The term "White Supremacy" is a derogatory reference to Canada's majority population

Trustee Linda Stone was told by the woke Durham school board that false theories around white supremacy and gender ideology are "not debatable"

This is white supremacy

By

James Pew

“This term (white supremacy) separates whites from anyone else. This term is derogatory even though it is explained that it is not derogatory” - Linda Stone 

When one tries to make the argument expressed in the quote above, to an ideologically woke school board, the code of conduct, or perhaps the Ontario Human Rights Code, or some other such appeal to rules of policy or procedure are used to stop it. The bureaucracy itself is used as a weapon, and at each layer and level of a woke bureaucracy, one will encounter the same rhetorical tactic again and again: The Motte & Bailey.

This article will help you be able to spot when the Motte & Bailey is deployed by the woke. But before we begin, allow me to make two important points:

1. The term “white supremacy” and other related terms like “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “white tears,” “white rage,” etc., are derogatory. It is essential that Pro Human activists demand an end to the use of these hurtful terms, and the hateful assumptions attached to them, from all government policy and beyond.

2. The term “Systemic Racism,” is debatable. In fact, it is unlikely that  “systemic racism” or “systemic oppression” - which is said to be the defining feature of Western society - is a real thing at all. No one has demonstrated systemic racism empirically. What they have shown empirically is group disparities, which is good because that tells us which groups need support. But then they blame the disparity on white people, which is bad because it's untrue and clearly racist to cast blame on a single group.

It is surprising that Canadians are not more outraged about the appearance of a term like white supremacy, which just five minutes ago meant evil people who hide their identity by wearing white hoods and profess hatred for blacks and Jews and other non-white ethnicities. But that is no longer the case. Now, five black cops who murder a black person, is considered white supremacy.

Canada’s majority population is white, and instead of considering this simply as a demographic reality,  children are being taught that Western nations with white majorities, are in fact, white supremacies, made that way through colonization. This assumes that systemic racism is real, which assumes that the inherent racism of white people is real. 

There is no debate allowed around this, Canada’s white majority is to accept their complicity in an oppressive white supremacy, and individuals who disagree are to be shunned from society.

No other country's ethnic majority would allow such nonsense, but one compelling reason this happens in Canada is because the woke agenda is obscured, often through the Motte & Bailey rhetorical tactic. Use of the Motte & Bailey means two things are said at once. There is the “Motte,” an innocuous and reasonable position which most people agree with. The woke will try to trick you into believing that the Motte is their only argument by using manipulative language with double meanings to hide their true intention. Their true aim, argument or position is called the “Bailey.”

The Motte is what they tell you, but the Bailey is what they really mean. They go to great lengths to hide the fact that they speak (and operate) with hidden meanings and agendas. But they do. And it does not take much to identify exactly how they do it.

Yesterday I wrote about the Durham District School Board’s (DDSB) undemocratic “Trial by Trustee,” a situation involving an illiberal “wokeplace” mobbing and cancelation of Trustee Linda Stone. It was explained in that article that Linda found herself on the firing line for six occasions where the hegemonically woke DDSB claim she had breached the code of conduct.

One of the six occasions involved comments Linda made about the use of “white supremacy” (See quote at the top). Trustee Shailene Panylo commented on this in a mini-speech to the board that I would like to dissect to help readers decode the typical woke-speak deployed by Canadian school boards and bureaucracies.

Here is a video of Trustee Shailene Panylo.

Panylo begins by stating that the work of decolonization is intentional. She then explains how the work is uncomfortable and involves tough conversations. And that is “how it should be.” 

I will leave “decolonization” for another essay as I have lots to say about it. However, for now  the reader can assume that the term “decolonization” is just as fallacious and derogatory as the term “white supremacy.”

Panylo goes on to explain that a difference exists between groups, “when those who are marginalized and intentionally oppressed by systems, and have been historically, are forced to debate their right to exist, there is an imbalance of power in these conversations and in these spaces.”

