Left vs right, right vs left

Recommended Posts

So a Woman can sleep with 100 men in a year and yet only bear one child a year.  Yet a man can sleep with 100 women in a year and produce 100 children a year.  Perhaps we should be looking harder at where the problem actually lies and place the accountability where it really lies.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 957
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't live in Ontario and am therefore not really entitled to an opinion but here it is anyway - I'm not a big DF fan but after the gross mis-management of the province by the Liberals can anyone re

Posted Images

remember religion is about followers.  more followers means more wealth.  Produce more offspring (followers) and you are a good follower.  Hence the religious right opposing abortions.  it reduces the number of potential followers produced.

It is a common thread of all religions to go forth and procreate.

Maybe the problem lies there somewhere.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oberlin College to pay bakery $11M after furthering racism accusations: jury


“I think part of what we did here today is answer the question as to, ‘What are we going to tolerate in our society?’" attorney Owen Rarric said.  “We’re hopeful that this is a sign that not only Oberlin College, but in the future, powerful institutions, will hesitate before trying to crush the little guy.”

In a letter, Varner said that his team would review the ruling, which, according to the New York Post, could result in triple the damages in a hearing next week on punitive damages.

The lawsuit was yet another flashpoint in the nationwide controversy surrounding universities and political correctness. Oberlin, in particular, has provoked conservatives' ire for its apparent deference to politically correct ideas.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Pro-life film cancelled following threats


The pro-life movie Unplanned has had itsfirst Canadian screening cancelled after alleged threats were made against the Shuswap movie theatre.

Unplanned is going to screen in more than 24 cinemas across Canada for a week starting July 12th. However, the film’s very existence has stirred up a great deal of debate, condemnation, and, now, even threats over its controversial plot.

The film, produced by the Christian production studio Pure Flix and starring Ashley Bratcher, follows the events depicted in Abby Johnson’s memoir of the same name. The plot follows Johnson’s journey from being Planned Parenthood clinic director in Texas to becoming a spirited and steadfast anti-abortion activist and speaker following “the day she saw something that changed everything”.

 As one can imagine, the film has been praised before its release by one side of the political spectrum while being lambasted by the other.

“The film has already drawn impassioned reactions from groups on both sides of the issue in the U.S.,” writes The Star, “where it had an R-rating from the MPAA due to some graphic scenes.” Conversely, the film has retained its original PG-13 rating in Canada.

Since the film’s announcement, pro-choice activists have been protesting hard against the decision to even screen the film, but this will be the first time that any threats of violence have succeeded in stopping the film’s prospective screening.

On Thursday, July 4th, Salmar Community Association board member Chris Papworth confirmed that the planned five-day screening has been cancelled, citing threats made on social media against the theatre’s staff.


We have a track record of showing things from a variety of points of view… we try not to preclude things because of whatever personal opinions may exist on our board or something like that,” Papworth said, adding, “certainly in the past, there hasn’t been an effort to dox employees or, specifically, the general manager, by releasing their personal information on social media and then encouraging people to go after them as the one responsible for some heinous act. We just aren’t prepared for those levels of hostility towards our general manager.”

Hildegard Krieg, speaking for the Shuswap Pro-Life Society, had this to say:

“If they had just come out to picket while the movie is running, I could accept that,” said Krieg. “But I cannot accept that they should actually threaten somebody with violence personally and the family. That is absolutely uncalled for. A peaceful picket, OK, we walk through the picket line. But that is going too far.”

In response to these threats, the Shuswap Pro-Life Society says it “will pursue [a] private screening of [the] movie Unplanned”, and, though disappointed, ultimately respects Papworth’s decision



Link to post
Share on other sites


"If even the slightest infraction against what the speech police have deemed correct speech is instantly shouted down with taunts of “racist” then what is left to condemn the actual racists? What do we call the people who won’t hire minorities or beat others up for their religion?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario family files human rights complaint after six-year-old girl upset by gender theory in school

The following story has its source in an application filed before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by Jason and Pamela Buffone, on behalf of their daughter “N,” against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity in contravention of the Human Rights Code.

In January of 2018, in a Grade One class at Devonshire Community Public School, part of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board network, six-year-old N watched a YouTube video as part of her teacher’s lesson plan on gender. 

N is the kind of child, her mother Pamela told me in a telephone interview, that adores school—or did until the particular morning that prompted this column. The video was entitled, “He, She and They?!?—Gender: Queer Kid Stuff #2.” The video contained statements such as, “some people aren’t boys or girls,” and that there are people who do not “feel like a ‘she’ or a ‘he,’” and therefore might not have a gender. The young teacher, whom I will refer to by her initials, JB, continued to teach gender theory throughout the semester. According to N’s feedback to her mother, JB told the children that “there is no such thing as girls and boys,” and “girls are not real and boys are not real.” 

