Sunday, July 24, 2022



The great Canadian hysteria about mythical "unmarked graves"

Canada’s unmarked-graves story broke on May 27th, 2021, when the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation reported the existence of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data that indicated regularly spaced subterranean soil disturbances on the grounds of a former Indigenous Residential School that had operated in Kamloops, BC between 1893 and 1978. In addition, the First Nation’s leaders asserted their belief that these soil disturbances corresponded to unmarked graves of Indigenous children who’d died while attending the school.

The story became an immediate sensation in the Canadian media; and remained so for months, even after the GPR expert on whom the First Nation relied, Sarah Beaulieu, carefully noted that the radar survey results didn’t necessarily indicate the presence of graves—let alone graves that had been unmarked, graves of Indigenous people, or graves of children. Contrary to what many Canadians came to believe during that heady period, GPR survey data doesn’t yield X-ray-style images that show bodies or coffins. What it typically shows are disruptions in soil and sediment. Investigators then need to dig up the ground to determine what actually lies underneath.

An explanatory image posted by GeoScan, a Canadian Ground-Penetrating-Radar service provider, showing how mapped GPR data can indicate the possible presence of graves.

But those details were swept aside during what, in retrospect, appears to have been a true nation-wide social panic. As other Indigenous groups announced that they’d be conducting their own GPR surveys, media figures confidently asserted that the original Canadian Residential-School student death-toll estimate of 3,201 would soon double or even triple. One op-ed writer went so far as to declare that “the discovery of the graves of the children in Kamloops may be Canada’s Holocaust moment.” Dramatic, tear-drenched acts of public atonement unfolded everywhere, with many July 1st Canada Day celebrations being either cancelled or transformed into opportunities for morose self-laceration.

I was one of many Canadians who initially got swept up with all of this—in large part because it seemed as if everyone in the media was speaking with one voice, including journalists I’d known and respected for many years. Looking back on the coverage, I note that headline writers mostly skipped over the technical bits about soil dislocations and such, and went straight to “bodies” and “graves.” And the stories often were interspersed with credulous recitations of dubious tales featuring live babies being thrown into furnaces or buried alive.

The whole mission of Canada’s church-run Residential School system was to assimilate Indigenous people into white Canadian society, usually against their will, while forcing children to leave their families and communities for months or even years at a time. No one disputes that many students were subject to cruel (and sometimes even predatory) treatment and substandard medical care. Certainly, the death rate for Indigenous children attending these schools was much higher than that for children in the general population. No, I never bought into the idea that there was any kind of mass-murder plot going on at these schools. But it hardly seemed far-fetched that some victims of mistreatment and neglect had been buried in unmarked graves—“off the books,” so to speak—by malevolent white teachers, school administrators, and priests seeking to evade responsibility for their actions.

The other important aspect to mention is that—like most other Canadians, I’m guessing—I believed we were only a few days or weeks from seeing real physical evidence plucked from the earth. So it didn’t much matter to me that early commentators were temporarily playing fast and loose with the distinction between GPR data and actual corpses.

Canadians were being told that the old orchard in Kamloops where the GPR data had been collected was a crime scene—a site of mass murder, and the final resting place of 215 child homicide victims. As I’ve reasoned elsewhere: If you told Canadians that, say, 215 murdered white children were buried somewhere in Toronto, or Ottawa, or Vancouver, there’d be investigators and police crawling all over the place, looking for remains that could be tested and identified. And so I naturally assumed the same thing soon would he happening in Kamloops.

Many of the abuses identified at the Kamloops Residential School and others like it date to the early decades of the Cold War. This means that some of the perpetrators of these claimed child homicides—that is, the staff who worked at these schools—could still be alive. Perhaps their crimes might even be studied and solved by inspecting the bones of children buried alongside one another. Surely, no effort would be spared to pull evidence from the ground immediately, so that criminal cases could be prosecuted before the passage of time allowed the killers to escape accountability for their racist bloodbath.

But then the weeks and months passed in 2021. Spring turned to summer, then summer to fall, and fall to winter, and … nothing happened. It’s now been 14 months since the original announcement was made about presumed graves in Kamloops, and no physical evidence has been unearthed. No graves. No corpses. No human remains. In fact, as far as I can tell, there doesn’t even seem to be any systematic effort by police or First Nations leaders to commence such investigations. Eventually, it began to strike the general public that this was a very odd way to treat a mass murder scene, even as pundits and politicians refused to change their early, apocalyptic tone.

Which brings us back to that CBC announcement in December, which informed us that “the discovery of unmarked graves” had been Canada’s biggest news story of 2021. That very statement encoded the polite lie, which most Canadian journalists have been encouraged to repeat in one form or another, that some known number of “unmarked graves” had well and truly been “discovered.” The truth was (and remains) that the number of confirmed graves remains at zero. No one, to my knowledge, has found any human remains—i.e., body parts or tissue from decaying corpses—either at Kamloops or any of the other former Residential Schools, through the use of GPR.

