pimps white black asian indian I even had a priest some brothers sisters moms and dads and aunts your neighbor the list is endless everyone snitches when and if the circumstances are right so trust no one. adios.
I suspect that in 10 to 15 years we will see a backlash from those who are being fed this nonsense. As today's children grow and mature and realize that they have irreversibly damaged their bodies, can no longer have children, have an inability to have healthy relationships, were lied to, have trust issues, on and on, we all know the fallout, there will be a reckoning of major proportions. The religion of the Woke can only last so long. I don't see how this level of divisiveness, anger, hatred and lies can continue. No one is happy!
"The SOGI curriculum, that breaks down barriers designed to protect the innocence of children, perhaps has gained the ultimate status: that of Religious Protection from questioning, like the priests had over their alter boys, and the churches had over the residential schools."
Arguably the writer doesn't know anything about old time Catholic ALTAR boys, who are not alter-boys --- like the opposite of trans-girls who are altered-boys. Our mothers told us, when we were really young, that if anyone tried to touch our "pee-pees", then we should run away as fast as we could. The older Catholic boys, told us to kick the "pee-pee-touchers" in their privates and then run away as fast as we could --- provided that anyone dared to show us their privates. Most of us didn't have to kick anyone, anywhere, because "old school" Catholics thought they would actually go to hell for even scandalizing children, let alone attempting to seduce them. That was in the late 1950's.
But along came the 60's sexual revolution and many of the obviously "straight-inclined" priests left the priesthood. Some of them even married nuns, who also reneged on their vows. That left many of the "gay inclined" clerics in charge of the chicken coop. Some of them obviously acted on their "inclinations" and thus the sex scandals of the 1980s and 1990s. I, personally, never met a priest who went over to the "dark side". But when I was considering joining the altar boys after a move from Edmonton, Alberta, to St. Albert, Alberta, in Canada, in the 1960's, one of the guys at school (grade 8), told me to never get caught alone in the sacristy with Brother "what-cha-ma-call-it" because the guy was a "perv". So I didn't even bother joining.
But other guys, not only joined or stayed in the altar boy's group, but also joined various activities encouraged and enjoyed by Br. "Pervo"! They all got caught! Big quiet scandal. Pretty soon there were tons of "altar girls" and no self respecting former altar boy (who hadn't joined the "pervs") dared associate himself with those "altar servers". Problem solved. It was many of those sorts of voluntarily "join the sex party" former altar boys, who were "crying abuse" by the 1980's and 1990's, thereby turning themselves into retroactive male prostitutes of various seductive "pervs-of-the-cloth" from the 1960's era. With my brother, it was some "religious" Scout master who was also a "perv."
By the mid 1980's I was treated to the spectacle of the best Priest-Teacher (Grade 12 Chemistry) I ever had, publicly apologizing for the abuses of some of his fellow Basilians on television. This priest was so upset that he actually quit his vocation. And he had been both a great teacher and a good priest. At any rate, as of 4-5 years of age, every Catholic child knew about what was and wasn't allowed with respect to our privates. And we also knew that no priest or church official had any authority to grope our privates or show us their privates!
So the author is ignorant if he thinks we couldn't question priests. We were told that we could actually kick them in their privates if they tried anything funny. What were they going to do if we kicked and ran away? Squeal on us, like modern woke "rats"??? [NOTTT!!!]
Of course we wouldn't tell our mothers, because they wouldn't believe us and we wouldn't tell our fathers because, if they believed us, they would be duty bound to kill any S.O.B. who tried such stuff, whether or not the bad guys were priests. After all, our fathers had actually killed people in WWII, in a great number of "boomer" cases, for far less serious things than abusing children. e.g. Some of the guys they killed were simply wearing different uniforms from their own.
That was, of course, way back in the "stone age", when there were rules about fighting and how to have fair fights without being mobbed by a "woke gang" of rule-less barbarians with Marxist ideas and "ideals " of social justice --- which, to them, means mob anyone who disagrees with "us". And the residential school abuses were, for the most part, prior to the 1960's, cases of older residential school kids sexualizing/abusing younger kids. No 6 or 7 year old child can distinguish between a 14 year old "perv" altar boy, wearing an altar boy cassock, and a 25 year old priest wearing a cleric's cassock.
