Once people see themselves as "progressive"--which in their minds also means "virtuous"--they have put themselves on a slippery slope wherein they are obliged by this identity to support, and even promote, anything that gets claimed to be "progressive" by other "progressives." And, of course, part of the ethos of progressivism is that it has to keep progressing! You can't debate them on any such position because they are personally embedded in it. And once they get a job and social status doing it they are unreachable.
Good for you Kathleen. Trying to get social justice from such a bureaucracy is like Hercules fighting the mythical hydra. Each time a head is cut off, another regrows. What is telling, from the picture in your article, is the two fingered salute prominently displayed by those in the crowd, symbolizing the B.S. nature of this whole shameful fiasco. Keep up the good work.
Someone like Labelle was attracted the opportunity to be at Fyrefly because it's obvious all kinds of boundaries and safeguarding are out the window there. Why is there a camp devoted to the sexuality of children? Why is the age range of campers 14-24? What is good about 14 year olds, who are children, exploring their sexual identity in the company of 24 year olds, who are adults?
Traditional camps have people in their 20s working with children, but their roles are clearly differentiated: the over 18s are counselors, and at well-run camps, understand the serious duties and responsibilities attaching to the role. To tell 19-24 year olds they are one of the kiddies among young teens is asking for trouble; to tell young teens they should treat 19-24 year olds like peers, like fellow kids, is a terrible idea.
I don't believe everyone involved is a pervert, at all. I think adults who are convinced they are involved in something so unassailably virtuous it requires none of the ordinary guardrails have set up a framework that will inevitably -- and indeed, has -- attracted malevolent actors.
Educators have seen this happen over, and over, and over again. Jimmy Saville was so charitable he didn't need to be watched around kids!!!! Residential schools are so benevolent they couldn't possibly attract bad actors! (I agree that much of the rhetoric around residential schools is overblown, but they did have exactly this problem). The priesthood only attracts the best of men! Scouting is so good for boys, any man who wants to be a scoutmaster wants only the best for boys! Etc. etc. etc.
It is amazing that the Faculty of Education at the U of A, and the Alberta public school authorities, cannot see the risks in plain view when they are such well-known, standard, long-standing risks that are basic to any consideration of child safeguarding.
Great comments Kathleen. This response adds a lot to your article, adds some perspective. As you say, all organizations that deal with kids have a Duty of Care, legal or simply moral, whereby they put safety mechanisms in place to deal with the inevitable bad actors who see opportunity to take advantage. These kinds of opportunists are small in number, but they always exist, and prudence is always required. Yet on the gender ideology/trans file, the powers that be seem unable or unwilling to put up reasonable safeguards, that would apply to anyone. I don't know if their inaction is caused by fear of criticism or if they have some kind of kind empathy poisoning that clouds their better judgment and critical thinking. The entire self-ID approach is deeply flawed, for example, because if a system can be gamed, it WILL be gamed, by the bad actors always present among us. You can't be naive in designing policy or setting group operating guidelines.
All bureaucracies' have tunnel vision, each Dept. unassailable empires unto themselves. When my children were in public school and being indoctrinated by well meaning evangelicals, the only thing that worked was a front page news story, which like a catalyst in a chemical reaction, drastically sped up the desired result. I was lucky. I think what you are doing will produce the anticipated resolution.
Once people see themselves as "progressive"--which in their minds also means "virtuous"--they have put themselves on a slippery slope wherein they are obliged by this identity to support, and even promote, anything that gets claimed to be "progressive" by other "progressives." And, of course, part of the ethos of progressivism is that it has to keep progressing! You can't debate them on any such position because they are personally embedded in it. And once they get a job and social status doing it they are unreachable.
Good for you for shining light on this and being persistent in doing so.
Good for you Kathleen. Trying to get social justice from such a bureaucracy is like Hercules fighting the mythical hydra. Each time a head is cut off, another regrows. What is telling, from the picture in your article, is the two fingered salute prominently displayed by those in the crowd, symbolizing the B.S. nature of this whole shameful fiasco. Keep up the good work.
It must be very obvious to all that they are also perverts so there is your answer.
Someone like Labelle was attracted the opportunity to be at Fyrefly because it's obvious all kinds of boundaries and safeguarding are out the window there. Why is there a camp devoted to the sexuality of children? Why is the age range of campers 14-24? What is good about 14 year olds, who are children, exploring their sexual identity in the company of 24 year olds, who are adults?
Traditional camps have people in their 20s working with children, but their roles are clearly differentiated: the over 18s are counselors, and at well-run camps, understand the serious duties and responsibilities attaching to the role. To tell 19-24 year olds they are one of the kiddies among young teens is asking for trouble; to tell young teens they should treat 19-24 year olds like peers, like fellow kids, is a terrible idea.
I don't believe everyone involved is a pervert, at all. I think adults who are convinced they are involved in something so unassailably virtuous it requires none of the ordinary guardrails have set up a framework that will inevitably -- and indeed, has -- attracted malevolent actors.
Educators have seen this happen over, and over, and over again. Jimmy Saville was so charitable he didn't need to be watched around kids!!!! Residential schools are so benevolent they couldn't possibly attract bad actors! (I agree that much of the rhetoric around residential schools is overblown, but they did have exactly this problem). The priesthood only attracts the best of men! Scouting is so good for boys, any man who wants to be a scoutmaster wants only the best for boys! Etc. etc. etc.
It is amazing that the Faculty of Education at the U of A, and the Alberta public school authorities, cannot see the risks in plain view when they are such well-known, standard, long-standing risks that are basic to any consideration of child safeguarding.
Great comments Kathleen. This response adds a lot to your article, adds some perspective. As you say, all organizations that deal with kids have a Duty of Care, legal or simply moral, whereby they put safety mechanisms in place to deal with the inevitable bad actors who see opportunity to take advantage. These kinds of opportunists are small in number, but they always exist, and prudence is always required. Yet on the gender ideology/trans file, the powers that be seem unable or unwilling to put up reasonable safeguards, that would apply to anyone. I don't know if their inaction is caused by fear of criticism or if they have some kind of kind empathy poisoning that clouds their better judgment and critical thinking. The entire self-ID approach is deeply flawed, for example, because if a system can be gamed, it WILL be gamed, by the bad actors always present among us. You can't be naive in designing policy or setting group operating guidelines.
All bureaucracies' have tunnel vision, each Dept. unassailable empires unto themselves. When my children were in public school and being indoctrinated by well meaning evangelicals, the only thing that worked was a front page news story, which like a catalyst in a chemical reaction, drastically sped up the desired result. I was lucky. I think what you are doing will produce the anticipated resolution.
Keep up the good work - cheers!