So yes, the story did arguably qualify as “Canada’s news story of the year”—but not insofar as it was a story about graves. Rather, it turned out to be a story about the herd behaviour of Canada’s intellectual class. Thousands of politicians, writers, broadcasters, and activists spent months crowd-sourcing the creation of a completely unsupported national narrative, and then failed to correct the record once their rush to judgment had run headlong into reality.

********************************************************

Russia didn't get the memo about pronouns

Russian officials are openly mocking America’s embrace of transgenderism – taunting America to ‘keep going’.

The ridicule came after a photo of transgender Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and non-binary Deputy Assistant Nuclear Energy Secretary Sam Brinton went viral last week.

The queer duo were pictured visiting the French ambassador’s home to celebrate Bastille Day. Brinton posted the picture on Instagram with the caption:

Week 4 On The Job: Champagne and Celebration with the French Ambassador in his residence for Bastille Day. (But also the amazing opportunity to connect with one of the only other transgender government officials, Admiral Levine – not gonna lie, it felt great to commiserate with a fellow trans person facing the hate.)

Brinton’s Instagram has since been set to private, but not before the photo was widely circulated.

Russia’s United Nations diplomat Dmitry Polyanskiy reposted the photo with the caption:

‘Keep going that way, our dear American ex-partners! I don’t think we even need any long-term strategies to counter your malicious role in the world – you are doing the right thing yourselves! And let the whole world see WhoYouAre!’

Russian Foreign Affairs communications official Maria Zakharova also reposted the photo, adding:

‘Answer the question honestly for yourself: Are these the values that you are ready to instill in your children? Or do we still fight for our own?’

Clearly the Russians didn’t realise the correct response was to exclaim: ‘Stunning. Brave. Inspirational.’

But I digress.

It remains a mystery why President Biden chose Levine and Brinton to represent America in France last week rather than with him in Saudi Arabia.

Sam Brinton, the son of Baptist missionaries, describes himself as a gender-fluid LGBTQ+ activist. He is also a drag queen and a ‘pup’ fetishist.

This is from a biography Brinton supplied to LGBTQ+ Religious Archives Network website:

‘Sam has worn stilettos to Congress to advise legislators about nuclear policy.’

It’s telling that Brinton is at pains to point out, not that he advised Congress on nuclear policy, but that he wore high heels while doing it.

And that goes to the key objection many people have about Brinton and Levine representing America internationally. They seem more intent on representing transgenderism than America. It is about them, not US.

And if they are representing America, what impression are they giving our allies and, more importantly, our foes?

Sam Brinton wrote of himself:

‘Brinton shows young persons that they can be who they are and gives them courage. Once, while they were walking around Disney World in 6-inch stilettos with a boyfriend, a young gay boy saw Sam with the boyfriend and started crying. He told his mother, “It’s true, Mom. we can be our own princess here.”’

The Russians drew a different message from Brinton’s 6-inch stilettos.

Instead of being inspired by Brinton to believe they too can be princesses, the Russians have decided that they are battling a nation of princesses.

‘America. Pronouns was/were’ was one of the more succinct replies to the Russian official’s mocking tweets.

It’s one thing to insist Levine and Brinton have the right to live as they please (which of course they do), but it’s another for America to prioritise activism instead of security abroad when the world teeters on the edge of a third world war.

President Biden projects princesses when he needs to be projecting power.

*************************************************************

Federal Judge Blocks Biden’s Attempt to Reinterpret Discrimination Laws

How do you solve a problem like a rogue agency? When a Democrat occupies the White House, you can be reasonably sure that administrative agencies will start bending rules to get results that they can’t get through normal procedures.

Witness, for example, the rise of the agency “guidance” document. These are documents that express an agency’s view of what the law is. They are not, however, formal rules that have the force of law.

Still, any regulated entity would be foolish to ignore an agency guidance document because it knows the agency will enforce its new understanding of the law. The agency’s bureaucrats in charge of dishing out fines and other administrative penalties will treat the guidance as if it’s binding.

Think of guidance not as a command, but as an implied threat. Yes, it’s not technically a rule that you have to follow, but if you don’t go along willingly, we’ll break your kneecaps … bureaucratically.

A recent decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley struck a blow against these shenanigans, and that’s a good thing.

The guidance at issue in that case comprised several documents expressing the belief of the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that various laws prohibiting sex discrimination in schools and workplaces now guarantee that individuals who say they are transgender may use the bathrooms, showers, and dress codes of their choice. These laws can force others to refer to these individuals using their preferred personal pronouns.

If you read the relevant anti-discrimination laws, you won’t find anything supporting this view, however.

These agencies got the idea from the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, where the court held that Title VII (the federal law forbidding sex discrimination in employment) prohibits employers from firing employees based on their homosexuality or transgender status.

But the court carefully limited that decision. In writing for the majority in Bostock, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today.

Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual ‘because of such individual’s sex.’

The employers in that case were right to worry.

President Joe Biden took that decision and ran with it. In his executive order of Jan. 20, 2021, his first day as president, he declared that “laws that prohibit sex discrimination … prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation,” and directed federal agencies to “fully implement” that expansive reinterpretation of the law.