By mid-March, N’s parents could see the lessons were having an impact on their daughter, as she began spontaneously and repeatedly asking them why her identity as a girl was “not real.” She asked if she could “go to a doctor” about the fact that she was a girl. She said she was “not sure if she wanted to be a mommy.” (Ms Buffone explained to N that grown-up women had a choice, but was concerned that the subject was coming up in Grade One gender lessons.)

The Buffones were naturally alarmed by their daughter’s persisting signs of confusion, as she had never previously shown a single sign of discontent regarding her biological reality. Ms Buffone therefore met with JB in March to discuss the impact of the gender discussions on her daughter.

JB, they could see, was very committed to the teaching of gender fluidity as a reflection of “a change within society.” She told Ms Buffone that gender fluidity was the School Board policy, that some children are struggling with the idea that gender is binary and confirmed that the topic of sex change had come up for discussion. She did not appear unduly concerned about N’s personal distress, and did nothing to affirm N’s female identity. 

The Buffones then contacted the school principal, Julie Derbyshire. 

In a telephone call, Ms Buffone says, Ms Derbyshire explained that JB had initiated the lessons to accommodate a child in the class who had expressed interest in self-expression as the opposite sex. (There was in fact a child exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria in Grade One of that school, who was being teased on that account. But, according to Ms Buffone, as she later learned, the parents of the child did not want the issue to be addressed by lessons on gender; they merely wanted the other children to be taught to act respectfully and not to bully their child.) Ms Derbyshire did not offer to consult with the school’s “gender specialist” about affirmation of non-questioning students like N.

Determined to elicit a response that addressed the issue substantively, the Buffones pressed on, eventually meeting with the Superintendent of the School Board and the Curriculum Superintendent. According to the complaint, “The School Board did not agree to communicate with parents when sensitive discussions took place, nor did they agree to issue any directive or take corrective action in order to ensure that children of female gender identity were positively affirmed.”

At this point, feeling stonewalled at every step of the hierarchical ladder from bottom to top, the Buffones made the decision to enrol N at another school where, Ms Buffone tells me, she is doing well and where, she has told her family, she is happy she will not have a teacher who says that “girls are not real.” Last October, N reportedly told her mother, “This table is real, and this fan is real, and even if the fan was made out of cardboard, it’s still real.”

Stories related to gender identity in childhood usually have for their protagonist a child who is distressed over the disparity between her or his biological reality and their perceived gender. The scenario often presents educators as enlightened, affirming allies of the child, while the parents, behind the times, so to speak, resist affirmation and cause the child further anxiety. In these cases the injustice to the child seems pretty clear cut to many rights-attuned Canadians. The child’s right to express his or her gender identity trumps the parents’ right to oppose it.

Here we have the opposite case. N’s gender identity is—or was—seamless comfort in her biological skin. She had never questioned that comfort. Suddenly she was told to believe that at any moment, what she believes to be real—that she is a girl—may not be true. How very frightening that thought must be to a child who is not old enough to grasp the abstract concept of gender fluidity. Her parents are the allies here, and her educational environment is where she fails to find affirmation. Why could she not be accommodated as well as the questioning child? Why did this situation have to end up at a human rights tribunal?

It wasn’t, after all, an either-or choice, and a little compromise on the part of JB and her superiors would easily have defused the situation, and alleviated the Buffones’ concern. Why couldn’t JB have explained that discomfort with one’s gender identity does occur, but rarely (fact); that it is often a passing phase (fact); that non-conforming dress and play preferences in childhood are normal and only infrequently indicative of deep or lasting dissatisfaction with one’s biological sex (fact); that most children stop having these doubts when they are teenagers (fact); most important, that almost all children are perfectly happy being exactly what they are (fact) and those children should not worry that they are not “real” boys or girls. Where was the difficulty in saying these things? N would have been reassured, and the one child in the class who was experiencing gender confusion would not have been adversely affected.

The Buffones’ HRTO application concludes that JB “subjected N to ongoing discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity, by a series of lessons that denied the existence of the female gender and biological sex and undermined the value of identifying as a female.”; ii) “The Principal and School Board perpetuated and reinforced the discrimination that N experienced in her Grade One classroom, as neither Ms. Derbyshire nor any school board official took any corrective action to remedy it.” 

Their requested remedy is that the Tribunal order the Board i) to ensure that classroom instruction “not devalue, deny, or undermine in any way the female gender identity”; ii) to mandate teachers to  “inform parents when lessons on gender identity will take place or have taken place, including the teaching objectives and the materials that will be or have been used for such lessons”; and iii) to pay the Buffones $5,000.00 in general damages “to compensate for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the discrimination.”

The School Board’s lawyer responded to the application with a request that the application be dismissed “on the basis that the Application has no reasonable prospect for success,” denying the allegations and promising to provide a “fulsome Response should the Tribunal not dismiss this matter by way of Summary Hearing.” 

