December 15, 2017

Want a government grant? Pledge belief in Trudeau’s politics on transgender “expression”

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

We’ve shown you Paul Wolscht before. He’s a 54 year old, husband and dad with a bunch of kids that one day decided he wanted to be a six year old girl.

He’s a troubled man.

You don’t need to be mean to a troubled man. Most importantly, you want to make sure he doesn’t hurt himself, or other people.

I'm sure his family's been through a lot, and they might have some things to say about him by virtue of their connection to him. But you and me, strangers?

Well, I take the libertarian view — don’t bug me, and I won’t bug you, and let’s hope this guy finds some peace.

But the libertarian idea of everyone minding their own business, isn’t really allowed anymore in Canada.

With the passage of Bill C-16 this summer, you now have to accommodate Paul Wolscht for his gender identity and gender expression — Zhe and zher.

That’s what got Professor Peterson so revved up — he opposed being compelled to say things he didn't believe. That’s a violation of the most basic principles of personal liberty.

Just like you can’t force Paul Wolscht to think a certain way, he can’t force you either. That’s the main point of the Charter which binds government conduct.

But the news now is that there’s an “attestation” that all employers must sign in order to receive a job grant to hire people for the summer.

Why should you have to confirm Trudeau’s political opinions before you can get a jobs grant?

This isn’t about protecting someone from being beat up or protecting someone from genocide, or even about stopping discrimination against the Paul Wolschts of the world, and I’ll prove it to you.

NEXT: Andrew Klavan, host of the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan Show, joins me to discuss why it’s been a banner year for conservatives in the United States.

THEN: Sheila Gunn Reid weighs in on Jason Kenney's by-election win last night.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-12-19 08:39:55 -0500
Andrew, please re-read all the posts myself and Liza have directed to your attention on this thread.
I think you lack perspective and the ability to see around corners; Bill C-16 is bad legislation. Maybe it would help if you considered how this legislation can be used as a hammer by those folks who are hypersensitive and punitive in nature.
I’m not suggesting you would use the legislation in this manner; I am asking you to think about those who will. I keep bringing up Lindsay Shephard because this case is directly linked.

I’m not of the belief people should conform to heterosexuality if this is not their inclination. Andrew, you breathe, you think, therefore you are.

Be mindful that there are many people in the LGBTQ community who disagree with the loud, militant members of their community, and they simply want to lead their lives without being told they are “victims”. It’s completely out of line for the government to pander to militants and pass legislation which is unconstitutional.

Compare Gay Pride festivals in the West to the festivals in Japan, say Tokyo.
Black Pigeon Speaks uploaded an interesting commentary this past spring.
commented 2017-12-19 01:14:10 -0500
“It’s not about my proclivities. It’s the kids. Some of whom are going to be non-binary and stigmatized by a model that tells them they don’t exist.”

It is about the kids, absolutely, and most importantly. It is about how much should we be influencing their sexuality by early sexualization and giving them options they never knew existed. Interference unprecedented with results most questionable and often damaging. Variations in sexuality are not ‘unnatural’ they are variations.. There have always existed in nature and no one is telling these kid’s they don’t exist. I just don’t get why anyones sexuality needs to be of public interest, barring a few already on the books restrictions, why should I care? There is nothing to be recognised, we are all protected under the law, no special consideration needs to be manufactured. All it does is create an imbalance.

Variations in the nuclear family have existed for a long time. My girlfriend in high school grew up with two mothers, and that was over 30 years ago. I bumped into transexuals, knew homosexuals, and had relatives who by all accounts were either asexual or genderless (as you suggest there is a difference). It is nothing new. What’s new is forcing it on young children as an alternative lifestyle, and changing laws, and demanding ‘duck speak’ pronouns. Leave those kids alone. Stop making them victims by making them stand apart, by sexualizing them before they even hit puberty, and let them figure out their sexuality on their own. Being a sexual variation of one kind or another should not get anyone special victimhood status. There are laws to already protect everyone. Its all good. everyone should go their own way and mind their own business. Anyone confused should seek the support of family or professionals and leave the government and politics out of it as much as possible.
Heterosexuality is necessary for the survival of the human race, that doesn’t mean a person should be forced to be heterosexual if their have other inclinations.
Live and let live, don’t mess with children and protect them from government interference not sacrifice them to it. The government is more than happy to use confused children as pawns. The more you let them interfere in your business the more they will use you (anyone). It is proving detrimental to the mental health of our children and the entire nation will suffer.
commented 2017-12-18 22:58:36 -0500
“There are two genders, pick a lane. Your sex life should be none of my business and I don’t care who wears a dress or rocks the buzz cut. And please keep teaching that crap out of the schools, and libraries. Kids don’t need to know about your sexual proclivities. The government is just whipping up (manufacturing)yet another group of ‘victims’ for a new industry to mess with society, gain votes and cost the tax payer money. "

