All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2022 - Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
54:23
Bill 67 Is Dangerous for Canada | Rex Murphy | EP 238
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The purpose of an education degree was to get competence in the idea of instruction, and in any good one, to also have a particular discipline or two in which you really learn the discipline so that you could pass it on.
When did these external things, these, must you now show, by the way, that you're in favor of carbon tax if you're going to be a teacher?
There's no difference.
Where did the teacher's profession and the teacher's unions, which are strong in every other way, Where are they looking back at these anti-racist experts and saying, who are you to change the professional idea and the professional qualifications of certified teachers?
And where are the teachers themselves?
If teachers have value, it is that they seek truth, that they give to their students the appetite for truth, that they do not submit to forced ideas and indoctrination.
Hello, everyone.
I'm here today again with Mr.
Rex Murphy, one of Canada's preeminent journalists.
And we're going to talk today about a piece of legislation that is through second reading in the Ontario legislature, Bill 67, which is known as the Racial Equity in the Education System Act.
And I've made a couple of videos and Rex has now written a column about this particular piece of legislation.
Some other people like Barbara Kay have been trying to draw attention to it.
And so we're going to talk today a little bit more about it and go into it in more detail and try to alert Canadians to why, how they should think about the bill perhaps.
And why they might be concerned about it if they're inclined to be concerned about such things.
So, Rex, maybe I'll let you start, and then maybe we can address some of the specifics of the bill.
Well, to begin with, Bill 67, as in your previous two podcasts, your own individual one and the group, you do point out the very obvious thing.
That you're introducing into the entire educational system of a province.
What is an ideology?
There's no need to walk around these words.
And it also, in my mind, shows a continuation of a perversion, a twisting away from its normal course, a perversion of what the idea of education is.
It seems now that in every possible social justice or critical racist or transgender, whatever the cause is, the schools of North America, but now we're going to get to Ontario specifically, the schools of North America have decided to make themselves centers of social attitude formation.
The purpose of education is to open a mind.
It is to bring a mind into its capacity.
It is to treat a mind to learn from itself.
And it is always to be fundamentally the inculcation of the absolute necessary skills for a man or a woman, a boy or a girl to function in a society.
Computation, literacy, history.
One very general point I want to make at the very beginning of this chat It's that the schools have forgotten what they are.
And instead of building these competencies and establishing character over time through the disciplines of understood instruction, they rent themselves out to the cause of the moment.
And worse than that, in the case of critical race theory in particular, and this new bill in Ontario, They put adhesion tape on themselves, and they make the exterior or ulterior possibilities of education.
We shouldn't be racists.
The absolute core of their function and being.
Let me give you a parallel.
When I was at CBC about eight or nine years ago, CBC, for the benefit of audience outside of Canada, is a television and radio communication service.
It's a national broadcast service.
And its main concern is first the news and then the idea of the nation.
However, in CBC, and it was established in written policy, it was put out to all radio and all television programs, that our number one objective, our number one objective is diversity.
Now, if you're a broadcaster, your number one objective is broadcasting.
And if you're a school, if you're a school, this is almost holy.
It's vocational for sure.
Your number one objective is to build a character and mind of the students within by disciplined instruction in understood courses and nothing to do with pre-planted and in this particular case, divisive and pernicious ideologies.
So why the Ontario government of Doug Ford, which is conservative, Has latched on to an American-inspired, ideological, and hard left movement and made it a central dynamic of the entire educational network.
I've watched your videos.
This is insane.
And when parents learn that their schools are no longer making their lives better through better reading and better teaching.
By the way, whenever has a school board in Ontario put out one of those wonderful bulletins, Advising them, oh, how much our students have tuned into poetry?
How much our students are now really alive with the spirit of mathematics?
No, it's all environment, it's racism, it's identity politics, it's sexual politics.
They have every agenda, but the agenda that only a school should have.
That's my overview.