So, when Phil Fontaine talked about sex abuse at a residential school to Barbara Frum, in the 1990's, he was arguably talking about older school kids abusing younger school kids, although he was entirely vague and ambiguous about any "embarrassing" details --- moving from the allegation of every one of his Grade 3 school fellows being sexually abused to some priest "stripping and beating" a school girl, in front of "others", whoever those others were --- arguably not little boys, given the strict segregation between boys and girls at residential schools and other Catholic schools as well.
AUTHOR: The legal mechanisms that protect the people perpetuating and promoting the ideology now seem entirely unquestionable.
Modern people are so incredibly "helpless" --- nothing is questionable, according to moderns, like the author, whereas everything was questionable and questioned in the old "hippie" days. What we have here, in sum, is 4 superior Courts [3 at the Court of Appeal of B.C. and 1 at the Supreme Court of Canada] who agreed that Neufeld be allowed a trial of his defamation suit as against Hansman. However 6 superior Courts agreed that Hansman ought to be allowed to call Neufeld names without legal consequences. So the balance is 6 equal Courts against 4 equal Courts. What may we do?
So call those 6 Superior Courts some actual legal names to their peers at the Canadian Judicial Council. All 6 obviously deprived BOTH Neufeld and Hansman of their respective rights to a "fair hearing, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, for the determination of their rights and obligations.", contrary to Section 2. (e) of The Canadian Bill of Rights [Not "The Charter"! Rather The Bill of Rights]. The majority of people to which these "Supreme" Justices gave a hearing were lawyers speaking on behalf of "woke" intervenor organizations, while apparently refusing to hear the lawyers for anti-woke or non-woke intervenors. Meanwhile Hansman, who is apparently "woke", has no stomach for an actual Court debate where he would be examined and cross-examined on his "reasons" for calling Neufeld names. So, in short, the 6 Superior Courts disobeyed Section 2. (e) of THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, contrary to Section 126. of The Criminal Code of Canada. Hence they should be both fired and gaoled for "disobeying a Statute" --- all 6 of them.
If you dare make a complaint to The Canadian Judicial Council, concerning those 6 morons who should be "sleeping on park benches" rather than sitting on "Court Benches", make sure that you send copies of your complaint to 1. Your local M.P., 2. your Provincial Lieutenant Governor, 3. The Governor General of Canada, 4. Your local Premier, 5. Your Provincial Minister of Justice, 6. Your Federal Minister of Justice and your local King of England via your local British Embassy because those 6 assholes only serve at the pleasure of His Majesty. Tell the King of England via those channels that you take no pleasure in legal assholes who violate citizens legal rights on both sides of an individual case. Don't call them assholes though. Call them criminals. It's a less controversial word.
And if you dare not do that, then shut your stupid mouths. I think I've said that before on this list. I, personally, have done this sort of thing, twice, previously. And somebody always catches the other stupid civil servants lying through their respective equally "stupid mouths".
There are many areas of concern with this Supreme Court decision, and perspectives on the issues. One of them is that the Supreme Court has entrenched a metaphysical idea as fact. Because there is no proof of any kind that there is such a thing as transgenderism--aside from actual physical transgenderism as a born condition. "Transgender" is a theoretical concept at best, and there is no historical de facto condition of it, as there is for homosexuality. How we got from "gender identity" as a protected right (something we already had anyway, since everyone is some kind of gender, and everyone has some kind of identity) to metaphysical "transgenderism" being declared fact is something I don't understand.
i can't even really consider starting a family in canada because of stuff like this
sad
Canada's Supreme Court is rapidly becoming a travesty.
Great article, thanks. The actual court wording is really disturbing. It basically says that activists can say whatever they want to attack people who oppose gender ideology. Whether they can DO whatever they want isn't clear. Presumably physical violence is still illegal. My question now is, if trans activists and their fellow travelers can SAY whatever they want, can gender ideology critics say whatever THEY want, also? Or does this go only one way? In any case, although truth and reality are under assault, including now by ALL of the Establishment, reality has a funny way of eventually re-asserting itself. I am confident that in the long run, the liars and frauds will get their comeuppance.