Citing another complaint against the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the response pointed to the Tribunal’s finding that the Tribunal did “not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness,” and that the facts, even if true, “do not engage any prohibit (sic) ground of discrimination as set out in the [Human Rights] Code.” Also noted was the fact that teachers’ right to teach gender identity is endorsed by the Minister of Education, and that “[t]he age-appropriateness of a classroom discussion does not engage a Code-protected prohibited ground.” In short, even if N was adversely affected by the teacher’s lessons, she has no grounds for redress according to the Human Rights Code.

How will this play out?

The School Board is taking a “letter of the law” approach. They are basically stipulating that the Buffones’ account of N’s experience is factual, but irrelevant. In other words, they don’t deny the lessons had an adverse effect on the child’s psychological well-being. They are simply saying that whether or not she has been adversely affected is not, legally speaking, grounds for a human rights complaint.

But the Ontario Human Rights Commission defines “discrimination” pretty broadly. In our interview Ms Buffone told me: “The Ontario Human rights Code states that a poisoned environment is a form of discrimination. We’re going to provide evidence that the manner in which [JB] was teaching the concept of gender identity resulted in a poisoned environment. The principal further exacerbated the situation in that the only option provided to us was to remove our daughter from the classroom for these lessons, which is exclusionary treatment.”

Will this be as persuasive an argument for the HRTO as it seems to me?

“This is an important case,” says Ms Buffone. “Our government seems to have given teachers carte blanche in terms of how they teach this concept [of gender identity]. If this is an example of how it can be taught, I think it’s in the public interest for the HRTO to weigh in on it. Teachers are providing a public service and have a duty of care to all of their students, just as the HRTO has a responsibility to all of Ontarians. I think this case is a good example of why we need to set ideology aside when dealing with human rights.” 

If the Buffones win their case, it will set a precedent that may have far-reaching consequences for the teaching of gender issues in Ontario’s elementary schools. The HRTO will be very conscious of the potential fallout from their decision. For that reason, the cynic in me fears the dice are loaded against the Buffones. I very much hope to be proven wrong.



Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Racist’ Used By Left to Silence, Punish, Suppress People They Disagree With

“I fundamentally disagree with the view that if you criticize someone and they happen to be a different color skin that that makes it a racial criticism," said White House adviser Stephen Miller.”

“ On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” White House adviser Stephen Miller defended President Donald Trump’s tweets directed at the so-called “Squad,” Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). “


Miller said, “I think the term racist, has become a label that is too often deployed by left Democrats in this country simply to try to silence and punish and suppress people they disagree with, speech that they don’t want to hear. The reality is that this president has been a president for all Americans, whether you look at historically low black unemployment rates, historically low Spanish unemployment rates. Or what he’s doing on immigration truths protect safety, security, rising wages for all American citizens.”


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman from Vancouver - who was a tree hugging NDP'er, an anti-hunter, anti-pipeline environmentalist -purchased a piece of timberland near Squamish, BC . There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of the natural splendour of her land so she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top a spotted owl attacked her. 

In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a local ER to see a doctor. 

She told him she was an environmentalist, an NDP'er and an anti-industry person and how she came to get all the splinters. 
The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then asked her to wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.

She waited three hours before the doctor re-appeared. 

The angry woman demanded, "What took you so long?" 

He smiled and told her, "Well, I had to get permits from Environment Canada, the Parks Service and the BC Department of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a 'recreational area' so close to a Waste Treatment Facility.

And I'm sorry, but due to the Provincial Medical cut backs they turned you down. 

You may wish to try Dr. Suzuki.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Where all the “ Tree huggers” live.


British Columbia’s pipeline!!
Vancouver pipes their sewage one km out into the ocean where it flows billions of litres per year.

Sewage Dumping in Victoria, British Columbia

The Victoria capital Regional District pumps 120 million liters of raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca everyday. The sewage runs through a 6 mm screen, which only removes large solids, such as tampons and condoms. What remains are the toxic cleaners, solvents, medicines, and other contaminants that get flushed down sinks and toilets. It is then pumped through two outfall pipes, which run more than 60 meters deep, and a kilometer into the currents of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Two of Victoria’s treatment plants continue discharging sewage receiving only primary treatment. Coastal areas have the lowest levels of treatment because as quoted by Christine Wilhelmson, Clean Air and Water program coordinator for the Georgia Straight Alliance, “they have the luxury of being able to dump where people don’t see it.”

From the National Sewage Report, “The only city in Canada that still discharges all of its raw sewage and has not taken steps to improve in a meaningful way is Victoria.




Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the orca populations have learned to not to inhale when they swim by......

30 years ago, most Canadian cities hoped to attain secondary treatment standards, let alone tertiary treatment. Most are still at secondary treatment (basically straining out the big chunks and starting settling and bio breakdown)

Has anybody departed YYZ, turned east bound and noticed a big brown stain in the water south of Humber Bay or Ashbridges Bay?? 

Has anybody wondered why the Toronto beaches close after a heavy rainfall in Toronto?

And Trudeau makes a big deal of CO2......we **bleep** in the water people use for drinking downstream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.