Well, one of the things I would say about that is that the ideals of education that you just espoused, so the development of individual capacity for literacy and numeracy and an appreciation of history, are all predicated on the idea that the purpose of the school is to develop sovereign individual citizens.
And what people need to understand about the ideology that underlies this bill is that none of that is accepted as valid.
Within the confines of that ideology.
So people are best conceptualized and only ethically conceptualized as members of groups and racial groups, particularly for this bill, but the other group identities are not lurking far behind and are equally valid.
And the entire purpose of the education system is to teach people that group identity is paramount and that moral people do nothing but strive to reduce all perceived inequalities between all perceived groups.
And so it's fundamentally anti-individualist.
And so the people, and I don't believe this is an overstatement, The people who wrote that bill would regard your view of education as racist, because it doesn't give racial categories epistemological, philosophical priority.
And so we might take a look at some of the details of the bill, because the details matter.
And so, for example, we could say, if you're racist, so this is the part of the bill that deals with one subsection, one, one.
Racism means the use of socially constructed ideas of race.
And so you have to accept that to begin with.
There's an attempt there to insist that the theories of social constructionism are going to be paramount.
We can get to that later.
To justify or support...
Whether consciously or unconsciously, subconsciously, the notion that one race is superior to another.
Okay, so we could focus just on that, which is like one one hundredth of the bill.
So now, if I believe that you're subconsciously racist, then that constitutes a Well, that's the question.
What does that constitute?
Something to be worked against.
Now you're racist if you're subconsciously racist.
Now the question is, well, what does it mean to be subconsciously racist?
And then the next question is, well, who gets to decide if you're subconsciously racist and what does that mean?
And so, if you believe, for example, that Canada has strived mightily in its past, in its flawed manner, to promote a society where people have equality of opportunity somewhat independently of their group categories, if I believe that explicitly, or if that shapes my perceptions, does that now mean that I'm racist?
And I would say, according to the dictates of this bill, it certainly does mean that.
Well, there are so many contradictions involved in the pseudo.
This is not a philosophy.
It's an ideology.
It is, to use their own word, a construct for political and social advantage.
And we have a whole lot of them, which we'll probably get into later.
Let's go to a couple of those points that you made.
I heard, and this is, I have a good memory, I heard as long ago as 1985, It stuck in my mind for various reasons.
It was a very, very popular CBC show and the biggest host at the time and probably the biggest host of a radio program ever was Peter Zosky.
And funny thing, that's almost 40 years ago.
That he was being interviewed by some race expert at the time.
And Peter Zalski, because he was always that kind of, you know, contempt of open, extremely liberal person, he asked the question, and this is why it reminded me of it.
How can I know?
He was accepting the theory, by the way.
How can I know that I'm unconscious?
Can I be unconsciously racist?
Well, you're just throwing out everything.
You throw out the moral decision.
You throw out the determination not to look at other people and judge them on exterior or stringent characteristics.
You empty the whole moral idea of a Martin Luther King and his famous, famous phrase, content of the character, not color of their skin.
This is amazing that an educational institution, a school board, or a department of education could allow this slippery concept of unconscious bias, which by definition is ineffable, is unreachable, is untestable.
If you don't know you're unconscious bias, unconsciously biased, how in the hell?
Does someone else looking at you, forgetting your external characteristics and your external actions, determine, oh, on the basis of my scaffolding of a philosophy, I know you are.
And then you could turn the question around.
I often wonder about these wonderful anti-bias trainings that teachers and poor people in corporations in the CBC in particular Drag their employees off to anti-bias.
I always want to know if the person up in the front of the class of that kind, how do we know that she's not biased?
If she's going to peddle this tripe, Jordan, it really is.
When do we get so childish that we accept these things?
Those explicit training programs, too, by definition, can't address implicit bias because the only way you can address implicit bias is by mass practice and repetitive training.
And so even by the dictates of the theory itself, the proposed mechanism of remediation is impossible.