I have to say, given the state of the culture and its continued decent into irrationality, I can honestly say I am pretty proud to be part of the genuine counter-culture.
I honestly can not understand how evil is winning. It hurts to the core.
I HATE this fucking cuntry.
They are coming for you folks the work camps concentration camps and mind control camps cant be very far behind. My comments stop right here this is probably the last time anyone will see me posting under my name and with personal details. Time for that VPN I think its called but from now on my thoughts remain my own and I will post under a nom de plume because I am damn sure they will be coming for me too.
A word of caution from a street crime cop who worked major cases in Canada and abroad for many years we rely on informants to make most cases do not make the mistake of watching holywood films because snitches come from all walks of life so here are a few examples. Satans Choice, Hells Angels, Paradice Riders and other hard core biker groups I had snitches from all off them. I have had school teachers nice little ladies, prostitutes, gamblers, drug dealers, pimps white black asian indian I even had a priest some brothers sisters moms and dads and aunts your neighbor the list is endless everyone snitches when and if the circumstances are right so trust no one. adios.
I suspect that in 10 to 15 years we will see a backlash from those who are being fed this nonsense. As today's children grow and mature and realize that they have irreversibly damaged their bodies, can no longer have children, have an inability to have healthy relationships, were lied to, have trust issues, on and on, we all know the fallout, there will be a reckoning of major proportions. The religion of the Woke can only last so long. I don't see how this level of divisiveness, anger, hatred and lies can continue. No one is happy!
AUTHOR (writes):
"The SOGI curriculum, that breaks down barriers designed to protect the innocence of children, perhaps has gained the ultimate status: that of Religious Protection from questioning, like the priests had over their alter boys, and the churches had over the residential schools."
Arguably the writer doesn't know anything about old time Catholic ALTAR boys, who are not alter-boys --- like the opposite of trans-girls who are altered-boys. Our mothers told us, when we were really young, that if anyone tried to touch our "pee-pees", then we should run away as fast as we could. The older Catholic boys, told us to kick the "pee-pee-touchers" in their privates and then run away as fast as we could --- provided that anyone dared to show us their privates. Most of us didn't have to kick anyone, anywhere, because "old school" Catholics thought they would actually go to hell for even scandalizing children, let alone attempting to seduce them. That was in the late 1950's.
But along came the 60's sexual revolution and many of the obviously "straight-inclined" priests left the priesthood. Some of them even married nuns, who also reneged on their vows. That left many of the "gay inclined" clerics in charge of the chicken coop. Some of them obviously acted on their "inclinations" and thus the sex scandals of the 1980s and 1990s. I, personally, never met a priest who went over to the "dark side". But when I was considering joining the altar boys after a move from Edmonton, Alberta, to St. Albert, Alberta, in Canada, in the 1960's, one of the guys at school (grade 8), told me to never get caught alone in the sacristy with Brother "what-cha-ma-call-it" because the guy was a "perv". So I didn't even bother joining.
But other guys, not only joined or stayed in the altar boy's group, but also joined various activities encouraged and enjoyed by Br. "Pervo"! They all got caught! Big quiet scandal. Pretty soon there were tons of "altar girls" and no self respecting former altar boy (who hadn't joined the "pervs") dared associate himself with those "altar servers". Problem solved. It was many of those sorts of voluntarily "join the sex party" former altar boys, who were "crying abuse" by the 1980's and 1990's, thereby turning themselves into retroactive male prostitutes of various seductive "pervs-of-the-cloth" from the 1960's era. With my brother, it was some "religious" Scout master who was also a "perv."
By the mid 1980's I was treated to the spectacle of the best Priest-Teacher (Grade 12 Chemistry) I ever had, publicly apologizing for the abuses of some of his fellow Basilians on television. This priest was so upset that he actually quit his vocation. And he had been both a great teacher and a good priest. At any rate, as of 4-5 years of age, every Catholic child knew about what was and wasn't allowed with respect to our privates. And we also knew that no priest or church official had any authority to grope our privates or show us their privates!