It’s not about my proclivities. It’s the kids. Some of whom are going to be non-binary and stigmatized by a model that tells them they don’t exist.
commented 2017-12-18 22:57:04 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2017-12-17 17:37:28 -0500
Andrew, going back to earlier posts on this thread where you said," I have absolutely no sense of gender identity myself and merely identify by assigned sex out of convenience – but whatever, it’s their life and I will respect that by acknowledging their identities. I do not feel this particularly onerous."
It is very plausible you are blindly defending legislation based on your own situation, and, the tendency toward intellectualization. It is not uncommon for people on the Autism spectrum to identify as asexual, I’m assuming you have Asperger’s syndrome. "

Yes to both (although asexual is not the same as genderless. One is not being sexually attracted to anybody, the other not having a gender identity). Asexuality is still routinely pathologized and bears stigma even among the broader LGBTQ community.

What’s the alternative? That I “blindly” defend an ideology that essentially denies that my scenario is “unnatural” or is simply delusion? Think about that for a second. I don’t care about society’s labels – but not everyone is so lucky. The bigger picture is… what? That we should accept and embrace people for being who they are? That we shouldn’t? That we should instead make people feel bad for being different, then shoehorn them into categories that really have no empirical basis? Yes, most people will be one or the other, but most is not all.

Let’s look at the big picture. Does it hurt society to acknowledge it? No. Does it hurt you? No. Setting aside the issues of the laws, they shouldn’t be necessary… what is the big picture issue here? If a traditional heteronormative nuclear family works for you, great. If it doesn’t, you shouldn’t be forced to conform.

I admit that I do obsess. I am aware of this. However, you’re using my tendencies to “poison the well” and laterally discredit my commentary instead of addressing it directly.
commented 2017-12-18 00:14:09 -0500
I believe deviations of the ‘norm’ exist Andrew, how many times do I have to say it. Why does it have to have a name or special consideration? Anyone who is a variation has always up until ‘the current year’ had to identify as male or female, regardless of their sexual proclivity. That works, because the population as a whole doesn’t need to know or care who or what you sleep with as long as it is not four legged or under age. I don’t care and I don’t want to know. Furthermore, I will probably end up feeling resentful if I am forced to say and ‘think’ in a certain government approved mandated way. If m103 becomes a bill I will resent that government over step also. I am glad you agree that it shouldn’t be mandated, too bad it already is.

There are two genders, pick a lane. Your sex life should be none of my business and I don’t care who wears a dress or rocks the buzz cut. And please keep teaching that crap out of the schools, and libraries. Kids don’t need to know about your sexual proclivities. The government is just whipping up (manufacturing)yet another group of ‘victims’ for a new industry to mess with society, gain votes and cost the tax payer money.

Tammie, very insightful, and I think you may have hit the nail on the head.
commented 2017-12-17 21:04:15 -0500
There are men and women, males and females PERIOD.
Anyone who says they are something else are suffering from some kind of mental issues.
What the hell are the future generations going to be like and what kind of a world will they have?
Our leaders have gone completely bat shit crazy.
Perhaps we need to find a nice quiet corner someplace on this planet where all these gender challenged people can move to and leave the rest of the sane people be.
commented 2017-12-17 19:31:13 -0500
Getting back to Trudeau’s Attestation, totalitarian in nature and a sure way to not hire anyone who may fall into the parameters of his imposed regulations.
commented 2017-12-17 17:37:28 -0500
Andrew, going back to earlier posts on this thread where you said," I have absolutely no sense of gender identity myself and merely identify by assigned sex out of convenience – but whatever, it’s their life and I will respect that by acknowledging their identities. I do not feel this particularly onerous."
It is very plausible you are blindly defending legislation based on your own situation, and, the tendency toward intellectualization. It is not uncommon for people on the Autism spectrum to identify as asexual, I’m assuming you have Asperger’s syndrome.

