Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
19,059
4,729
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Leads to the question. . . is "compensatory discrimination" the right answer for past discrimination (which never happened, of course)?

My answer is no, it's not worth giving the supremacists the fodder for their terrified whining.

Rather, strict and criminal enforcement of discrimination violations seems to be the best answer.
(Compensatory Discrimination is a term coined for the policy or programs that give preference to a group or groups of people with a stated goal of countering and compensating the past or ongoing atrocities, excesses, injustice, or discrimination of any sort against them)

…& a reasonable yet debatable definition of what that discrimination is and if it’s valid? The boundaries of what is or isn’t discrimination would still be allowed to be discussed?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,627
4,696
113
Washington DC
(Compensatory Discrimination is a term coined for the policy or programs that give preference to a group or groups of people with a stated goal of countering and compensating the past or ongoing atrocities, excesses, injustice, or discrimination of any sort against them)

…& a reasonable yet debatable definition of what that discrimination is and if it’s valid? The boundaries of what is or isn’t discrimination would still be allowed to be discussed?
We forbid discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, sexuality. . . or competence.

Kidding. My proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution would read "(1) Discrimination on the basis of any factor irrelevant or only minimally relevant to the area in dispute shall not exist in the United States. (2) Congress shall have the power to make laws to enforce this Amendment."

The "boundaries of discrimination" are simple. It's any discrimination based on perceptions of a group to which a person is perceived as belonging, rather than the individual's own characteristics and abilities.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
19,059
4,729
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
We forbid discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, sexuality. . . or competence.
Discrimination based upon the whims of those in power if your opinion is different than theirs? I’m thinking of “misogynistic racists with unacceptable views…” type stuff above 54° 40’. Is that discrimination acceptable and can it be debated? The Bills mentioned in the Thread Title might make that illegal.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,627
4,696
113
Washington DC
Discrimination based upon the whims of those in power if your opinion is different than theirs?
Nope.
I’m thinking of “misogynistic racists with unacceptable views…” type stuff above 54° 40’.
Views are prejudice. Actions are discrimination.
Is that discrimination acceptable and can it be debated? The Bills mentioned in the Thread Title might make that illegal.
No, yes. Your bills are stupid and overbroad.

As a lawyer, I approve! Call 'em the Lawyers' Full Employment Acts of 2023.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,437
1,490
113
New Brunswick
Canadian universities and national research funding agencies insist on mandatory training that offers highly-politicized claims about discrimination and equity. Failure to accept the training means you might not get hired, or be allowed to sit on hiring committees — or, for universities themselves, that they won’t receive highly coveted Canada Research Chair positions. This training isn’t meant simply to avoid discrimination in the workplace — for that would be commonsensical and not at all controversial. Rather, the so-called training redefines the meaning of what counts as discrimination in ways that are very debatable — and yet no debate is allowed.

What the College of Psychologists is doing is the equivalent of an old school teacher who wants to discipline a whole classroom and so selects the biggest kid to come to the front of the class to face the strap.

The big kid might be able to handle the pain, but the dark message is really for all the others watching. “This is what happens when you act out,” the college is saying. “This is what we do to those who break our rules.”

The college claims it’s upholding professional public standards. Yet any reasonably intelligent person can see the subjective bias they are using to make that claim.


The issue here isn’t the political opinion. It is instead the way professional associations and institutions are being taken over by activists who demand that only certain political views are the new normal.

It’s easy to see this as a power grab, and it is. But it’s also likely that the psychologists and other professionals genuinely believe what they’re doing.


Over the last few years as our media landscape has polarized in correlation with the rise of social media, we have not spent nearly enough time noting how this transformed informational world has affected our highly educated professionals. Many of our educated classes listen to CBC radio and read the Globe and Mail and the New York Times, and many seem not to have noticed how the viewpoints they find in those outlets have narrowed. It can seem as if the radicalization and polarization in our media ecosystem has all taken place somewhere else and to somebody else. Polarization is about Fox News and right-wing media personalities like Ben Shapiro. Surely it can’t be about me!

It’s too easy for such figures to believe that they occupy the centre — even as the news outlets veer leftward, and increasingly exclude opinions now deemed “problematic” but which were, five minutes ago, simply an alternative perspective.


Certainly, radicalization happened on the right. Polarization has been a two-way street. But the difference is that it was more obvious what was happening to those on the right. They actively sought out different points of view. Many of our professionals and intelligentsia continued to sit in the same space, ingesting the same media, and failing to realize that their new normal was radically different from what it had once been. Polarization came for them and they didn’t need to get out of their chair.

As the Trump presidency deranged America, and as woke ideology jumped into the mainstream, many of our highly educated professionals simply switched what they saw as normal. The Overton window shifted. Canada became a genocidal state; questions like “where are you from?” became racist, and a white kid sporting dreadlocks went from being a bad hair-fashion choice to evidence of white supremacy.

Sorry Ron, but when someone like Jordan Peterson - again, who is supposed to be someone who sees to the mental needs of people - has said what he's said and will talk with and associate with people like Joe Rogan and worse, Andrew Tate then no. Absolutely he should get his license revoked. There is no excuse for it. It's not "opinion" anymore, it's a danger to any prospective patients he could have.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,763
1,683
113
As a patient you should be able to go to either without fear of biases interfering in their help to you.
considering that what's happening to peterson is nothing BUT an exercise in political bias, i guess what you're saying is that we shouldn't have mental health services at all.