So here's another clause from the bill.
If, in the opinion of the minister, a report submitted under subsection 1 indicates that the board's new teacher induction program does not include anti-racism and racial equity training, the minister shall inform the board of that fact and shall direct the board to further develop its anti-racism accountability program.
And so what this means, essentially, is that No, it's not.
No, it's not.
That you're non-racist, for example, if you strive not to let a prior judgments about skin color, for example, you treat everyone the same.
That's not good enough.
Even your intent to treat, it's not good enough.
You have to be An activist in the anti-racism training movement to be a qualified teacher or the minister has to take action.
And it means you have to accept the equity doctrine, which is that all differences in outcome are a consequence of systemic racism, right?
System-wide.
And that if you don't accept that, well, then you're also racist.
And so...
I should point out I'm very, very last point.
That's also extremely interesting in the politics of Canada.
You've had revolts at school board.
You've had school board members tossed out because either surreptitiously or silently, they slyly brought anti-racism, critical race theory into every aspect of the curriculum.
And when the parents started seeing some of these bulletins or the word came out, they went to the school board.
Luden is the most famous example.
And said, what in the hell are you doing?
In fact, one parent got arrested for protesting some of the books that these were passing out to kindergarten to grade five on various sexual and exotic practices.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is the authoritarian nature of this.
You just mentioned that.
Teachers have to demonstrate, have to display, have to prove by our standards, by our arbitrary and unfounded assertions, that you are not in coincidence with our range of thought.
Well, I took an education course a long while ago, and the purpose of an education degree It was to get competence in the idea of instruction, and in any good one, to also have a particular discipline or two in which you really learn the discipline so that you could pass it on.
When did these external things, these, must you now show, by the way, that you're in favor of carbon tax if you're going to be a teacher?
There's no difference.
Where did the teacher's profession and the teacher's unions, which are strong in every other way, Where are they looking back at these anti-racist experts and saying, who are you to change the professional idea and the professional qualifications of certified teachers?
And where are the teachers themselves?
If the teachers have value, it is that they seek truth, that they give to their students the appetite for truth, that they do not submit to forced ideas and indoctrination.
And if you're educated, and that's what a teacher is, then he or she looks at this particular thing and says, oh, why?
If you say the cause is good, then we can do anything.
We can change the thing.
We can enter every aspect of this curriculum.
We can impose on you that you have this set of ideas.
Jordan, I'm serious.
I really am.
I do not know How we've become so complicit, how we accept second-rate so-called theories, hard-left politics pushing into every domain of cardinal civil life.
And here you have it in Ontario, because it's a scample.
If you want to call yourself a conservative government, I don't care if you are or not, but if you call yourself conservative, why are you embracing one of the wider theories now getting completely trashed in the country where it began, i.e.
the United States?
This is bizarre.
Well, so here's another one.
The government's now required to establish and provide annual professional development programs to educate teachers and other staff of the board about promoting racial equity and developing the necessary tools to address racism.
So those are ongoing indoctrination sessions to provide programs, et cetera, or other supports for students, et cetera, who've been targeted by racism.
So and then worse, to establish a protocol for recognizing, acknowledging, tracking, measuring, investigating and responding to incidents of racism reported by students, teachers, staff, parents or the school community.
And so what...
All you have to do is think about that for 15 seconds to understand that this is the establishment of boards of inquisition that are quasi judicial that have an almost unlimited range of what would you say?
They have an almost unlimited range of arbitrary judgment and power.
Here's another one.
Every person who disrupts or attempts to disrupt the proceedings of a school or class through the use of racist language or by engaging in racist activities.
Now, who decides that?
And that's the cardinal question is guilty of an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $200.
Anti-racism, its purpose is to advance racial equity, and racial equity is the insistence that every occupation and every category of position be distributed through the population in precise accordance with the percentage of the people who are Of that group identity in the general population.
That's what racial equity means.
It's equality of outcome.