I like Kenneth Roberson PHD concise explanation of intellectualization:
“Because adults with Aspergers tend to be cut off from their feelings, they acquire facts and information without understanding how those facts can be applied to real-world situations.

They are detail oriented, often missing the overall picture, and they apply the same level of detail to every situation whether appropriate or not.

Individuals with Aspergers often have an intense interest in one or two narrow topics, bordering on obsession. Stamp collecting, song lyrics, and computer puzzles can become focal points in their need to collect and organize facts, which is comforting to people with Aspergers.

Because of their focus on reasoning and intellect, many adults with Aspergers make great intellectual contributions. Recent reports of highly successful professionals in Silicon Valley suggest that a high proportion of them have tendencies that lie within the Aspergers range."

Not that long ago, you posted that you are “mildly autistic”. I surmised that about seven months ago, based on your posts, specifically relating to electric vehicles and the transgender movement/agenda.
Also, you have described yourself as misanthropic.
My reason for bringing this up is, you are missing the big picture with Bill C-16.
commented 2017-12-17 17:00:57 -0500
Sorry Andrew, the people who do not care about the made up pronouns are not practicing hate speech when they don’t use them!
Trans violence was not being committed by Lindsay Shephard, and yet, she was accused of this in the star chamber interrogation…this is unacceptable.
SWL behaved liked the Gestapo.
commented 2017-12-17 16:54:57 -0500
James Scott, yes, the mindless hairdo will certainly drag his feet, some of his favoured people ritually abuse animals!
commented 2017-12-17 16:44:29 -0500
Andrew, Jared Brown cited two examples of when compelled speech can be used. You seem to ignore the rest of the analysis.
Bang this drum all you like, and, remember Lindsay Shephard in the process….this legislation was used by the fascists at SWL.

I call Bullshit on this legislation!
commented 2017-12-17 16:21:17 -0500
While we’re on the topic of gender.
How do you think fem Trudeau will respond to Michelle’s private member bill pertaining to bestiality?
Her bill is intended to close a loop hole in the Canadian Law that currently does not make bestiality illegal. Should be a slam dunk but I bet Trudeau will drag his feet.
commented 2017-12-17 16:18:37 -0500
What do you feel is a better term for someone that identifies outside the “traditional” categories? (Whether you believe they exist or not is irrelevant. They do.)

They’re not a game, they’re people and worth respecting as such.

You’re correct in that it shouldn’t be mandatory, and for most people it isn’t, since they are able to recognize other people have a right to their own lives without being pigeonholed into obsolete categories.
commented 2017-12-17 14:03:30 -0500
Andrew, I wager more than half of what you call nonbinary ( god what a stupid word) are as artificially produced as the term.
Not playing the stupid game. Just not playing. What are you going to do about it put me in jail and prove my point?
‘Ideas so good they need to be mandatory!’ are bullshit.
commented 2017-12-17 11:48:19 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 14 hours ago
Jared Brown cited the following re: compelled speech
“In very narrow and restricted situations, the courts have allowed legislation that is in the nature of compelled speech. However, these exceptions are extremely few, and have been restricted primarily to the commercial advertising realm including mandatory health warnings on cigarette packaging, and the requirement that persons applying for Canadian citizenship must pledge an oath to the Queen.”

Wouldn’t hate speech laws be a better comparator, considering C16 is an expansion upon that, rather than say tobacoo labeling laws? Inappropriate use of gendered pronouns for the sake of prejudice is no different than inappropriate use of racialized nouns. Why doesn’t he bring it up from that angle? Because he knows that that is pretty much an instant loss. Perhaps you feel gender based prejudice is more closely related to cigarette packaging than race based prejudice, but I suspect that is a bit objectively tenuous.

He’s more than welcome to try it though, but to do so he will need someone who is unfairly convicted under the law to challenge it. And, further, to be subject to conviction under it, the individual must have committed a malicious and prejudicial attack on an individual, making {him or her} liable to prosecution under other variants of hate crime legislation. Which is to say, that it means C-16 may be redundant, but that is not the same thing as unconstitutional.