Bias is an unavoidable part of being human. Everyone will have a preference on virtually any topic and everyone will believe their preference is the most reasonable. That's not avoidable. However - unless you can show that somehow they are allowing those biases to interfere with their professional duties or impact the care they give, then you have ZERO reason to hold it against them.

This has nothing in the slightest to do with ethics or professionalism and has everything to do with the bias of the board and their desire to 'attack' a position they don't like. And the fact that it happens elsewhere as you say is NOT a reason to ignore it here. For gods sake how do we even need to explain that to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,627
4,696
113
Washington DC
Sorry Ron, but when someone like Jordan Peterson - again, who is supposed to be someone who sees to the mental needs of people - has said what he's said and will talk with and associate with people like Joe Rogan and worse, Andrew Tate then no. Absolutely he should get his license revoked. There is no excuse for it. It's not "opinion" anymore, it's a danger to any prospective patients he could have.
Sorry, Serryah, but I have to side with the Conjobs on this one.

For better or for worse, we leave treatment options up to the doctor/therapist/counsellor/whatever you want to call them precisely because it's an art, not a science. We trust, having no choice, that the practitioner will do what's best for the patient in the practitioner's medical/psychological judgment, including or leaving out the practitioner's biases, whatever they may be, and focussing on the patient.

There are avenues for people who feel that their practitioner is not doing them any, or enough, good. They can seek another practitioner, they can complain to the licensing board. If it isn't already mandatory, I would favor providing a "Patient's Bill of Rights" in writing and requiring practitioners to run through it orally at the start of the first session. I would also favor review and "black marks" against a practitioner for verified complaints with an eye to warning, disciplining, or even striking off a misbehaving practitioner. But that should only happen based on what the practitioner does in session, not on what she says in a non-treatment environment.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,437
1,490
113
New Brunswick
Sorry, Serryah, but I have to side with the Conjobs on this one.

For better or for worse, we leave treatment options up to the doctor/therapist/counsellor/whatever you want to call them precisely because it's an art, not a science. We trust, having no choice, that the practitioner will do what's best for the patient in the practitioner's medical/psychological judgment, including or leaving out the practitioner's biases, whatever they may be, and focussing on the patient.

There are avenues for people who feel that their practitioner is not doing them any, or enough, good. They can seek another practitioner, they can complain to the licensing board. If it isn't already mandatory, I would favor providing a "Patient's Bill of Rights" in writing and requiring practitioners to run through it orally at the start of the first session. I would also favor review and "black marks" against a practitioner for verified complaints with an eye to warning, disciplining, or even striking off a misbehaving practitioner. But that should only happen based on what the practitioner does in session, not on what she says in a non-treatment environment.

After learning he's associated with Andrew Tate, at this point JP is as bad as anyone who associated with Epstein, really. And considering the outcry over those people (which are entirely valid, by the way) to me it just makes the man even worse.

That, and I know if he were a "left wing" supporter, this would be an issue only the outcry would come from the right side of things (though I'd agree with them then, too).

I do get where you and Ron are coming from, just one of those "agree to disagree" moments I think. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
19,059
4,729
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Did Peterson commit a crime?
Did this Nurse?
Nurse Amy Hamm is presently before a disciplinary panel of the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives for saying that biological sex is real. Numerous doctors have been sanctioned for expressing medical views contrary to official government COVID policies. The College of Psychologists of Ontario wants to re-educate Jordan Peterson for criticizing Justin Trudeau on social media.

Across the country, regulators are censoring, disciplining or ousting members of their professions who fail to comport with their political imperatives. A new standard of practice is emerging for Canadian professionals: be woke, be quiet, or be accused of professional misconduct.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,627
4,696
113
Washington DC
They used to say the same thing about the "natural" separation of "White" and "Colored" facilities in the U.S.

Apparently that's the way Gawd wants it. Anybody says different is denying biology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
103,594
8,234
113
Low Earth Orbit
Did this Nurse?
Nurse Amy Hamm is presently before a disciplinary panel of the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives for saying that biological sex is real. Numerous doctors have been sanctioned for expressing medical views contrary to official government COVID policies. The College of Psychologists of Ontario wants to re-educate Jordan Peterson for criticizing Justin Trudeau on social media.

Across the country, regulators are censoring, disciplining or ousting members of their professions who fail to comport with their political imperatives. A new standard of practice is emerging for Canadian professionals: be woke, be quiet, or be accused of professional misconduct.
Feminism is a hate group. It's a stinky pile Bolshevik.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,763
1,683
113
They used to say the same thing about the "natural" separation of "White" and "Colored" facilities in the U.S.
Well no.

They used to say that there is a difference between blacks and whites, and that is biology. It is true that they said that. And it IS IN FACT TRUE THAT THERE IS A BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE. That's actually a true statement.

The challenge is your second part. They determined that because there is a biological difference the best thing they could do would be to seperate the two groups. I don't know if they felt god wanted them to, but it was NOT a 'biological' decision. And in fact very few ever suggested that it should be.

Now - many today would say the americans should have treated them the same as everyone else regardless of biological differences. And i would agree. Of course, that is also what they tried with the first nations in Canada, trying to pretend everyone's the same and that didn't work out so well either so you have to be a little careful. turns out when you ignore differences entirely it can cause problems too.

So there's nothing wrong with noting that a biological male is biologically a male, not a female. Now - we go from there and talk about how we're going to address the differences between a trans female and a biological female in a way thats as healthy and respectful as possible to both sides.

But for the left... nooooooo, anyone that says anything biologically true is a slave owner :) LOL - man, i can't even imagine living in a brain that messed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2