Let's make no mistake about it.
It has nothing to do with the equality of opportunity that Canadians regard as central to their ideal vision.
Well, I started the very first one there.
I mean, that great list, and you're right, the word inquisition is not idly picked.
This is the other thing that should not only worry, but it should be repellent.
That there's one segment of the population or one segment of activists who have decided that they have the new decalogue on public virtue, particularly anti-racism, which as a concept, everyone will agree with who wants to be racist.
But they aggravate the circumstance to a tremendous degree and they arrogate to themselves.
And now with the complicity of the Ontario government, the right to judge and the right to tell and the right to say what is right and what is wrong.
We have for a hundred years deplored the great authoritarian systems of communism and fascism and Nazism, where they impose thoughts.
The Cultural Revolution, where if you didn't think and say the right thing, you got beaten with bamboo poles.
The West has never said to any group of sovereign individuals that one set has every right thought, and the rest of you, if you don't bend to us, which is what this is.
If you don't bend to us, you're a racist, you're a massage.
The truckers protest.
It's a really good one.
If anyone now wants to protest what they see as dangerous in the anti-racism ideology, Is that going to be an emergency act too?
Are there certain sets of liberal thoughts that are so special?
That they completely eviscerate the entire concept of civil liberties, free speech, intellectual challenge, and authority.
Let me give you a little quote to understand that this thing is not isolated, and it doesn't come just from the activist groups.
It's only back in last May when Mr.
Trudeau was talking about certain things, and he was talking about the nature of Canadian institutions.
He was going on to say that we have, in the building across the way, I'm quoting now from memory, I thought I had it written, in the building across the way, we've seen the systemic disadvantages built into the Canadian political system.
We are systemically racist.
Now, there's another word to pause on for a while.
When we stopped, and by the way, if you walk out into the city of Toronto, you live here, How is it that a systemically racist country like Canada has its biggest city and it looks like some parade of all the world?
How did it come to pass that we who are so mingy and so close and so unconsciously and systemically racist in all our institutions and historically, as Mr.
Trudeau said, this is one of the most welcoming places in the world.
I got smacked across the face for simply writing that in the column.
When the Vietnamese were floating under waves after the terrible wars in Vietnam.
Bang!
Most welcome.
Come in as soon as you can.
A smaller episode.
When the planes went down on 9-11 and all the passengers just embarked in Gambo and Gander, they didn't stop to ask them where you were from or what color you are.
They took all into their houses and places.
We have allowed this, from the leadership down, we have allowed this thought that if we swoon ourselves with self-apology, and we call ourselves bigots, and we apologize for every aspect of a wonderful nation, this is where all this stuff comes in from.
There's the license.
And now you've got it in the sophisticated province of Ontario with a ridiculously overpriced educational system throwing out the curriculum.
I'm bringing in attitude indoctrination based on false thesis and a very authoritarian impulse.
Imagine if you're a teacher and you see that perhaps the white students in your class are not receiving the instruction they should, that they're being degraded because they bear historical stigma.
And you say, this is bad for their self-esteem.
You can get fired now.
You can get fired for doing your job.
I'm remaining puzzled that an entire caucus and a legislature in the 21st century, most of whom, by the way, are educated themselves, allow this thing to dribble in with so little response and so little comment.
It's like the protest.
When the banks froze all those accounts, I haven't heard a word from any strong opposition.
Where did you get the authority to do so?
And when does government walk into private citizens' accounts because they don't like what they think?
This is just another example of that.
So, here's another one.
A performance appraisal of a teacher shall include competencies related to a teacher's anti-racism awareness.
Okay, so competencies related to a teacher's anti-racism awareness.
Okay, so now all of a sudden, a teacher's hypothetical anti-racism awareness, whatever that is, is something that's going to be judged as crucial to their, well, to their maintenance of their employment and their progress through the ranks.
And so...
Here's the issue.