“liza rosie commented 13 hours ago
As far as my opinion, I tell you I don’t care how anyone identifies and I want people to be what ever they want to be, just don’t ask for special accommodation or expect me to accept new made up words, and you tell me I probably don’t approve of their lifestyle. I told you I don’t care. "

Here’s the issue. English is a dynamic language. You’re posting this on the internet, a ubiquitous term that was invented 30 years ago. Possibly on a smartphone, a term that’s barely a decade old. Nonbinary individuals are finally being acknowledged and this will necessitate filling a glaring gap in the language. Note that this very gap is evident in an earlier paragraph in this response – I have indicated it with curly brackets. We don’t have a neutral personal third person pronoun. We probably should. This fills a gap left by earlier gender trends, in which we no longer use the male term as a proxy for the generic.
commented 2017-12-16 22:49:22 -0500
Liza, well said!
commented 2017-12-16 22:24:02 -0500
As far as my opinion, I tell you I don’t care how anyone identifies and I want people to be what ever they want to be, just don’t ask for special accommodation or expect me to accept new made up words, and you tell me I probably don’t approve of their lifestyle. I told you I don’t care. As a matter of fact I don’t want to know or hear about it. Just carry on about your business like anyone else and that is how you will be treated, like anyone else. If someone wants more than that then in my opinion it is expecting too much.

That 8 year old in Montreal that Tammie mentioned, now that is plain old child abuse, and should not be allowed to happen. What Wynne is doing to the Ontario curriculum should not be allowed to happen either in my opinion it is sexualizing children and last I looked that was against the law also. Other than that have at er.
commented 2017-12-16 22:21:45 -0500
Andrew you are certainly full of suppositions. First of all supposing you know the reason Lindsey Shepard used a snippet of the vid with Peterson in it, is rather arrogant and way off the mark. If you listen to what she said to Ramukanna et al, as the reason, it was more to do with grammar because guess what, she teaches writing. She also said at that time that she did not agree with Peterson’s stance on the issue, but by no stretch of the imagination was she holding him up to ridicule. Furthermore since, she has stated on many podcasts in many interviews that she is more appreciative of Peterson’s concerns after learning more about him and actually speaking with him. Tammie is right. Why don’t you take another listen instead of making it up.
commented 2017-12-16 21:42:42 -0500
In his analysis, Jared Brown concluded Bill- C-16 is unconstitutional. This bill was passed without any amendments on May 18/17
Other legal minds agree.
commented 2017-12-16 21:26:51 -0500
Jared Brown cited the following re: compelled speech
“In very narrow and restricted situations, the courts have allowed legislation that is in the nature of compelled speech. However, these exceptions are extremely few, and have been restricted primarily to the commercial advertising realm including mandatory health warnings on cigarette packaging, and the requirement that persons applying for Canadian citizenship must pledge an oath to the Queen.”
commented 2017-12-16 21:17:26 -0500
Andrew, we will see. Bill C-16 will be challenged in court, and I predict it this legislation will be found unconstitutional.
Dr. Jordan Peterson and Jared Brown did an amazing job speaking to the Senate Committee. If you research the hearings, there were trans people who also disagreed with the legislation.

Your representation of Lindsay Shephard’s intent is totally false. You don’t know what you are talking about. Good thing she recorded that ridiculous interrogation and made it public. She clearly stated her intent then, and, in many subsequent interviews. Why bother lying about it Andrew?!!!
Guess what, quotes from legislation were used by SWL to level trans violence accusations at Lindsay Shephard. Did you not read the Rainbow Center is suspected of being linked to all this?!

Paul Woscht and others fully expect to be treated as they identify; as ridiculous and twisted as it is. Did you hear about the 8 year old in Montreal who performs in bars as a drag queen? His mother does his makeup and his stage name is “Lactatia”

Trans man admitted to battered woman’s shelter in Surrey BC and was given preferential treatment over women who objected to having him there. One woman was expected to share a room with the man and didn’t feel safe….she another woman who expressed their misgivings and high level of discomfort to staff &were shown the door. Battered women given the boot so the shelter staff can virtue signal…fucking disgraceful!
commented 2017-12-16 20:44:33 -0500
Once again, I’ll point out that “compelled speech” already exists in the existing laws, and that that’s even an argument your “litigation guy” presents, as well as being an argument made by commenters here – which is to say, that it’s redundant because the laws already exist. Therefore, I don’t buy the “compelled speech” argument. Perhaps the courts will have a different opinion. I suspect not.

The discussion around Ms. Shepherd is an interesting one. Her intent was to portray Dr. Peterson as an offensive idiot, which by its very intent is deliberately offensive. It remains unclear whether that was necessary to convey the message, however I do agree that it represented a substantial disciplinary overreach.