In the view of the Department of Education, Bostock applies to Title IX (which forbids sex discrimination in education), so that schools may be investigated and punished for having sex-specific bathrooms, dress codes, and sports teams. In the view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Bostock also means that it is workplace sexual harassment to refer to a transgender employee by the wrong pronouns.

These are aggressive readings of Bostock, but that’s not the key problem. The key problem is that the agencies introduced these new interpretations through guidance documents and in doing so skirted a law, called the Administrative Procedure Act, that requires them to comply with a careful and deliberative process before making big legal changes.

The agencies claimed that they did not need to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the guidance was nonbinding. But Atchley saw through that deception.

The Department of Education says that its document “will guide the department in processing complaints and conducting investigations.” And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission invites people to file complaints against employers who violate the legal view set out in its guidance document.

These are nonbinding documents in the same way that an armed robber’s “suggestion” that you hand over your wallet is nonbinding.

Thankfully, several states sued claiming that these guidance documents are, in fact, subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. That would mean that the agencies had to make them available to public comment before issuing them, which the agencies did not do.

In his ruling, Atchley said the states were likely to succeed on this claim. The guidance documents, he noted, were not truly nonbinding.

By expanding the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, the agencies had created new rights and obligations for students, schools, employees, and employers. The Biden administration had forced the states to choose between the threat of legal consequences—enforcement action, civil penalties, and the withholding of federal funding—or altering their own laws to ensure compliance with the agency guidance and avoid any adverse action, something Atchley called an “untenable” choice.

Additionally, the Department of Education’s rule conflicts with the text of Title IX, where regulations expressly permit sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams. Finally, the agencies have said that they would enforce these new interpretations.

As such, they’re not mere suggestions, they’re de facto rules. And new rules must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The effect of the judge’s decision is to delay Biden’s aggressive efforts to eliminate protections for women and girls—at least until his new regulations are issued. Those regulations currently are under consideration at the Department of Education.

But more importantly, Atchley has stood up for administrative accountability.

So, how do you solve a problem like a rogue agency? Ideally, you pick a president who won’t tolerate bad administrative behavior.

But failing that, you find a judge like Judge Charles Atchley, who will hold agencies to the law.

******************************************************

Australian dad and radio host is FURIOUS after learning a childcare centre is teaching kids about kids about transgenderism and sexual identity: 'Five-year-olds DON'T need to be learning about gender theory'

Ben Fordham has lashed out at an after school centre for teaching children as young as five about radical gender theory and sexuality.

The 2GB host, who's also a dad of three, slammed staff for exposing students to the material at Roseville Kids Club, which operates at Roseville Primary School, on Sydney's upper north shore.

A display has been set up inside the centre with the pride flag pinned to the wall next to complex gender theory terms such as 'Abrosexual', 'Transexual' and 'Neptunic'.

Neptunic refers to an individual who is attracted to both Nonbinary and Female genders.

Meanwhile, abrosexual refers to an individual whose sexuality is changing or fluid. For example, someone could be gay one day, then be asexual the next.

Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex and desire to permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify.

'I know this: five-year-olds don't need to be learning about gender theory at after school care,' Fordham said on Friday. 'Do parents consent to this stuff? Are carers actually qualified to explain what it means to be pansexual or transgender? 'Is there any evidence that this stuff is age-appropriate?

'Once upon a time - these conversations happened in families. And yes, times have changed and they also happen in schools. It started in high school. Then primary school. Now it’s happening in the KIDS CLUB for kindergarten kids,' Fordham said.

'A quick look at their website says: “Roseville Kids Care… where kids can be kids” They may want to practise what they preach.

Fordham slammed the childcare centre after a father claimed staff had made a complaint to police when he confronted them about the material.

'I visited it and was shocked that there was a giant out-size pride flag, it was the biggest flag in the room, far bigger than the Australian flag,' he told Daily Telegraph.

'When I went in there was an entire wall describing different sexualities giving definitions of things like 'pansexual' and 'lesbian'.'

Fordham argued there was no place for the material to be taught in a 'kid's club attended by Kindergarten kids'.

'I know that these are questions my kids are going to ask themselves or someone else one day, but NOT at the age of five,' he said.

'This stuff is plastered across the wall of a kids club!'

The father said the childcare centre had lodged a complaint with local police before he received a call from the constable saying no offence would be recorded.

The NSW Department of Education told Daily Mail Australia the material being taught to children was provided by an out-of-hours school care provider.

The content has been taken from 'My Time, Our Place' - the national curriculum developed by Australian Children's Education & Care Quality Authority.

Pauline O'Kane, who is the CEO of Network of Community Activities, which represents out of school hour care facilities, said the material helped to foster 'inclusive attitudes' among children.

'Do you shut the conversation off or do you educate and inform in a positive way so they feel like they can ask questions?' she said. 'I don't think we should curtail childrens' inquisitiveness, and I am sure this centre did this in a positive way.'

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: