Our state-guided slide into far-left totalitarianism is coming along beautifully. The downtrodden and mediocre are successfully shouting down, elbowing aside, and bullying out of employment anyone who might get in the way of achieving the end goal, whatever it might be. They tell us it's all in the name of benevolence and so it must be good. Our state broadcaster - the CBC - is still completely behind the revolution and sends out daily blasts of morale-boosting virtue-signals that devoted followers are free to recycle and use for themselves. You have no idea how uplifting it can be for a resentful, empty-headed, and dreary personality to be able to proudly proclaim, "Diversity is our strength".
You can be confident that the statement is true because everyone seems to be saying it; although, no one really seems to be sure what it actually means. The dictionary meaning of diversity doesn't seem to apply anymore. This is made clear by observing the hysterical reactions of the extremely sensitive and always listening political-correctness police. Whenever people with uninfected minds attempt to offer diverse opinions, the mobs quickly muster with slogans stapled to sticks, loudspeakers in hand, and begin the process of financially ruining the offending thinker. I am not part of the wise and divinely inspired revolutionary group that has decreed the new definitions and so I can only offer my interpretation as a lowly and ignorant outsider. Diversity appears to mean that there is only one single line of permitted thought on any topic. The correct thoughts must be dictated to us from one tiny and secretly chosen segment of our population. They will be the only ones allowed to form thoughts and opinions and they will dispense them, at their convenience, to the ignorant masses.
Occasionally, the state broadcaster - eager to help speed up the revolution - will do a radio show advising us that white people are bad or that there are many different genders. Sometimes, the state broadcaster informs us that a new branch of science has found that men and women are exactly the same and that gender is only a social construct. It has also apparently now been determined by the new science that a 50 year-old man can actually be a 6 year-old girl if he so chooses. I'm confused as to how this might work with driving licenses, alcohol purchases, or weddings, especially if the opposite scenario occurred. But then, that's why we have human-rights tribunals and other kangaroo courts. If you question such a claim or even stop to ponder the scientific credibility of it, you will be immediately accused of bigotry and hatred. This apparently means that you're a really terrible person, regardless of the fact that your family and circle of friends - people who actually know you well - think otherwise. If you do it in the wrong place, you might actually be physically assaulted for your transgressions against the agents of love and inclusion. Apparently, the great Lysenko lives on and has now moved on to teaching biology rather than simply perfecting it. He seems to have millions of students and for some reason they all seem to land government jobs. He seems to have also resurrected the old NKVD thugs to help with the "awareness campaign". I have a hard time keeping up with all of the official statements of new scientific revelations, and so I have simply been forced to give up and stick to studying the now discredited and antiquated classics in the fields of science and philosophy. Barry Neufeld's transgression, while by yesterday's standards might seem extremely minor, is of the type that challenges the new and unquestionable doctrines put forward by the self-appointed offence-seeking and dignity-dispensing gurus. He must now pay.
Barry Neufeld is a school trustee in the productive farming community of Chilliwack, in Western Canada. He made the mistake of assuming that he had the right to question some of the indoctrination tactics that are now being applied to children. Children have enough difficulty navigating the world without being preyed upon by people who feel the need to use tax money and publicly funded institutions to inflict their ideology on a vulnerable and captive audience. You might think that the discussion that Mr. Neufeld has initiated is one that should be had, and indeed, must be had, if anyone actually cares about school-age children. You would be wrong - a guilty verdict on the charge of wrongthink is on its way. I suspect that Mr. Neufeld's concern for children is genuine, while the perpetrators who are attempting to inflict scientifically suspect doctrines onto children are likely motivated by their blinding ideologies and, a desperate desire to artificially increase their numbers by spreading the false idea that something very rare is common and normal. The only way to accurately describe such behaviour is to label it as religious fanaticism.
Religious fanaticism always leaves behind victims - that's always been its major achievement. There are now cases of adults who, when they were children, were coerced into thinking that they were the wrong gender. Some of these children underwent hormone therapy and destructive surgeries, only to change their minds when they got older. Of course! That's exactly what you would expect to happen. Who was looking out for these kids? They were let down by their parents, the school system, doctors, and the inability of intellectually corrupted adults to face and state simple truths. Mr. Neufeld and others like him are attempting to look out for such children. He should be listened to, and taken seriously. If there is credible scientific evidence that he is wrong, then let's see it. Yelling and holding up idiotic signs while demanding that he lose his position does nothing at all for human progress. I would offer that, if it is the case that your argument is so weak that it can only be advanced by an ignorant and bullying mob calling for destruction, maybe it is your argument that needs correction, and not those who are questioning it.
In addition to noisy crackpots with signs, Mr. Neufeld has also been subjected to foolishness from noisy crackpots without signs. In particular, people who hold positions of influence. This is particularly troubling. One of these individuals, Glen Hansman, is the British Columbia Teachers' Federation President. Mr. Hansman, while being interviewed by a local television news program, made numerous very bizarre and troubling statements about Mr. Neufeld and the situation in general. He said that Neufeld's comments were bigoted and he expressed a desire and an ability to have Neufeld bullied out of his role. He then proceeded to spew forth a long and predictable manifesto that was jammed with the new language of inclusion and diversity.