Paul Woscht is gaming the media for attention. His situation is not applicable to the vast majority of nonbinary individuals. He’s basically being used as an ab-adsurdum argument and doesn’t discredit anything to do with actual gender identity issues.

Your opinion on the “ideology” is irrelevant, much as I’m sure my opinion on your ideology is to you. It’s their life and their identity. As a society it’s our job to respect people’s rights to choose. I don’t personally understand it – I have absolutely no sense of gender identity myself and merely identify by assigned sex out of convenience – but whatever, it’s their life and I will respect that by acknowledging their identities. I do not feel this particularly onerous.
commented 2017-12-16 20:17:48 -0500
Andrew, your complete support of compelled speech will one day come back to bite you…
Bill-C-16 is unconstitutional.
2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

Lawyer, Jared Brown’s detailed analysis:
https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/ Research what has happened to Lindsay Shepherd, TA – the fascist interrogation she was subjected to at Sir Wilfred Laurier U is unacceptable! The Rainbow Center is suspected of being linked to this.

Oh, going back to Paul Wolscht – this is a delusional person who is mentally ill and needs help. I will never recognize him as a six year old girl…. if you research him, the couple who “adopted” him are just as nuts as he is.

I’m saying the ideology is flawed, the law is flawed and it’s wrong to ignore the danger that comes with compelling speech and prohibiting freedom of conscience to appease the militants in the trans movement.

Being respectful doesn’t mean I buy into their delusions.
commented 2017-12-16 19:28:39 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 6 hours ago
The authoritarian leftist troll once again regurgitates here…
Nothing about Bill C-16 is simple Andrew….this bill will not withstand a court challenge.

The government and certainly not “non-binary individuals have the right to compel me to participate in someone else’s delusion and their expression of gender dysphoria. You may be perfectly comfortable embracing this ideology… you ignorance leaves you in a state of bliss…”

Really? Ad-hominems? You know better than that. Very weak debate strategy.

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It’s their choice. I acknowledge that. Acknowledging that their identity is their business is a pretty basic matter of respect.

You object to them projecting their ideology on you but insist on projecting your own on them? Interesting strategy, to say the least.

“liza rosie commented 6 hours ago
Andrew if we have special consideration for every gender confused variation in our population it would be ridiculous, and is. There are male, female, and the off shoots, variations or deviations from the ‘norm’ have always fit somewhere in those two biological categories. It is really that simple. I do not deny that there are gender confused people out there, and if our educational system has its way that number will be growing. What I object to is compelled speech and thought by the government and I object to manufactured mayhem. Which is what all this nonsense is about. "

Increasingly it appears that the “traditional” binary model was simply wrong and pidgeonholing nonconforming individuals against their will probably not a reasonable strategy.

I don’t even see where “compelled speech” comes into it, other than a purely principle based measure. Compelled speech already exists in some degree by the hate crime laws you already acknowledge, which means very selective application of said objection. Why? Who knows, but it’s probably a proxy for your disagreement with their lifestyle, which of course is not really an excuse because it’s their right to do that.

By the way, do you acknowledge people’s choices of name, even if you personally dislike a personal moniker? Why are pronouns different?
commented 2017-12-16 18:22:49 -0500
Rebel, there is a concerted effort to whitewash and suppress crimes committed by muslims. The media provide all relevant details when other criminals are involved. Strangely, very little information in msm concerning the mosque shooting…hinky reporting and government/police statements right from the beginning. I think there is a connection to Islamic extremism which the Feds don’t want us to know about. The killing of two muslim sisters by their brother in Ottawa has been dropped completely. The media did not refer to it as “honour killings”.
commented 2017-12-16 17:02:11 -0500
Tammie, I watched the video. The police and the media and the government must be protecting Trudeau’s favourite people. Otherwise, there’d be more details about all these stabbings, “bank robberies” (that aren’t really bank robberies), and any other crimes perpetrated by the favourites.
commented 2017-12-16 16:24:42 -0500
Rick, you’re welcome. It is a very interesting idea, people of many talents and time can collaborate.
commented 2017-12-16 16:14:31 -0500
Tammie. Thanks for the link. Interesting idea. I do not belong to any social media, however have contacts that do, who will usually post any links I send them. This one has been forwarded…………….