So the author is ignorant if he thinks we couldn't question priests. We were told that we could actually kick them in their privates if they tried anything funny. What were they going to do if we kicked and ran away? Squeal on us, like modern woke "rats"??? [NOTTT!!!]
Of course we wouldn't tell our mothers, because they wouldn't believe us and we wouldn't tell our fathers because, if they believed us, they would be duty bound to kill any S.O.B. who tried such stuff, whether or not the bad guys were priests. After all, our fathers had actually killed people in WWII, in a great number of "boomer" cases, for far less serious things than abusing children. e.g. Some of the guys they killed were simply wearing different uniforms from their own.
That was, of course, way back in the "stone age", when there were rules about fighting and how to have fair fights without being mobbed by a "woke gang" of rule-less barbarians with Marxist ideas and "ideals " of social justice --- which, to them, means mob anyone who disagrees with "us". And the residential school abuses were, for the most part, prior to the 1960's, cases of older residential school kids sexualizing/abusing younger kids. No 6 or 7 year old child can distinguish between a 14 year old "perv" altar boy, wearing an altar boy cassock, and a 25 year old priest wearing a cleric's cassock.
So, when Phil Fontaine talked about sex abuse at a residential school to Barbara Frum, in the 1990's, he was arguably talking about older school kids abusing younger school kids, although he was entirely vague and ambiguous about any "embarrassing" details --- moving from the allegation of every one of his Grade 3 school fellows being sexually abused to some priest "stripping and beating" a school girl, in front of "others", whoever those others were --- arguably not little boys, given the strict segregation between boys and girls at residential schools and other Catholic schools as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1776926760 [especially 2:28 to 6:05 in the interview]
Our author also says, quote:
AUTHOR: The legal mechanisms that protect the people perpetuating and promoting the ideology now seem entirely unquestionable.
Modern people are so incredibly "helpless" --- nothing is questionable, according to moderns, like the author, whereas everything was questionable and questioned in the old "hippie" days. What we have here, in sum, is 4 superior Courts [3 at the Court of Appeal of B.C. and 1 at the Supreme Court of Canada] who agreed that Neufeld be allowed a trial of his defamation suit as against Hansman. However 6 superior Courts agreed that Hansman ought to be allowed to call Neufeld names without legal consequences. So the balance is 6 equal Courts against 4 equal Courts. What may we do?
So call those 6 Superior Courts some actual legal names to their peers at the Canadian Judicial Council. All 6 obviously deprived BOTH Neufeld and Hansman of their respective rights to a "fair hearing, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, for the determination of their rights and obligations.", contrary to Section 2. (e) of The Canadian Bill of Rights [Not "The Charter"! Rather The Bill of Rights]. The majority of people to which these "Supreme" Justices gave a hearing were lawyers speaking on behalf of "woke" intervenor organizations, while apparently refusing to hear the lawyers for anti-woke or non-woke intervenors. Meanwhile Hansman, who is apparently "woke", has no stomach for an actual Court debate where he would be examined and cross-examined on his "reasons" for calling Neufeld names. So, in short, the 6 Superior Courts disobeyed Section 2. (e) of THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, contrary to Section 126. of The Criminal Code of Canada. Hence they should be both fired and gaoled for "disobeying a Statute" --- all 6 of them.
If you dare make a complaint to The Canadian Judicial Council, concerning those 6 morons who should be "sleeping on park benches" rather than sitting on "Court Benches", make sure that you send copies of your complaint to 1. Your local M.P., 2. your Provincial Lieutenant Governor, 3. The Governor General of Canada, 4. Your local Premier, 5. Your Provincial Minister of Justice, 6. Your Federal Minister of Justice and your local King of England via your local British Embassy because those 6 assholes only serve at the pleasure of His Majesty. Tell the King of England via those channels that you take no pleasure in legal assholes who violate citizens legal rights on both sides of an individual case. Don't call them assholes though. Call them criminals. It's a less controversial word.
And if you dare not do that, then shut your stupid mouths. I think I've said that before on this list. I, personally, have done this sort of thing, twice, previously. And somebody always catches the other stupid civil servants lying through their respective equally "stupid mouths".
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne