With the passage of Bill C-16 in the Canadian House of Commons and Senate, we are likely entering a brave new world where people misusing gender pronouns will now find themselves in institutional, if not legal, hot water.
As the case of University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson makes clear, reputation, accreditation, and even careers are now at risk— not for saying anything hateful, but for not saying anything at all.
Alongside these very dangerous legislative trends, we are swiftly reaching a new giddy limit of which the election of Donald Trump is only the latest and freshest symbol of growing mass dissatisfaction.
There will be more. Narrow, minority-only narratives tend to make majorities feel rather under-appreciated, eventually.
And such dissatisfaction is definitely in the political “wind” these days. Given the small fraction of the population who call themselves transgender, federal Bill C-16 was built with 99.7% of people not in mind.
When progressives argue that social conservatives are, somehow unrepresentative of Canadian values, one need only remind them of what paltry demographic percentages and values that they, themselves, now routinely attempt to foist upon the rest of us — all in the name of all-inclusive diversity.
Some may remember a time when politicians spoke about the “common good,” However, the majority of us probably cannot. In fact, such political language is as endangered as a pro-life Liberal.
When we can barely agree on what is “good” it’s no surprise that we can barely agree on “common” values. Centrist wisdom, at least in theory, still exists. Yet, such an assertion feels rather archaic when psychological disorders, sexual orifices, and ages of consent now dominate various political dockets— somehow managing to earn the disproportionate attention of various social progressives.
Do Canadian legislators not find it suspicious that the principles of the American Psychological Association are almost as fluid as the genders they purport to represent? Qualitatively, there is little difference between gender dysphoria and anorexia.
Statistically, there’s likely little difference between dysphoria and, say, leather fetishes. Shall the fetishists be the next protected class?
Is this sour grapes? Am I merely lamenting my loss of conservative “white male privilege”? No— not if one’s observations are even modestly objective.
Justice was once impartial. Now it seems driven by sex, sentiment, and solidarity. Justice was once blind, but social justice is now as obsessively attentive as a gawking stalker. Somehow, social justice has come to mean that a minority worth protecting also means a majority worth ignoring.
As presently defined, it mocks the core and magnifies the periphery. Is it any wonder, then, why “Social Justice Warriors” seem tribalist, undemocratic, and sound hauntingly like Marxist revolutionaries? In case it hasn’t hit you yet, the Canadian fringe is well on its way to becoming the political norm. And the norm, the political fringe.
One question the majority might still have permission to ask is this: is it possible that some minorities exist largely at the periphery of society precisely because they should? Or have we now reached a point where politics actually welcomes the guests of Jerry Springer to define our social reality?
Oppression is hardly my point. Constitutions are rightfully intended to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. However, elections are intended to protect the majority from the tyranny of minorities. Even in the case of elections, however, we now find evidence of icky progressive engineering. One of the eerier aspects of Liberal electoral reform, for example, is that certain forms of proportional representation actually bias the entire system away from the political centre and toward the margins.
Think about it: have the majority of Ontario “mothers” or “fathers” agreed to be rendered terminologically extinct by Bill 28 in Ontario? Is this “progressive” decision caused by a serious groundswell of maternal or paternal self-hatred? Or is this decision the net result of organized elites politically driven by ideological allegiances to minority-based agendas?
The examples could go on.
Indeed, the rate at which the Canadian democratic centre is being constantly manipulated by academic “experts”, media elites, purported “best practices”, and socially-minuscule fringes is rather astonishing. Without question, any uptick in democratic populism will be the net result of citizens feeling marginalized by narrow elitism.
It’s time for the grassroots to begin replacing all the “astro-turf”. Although we’ve been far too slow to acknowledge these dubious public trends, we are (as Brexit and even Trump might suggest) rather potent when finally roused enough to object.