Well, who's going to decide that a teacher is sufficiently anti-racist aware?
And how are they going to decide that?
And by what standards are they going to judge that?
And then even more importantly, who is going to be the judge of that?
And why are they in some sort of privileged position to decide whether or not a teacher is sufficiently aware and In this anti-racist manner.
And the details matter in these sorts of things because competencies are actually extraordinarily difficult to assess.
It's taken people a very long time to build competency assessment tools.
In relationship to literacy and numeracy, for example, we do that through objective testing.
There are no valid tests.
There are no valid and reliable tests, that is, measures of something like a teacher's anti-racism awareness.
That's the core insult.
We can't...
You're going to test the competency of teachers in their anti-racism build-up.
In other words, some agent It's going to determine your moral competence.
It's not just anti-racism.
When you get to this kind of competency testing, what you're saying is, I'm going to decide whether you're a good person or a bad person.
Now, it might be difficult with the psychological measurements that you have to determine competency in English or mathematics or history.
It's difficult, but you can get some reasonable idea of it.
But if I look at you And I decide from a distance, and I'm also saturated with a particularly radical perspective.
And maybe I don't like you as well.
Why not?
Throw that in there, because it's all subjective here.
Ah, you're not anti-racist enough.
I think you should be anti-racist more.
Where did the possibility of such questions become a possibility?
It leaves you almost breathless.
Why are we willing to assume that expertise in evaluating someone's anti-racism awareness even exists?
I put that at the feet, in large part, in the faculties of education who are clueless enough to be confused about exactly what a competency means and exactly how that might be assessed.
And then there's the punitive elements of this, too.
There are disciplinary measures described within the framework in response to racism.
And remember, this is racism that can be unconscious.
And it's very difficult to decide when exactly that happens.
And it's racism that's defined as the absence of an anti-racist doctrine as well.
And so now it can be Punished as well.
And so then you have to ask yourself, well, who are going to flock to the boards that adjudicate sufficient racism, anti-racism awareness?
And who's going to set themselves up as judge and punishers?
And the answer is the people you least want to ever do that.
And this is outside of any judicial framework, by the way.
Oh, absolutely.
Never do it.
Let me just tell you, you already know this.
Who's going to judge?
I'll tell you who are going to judge.
The school boards are going to judge.
Let me give you a most recent example.
The biggest school board in Canada, I assume, the Ontario school board.
One of the most highly paid students in Ontario, I think, are something over $12,000 and $15,000 a student.
Well, let me give you an example of their anti-racist.
This is specific.
This is real.
This is news reporters.
There was a young girl.
I think she was 12 or 13 at the time in Afghanistan.
All of the things that were going on, you know all about them.
Anyway, she got captured by ISIS. She was captured as a young girl.
She was put into sex slavery.
She was passed around.
You can imagine the brutalizations of an orphaned girl in that circumstance by some Supernal effort of will or luck or both, she escapes the damn camp.
She escapes the rape of herself by numerous ISIS figures.
She then becomes, again, it's an amazing story, she becomes a spokesperson for especially young girls in war conflicts and in those terrible, genuinely terrible circumstances.
And by the time she's 15 or 16, I haven't got the details precise.
She wins.
This girl who was captured and tortured and mutilated and raped, she wins the Nobel Prize.
This is better than Nelson Mandela, better than Mother Teresa.
She wins the Nobel Prize and she becomes a voice.
An Afghanistan girl becomes a voice for the fundamental dignities and liberties of all young girls everywhere.
And now we jump.
The Toronto School Board had some sort of symposium where they would invite special speakers.
And they were lucky enough to receive the Nobel Prize-winning Afghanistan girl.
It was only two or three weeks ago.
However, the equity committees of that little board, they decided that this would not be a good idea to bring this one into one of their reading gatherings because her presence might excite Islamophobia.