What is interesting here is the fact that again, this movement likes to manipulate our language in order to achieve its goals. Mr. Hansman implied that Neufeld is a bigot. The definition of a bigot is one who is intolerant of those who hold different opinions. Hansman has expressed a desire to see Neufeld fired for holding opinions that are different than his. So who is the bigot here?
Hansman then claimed to speak for Chilliwack and said that Chilliwack is not a place that agrees with comments "like that", referring to Neufeld's objections of childhood indoctrination. How Hansman can credibly claim to know what Chilliwack thinks or that all of Chilliwack thinks in unison is beyond me. Later in the interview, Hansman said that, "Chilliwack often gets a bad rap but it's a very diverse community". There we go with the confusion over the definition of diverse again. He didn't say what exactly the "bad rap" consisted of. I assume that he meant people who might think differently than him. Apparently, that will get you bad rap and possibly cost you your employment. And when he says "diverse community", I assume he means that most people in the community think the correct thing as described by him.
Hansman went on to call people who question the indoctrination of children "fringe movements", and expressed an opinion that these are "dwindling voices". I think that he actually might be mistaken and find that it's only because of enforced political correctness that he has the false sense that most people agree with him. Hansman and his type might actually succeed in bullying people into using newly invented pronouns and allowing children to be indoctrinated into the gender-politics cult, but they will be despised for it and will never be able achieve the feeling of earned respect and dignity. He will have to keep having paper replicas of those qualities issued to him by the government mandated dignity and respect tribunals.
Part of the indoctrination manual that Neufeld objected to actually contains references to manipulating our common language. Here is a sample:
Common Language (Definitions/Terms) - Every party involved will be well-informed and equipped with appropriate and respectful language. Any set of terms should acknowledge that language is ever evolving and that the individual is always the expert on how they may identify and on what language or terms they consider respectful and inclusive of themselves.
Self-Identification – Students have the right to self-identification, which includes the name by which they wish to be addressed and their preferred pronouns that correspond to their gender identity
So here we have it. I sense enforced gender-pronoun use coming as well as other manipulations of our language. Please keep in mind that there are more new gender pronouns than anyone could ever remember and that most people have never heard of them. What these people want is for the entire society to modify our common language to suit their radical political agendas. How does it help children to teach them that they will earn respect and dignity by bullying people into modifying their language? It is bullying - there is no question there. A teacher who failed to comply would no doubt be fired and also possibly face fines and penalties from kangaroo courts. The Ministry of Correct Thought and their followers love tribunals and kangaroo courts because it saves them from having to produce coherent legal arguments. They can each get ten units of dignity and respect, awarded to them by the tribunal, and can also apply to have it replenished anytime that someone outside the echo-chamber carelessly introduces them to reality. They don't seem to realize that this government issued dignity and respect is empty and is only a cheap paper version of the actual thing. Maybe they don't have the taste to even notice. They refuse to use the old system of acquiring dignity and respect, which consists of operating on a system of courtesy and mutual respect and living in a dignified manner.
The new state-mandated - and Hansman approved - way of acquiring respect seems to consist of threats and intimidation: Call me zir, or zee, or them, when I say, or I'll have you fired from your job and ruin you financially. Call me old fashioned, but there seems to be a distinct lack of humility here. Although the interview contained no mention of these pronouns specifically, make no mistake, this is exactly what they have in mind.
Another interesting detail of Hansman's interview consisted of him informing us that he had experienced, in school, the same type of problems that the new indoctrination program is attempting to prevent. While I sympathise with Hansman, I think that he is mistaken about the source of his difficulties. If he behaved then as he does now, his problems likely arose because of his off-putting personality, and not because of any gender or sexual orientation issues. I watched his interview and found that he behaved like a manipulative bully.
Because of the times we live in, I am forced to pre-emptively fend off accusations of being a transphobe or a homophobe. For those who know me, this problem doesn't exist. For those who don't know me, you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not. I have gay friends and live in an area with many transgendered people who I frequently do business with. I evaluate and treat every person as an individual. I base my opinions of them on their actions and how they behave in the world. The most important criteria I have for evaluating people is this: Are they decent? That's everything to me. I will not have the state mandate my opinions of people or the level of respect that I am required to bestow onto them. I will not pretend to treat bullies with respect - even if some tribunal or kangaroo court orders me to. My liberty and the freedom to speak what I believe, and to relay thoughts that are my own, are worth far more to me than the strategic success of any radical ideologue. Mr. Hansman, you don't seem decent to me.
I hope that Mr. Neufeld keeps up his very reasonable line of questioning. As far as I am concerned, he has every right to do this. In fact, if he believes that he has the best interest of students in mind, then he has a moral obligation to himself and to students to continue on with it. Courage is in short supply these days and its absence is not improving our society.