In the above, the “Motte” position is that  people should not have to debate their right to exist. I wouldn’t want to meet someone who doesn’t agree with that. However, through the use of ideological language, the “Bailey” position - what is really being said - is quite different.

If you were not listening closely, you may have missed the implication that systemic racism is a fact, and that it is intentional. As stated previously, it’s not a fact. But to humor Panylo’s train of ideological thought: who does she think intends it? Well, we can extrapolate that the concern here is for the “historically marginalized” - another term that carries a number of debatable assumptions - which appears to be a catch-all that excludes white people. This false and hateful assumption basically says that throughout world history everyone was oppressed by white people. Nothing could be further from the truth - all ethnic groups have contributed their fair share of oppression throughout the centuries. History is awful, and white people hold no monopoly on that awfulness.

The line, “there is an imbalance of power in these conversations and in these spaces,” brings the oppression into the present. That is the true “Bailey” position. Don’t let the “Motte” references to history fool you into thinking the woke are not communicating the “Bailey,” which says white people are awful and are responsible for intentionally erecting systemic barriers to hurt non-white people in the present. Do my white readers know they are involved in such a conspiracy? 

Panylo then claims that asking questions forces the marginalized to defend their right to exist. And further asserts that this infringes on human rights and protected grounds. She concludes by saying, “it’s not up for debate and we clearly see it's a legislative fact.” 

That false assumptions are “not up for debate,” should be taken as an obvious attempt to silence criticism. 

Panylo says:

“Any person's learning, bias and curiosity is theirs to take accountability for. To do the labour of learning and unlearning. It is not the job of oppressed groups to educate you, while defending their right to simply exist, and be afforded equity that allows for equal outcomes. This goes for everyone, but especially those who were elected into positions of privilege, who have the increased ability and platform to cause real harm in their quest for a misconstrued weaponized form of quote unquote freedom. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression protects you from the government, not from the consequences of your expressions from the public and from the communities we are meant to serve.”

So much of what is said in the above relies on false assumptions. It is not the job of the oppressed to educate you is a crafty way of slipping through the hidden point: that you need to be re-educated. You don’t. So you can agree with Panylo that it is not the job of the oppressed to educate you. You can also agree with her sentiment that equity is about “equal outcomes,” that is truly what the woke aspire for. However, also implied is that “any person” must take accountability for their learning (read: re-education). She wants you to be so serious about your “bias” toward the “learning,” that even “curiosity” about it, is something you must be held “accountable for.”

The Motte seems to promote learning, but the Bailey reveals that while curiosity is not encouraged, “un-learning” is.

Panylo says her words apply especially to those in elected positions who can cause “real harm”  if they “quest for a misconstrued weaponized form of quote unquote freedom.” Here we see a typical woke tactic: the partially veiled attack on freedom. I think it is safe to be suspicious of anyone who feels the need to put quotations around the word freedom. The reader should be alarmed that the woke movement views basic freedoms, like free speech, as an obstacle they must be defeat. This explains why the woke often say, as Panylo did, that issues are “not up for debate.” 

There is very little that is actually not up for debate. A healthy liberal democracy requires that constraints on speech be made as minimally as possible. The woke want the opposite. They want maximum restraints on speech in all areas that intersect with woke doctrine. Their ideas are indefensible, so their only tactic is to make them non-debatable. They are far along in this objective, but it’s not too late for parents and citizens to organize, protest, and undo the damage done.

___

Thanks for reading. For more school board analysis from this author, read School board disappoints parents: The continued failure to provide solutions over trans teacher's outrageous attire

There are now two ways to support Woke Watch Canada through donations:

1) By subscribing to the paid version of the Woke Watch Canada Newsletter for - $5/month or $50/year

2) By donating to the Canadian School Board Investigation fund, which is raising money to expand Woke Watch Canada’s research and investigation into dysfunctional Canadian school boards.