When you get into this game of anti-this and anti-that, and phobia this and phobia that, and everything is racist, you get to such a ludicrous point that one of the most spiritually honorable and physically brave human beings is a young girl with a Nobel Prize, and your pure school board says, I don't know if we should bring her in.
She might have a bad influence on our young people.
This is where anti-racism goes.
It's a different story, but it's the same idea.
It's the same ethos, and that's what I protest against.
The Toronto School Board's legislation right now is just one more installment.
Of so many idiocies that have been coming across, such as this male who's out there now winning every female swimming championship in the world, and no one wants to stand, well, very few want to stand up and say, this is absurd and insulting.
So the Higher Education Quality Council now will have at least one member who shall be a person who has expertise in racial equity in the post-secondary education center.
And so now what we're being asked to swallow here is the idea that there is such a thing as expertise in racial equity in the post-secondary education sector.
And so that isn't the ability to teach kids how to read, let's say, or to teach them how to do the mathematics that will be necessary to get them through their life.
But a new kind of expertise, specifically in the post-secondary education center, that is associated with the promotion of racial equity.
Well, who says that that sort of expertise exists?
And again, who's going to judge its quality?
And the answer is the most ideologically committed.
It is only the ideologically committed.
It is the ideologically committed who are declaring themselves the racial experts.
That if you get up and declaim enough against white history and whiteness and white fertility, and if you throw out white as a derogatory term, if you make white, which is a skin color, at least in that one category, if you make whiteness, A source of evil.
You're an expert.
If you get up and say that I don't buy this anti-whiteness, I think human beings are human beings.
I think their personal and spiritual and family personalities are their, that they are not the constitution just of their epidermis, then you're a racist.
Here's another big, big point.
Before you bring in these expert anti-racists to make sure the teachers are okay, What was the purpose of all these teachers going off to universities and spending four years for a BA or five or six for an MA or even seven for a PhD to become fully qualified teachers?
And then some amateur self-appointed activist wanders in from some street to have a size-up And say, oh, by the way, your seven years of this and your 10 years of experience in actual teaching, the teaching of subjects that are in the educational curriculum, that doesn't qualify you.
Here's what's going to qualify you if you're sufficiently genuflective.
Of my attitudes, of my untrained ability to assess your moral character.
No one has the right to judge another person's soul.
We've known that for 2,000 years or more.
And when you get down to it, you can use the current terms, the anti-racism and all this, when people are judging other people as being insufficiently moral and inadequately moral to their standards, This is an abandonment of reason.
So the anti-racism training referred to in subsection 5.2, which is the anti-racism training that members of the council will be subject to, shall be training developed by experts in the anti-racism education community.
So it's the same thing again.
It's this insistence that there are experts in such a thing as anti-racism, and that because of their expertise, they're capable and competent and To judge precisely the And then to find if those others aren't committed to exactly the same ethical doctrines that they're committed to because of their incredible moral standing,
let's say that they're to be judged wanting and not to be promoted as teachers, not to be on boards of...
This board in particular was the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario...
Etc.
And so you ask yourself again, well, who would take it upon themselves to be the judge of such things and also to claim that they have measurement instruments that are sufficiently sophisticated to assess even unconscious racial bias, maybe even the unconscious racial bias that people are striving to overcome to the degree that it exists.
So...
It's obsessional.
Again, we're in a period...
We have been for 10, 15, 20 years in which these, I'll call them this, these ancillary concerns.
There was a period in human history, and not very long ago, when you had the extremes.
The absolute extremes of bigotry.
There were periods, the Irish, we can go all through, go back 2,000 years.
But no one wants to admit, and this is what I find personally puzzling, that let's say our own country, Canada, whatever the flaws and flaws, and they were many and they were deep.
But do you honestly believe that the general attitude of the Canadian population in 2021 on these various particular topics is not an immense improvement over the historical standards of go back 50, 100, 200, 200?
There has been a great emergence.
We have had programs now for 30 years of affirmative action.
We have had apologies that were put out by the entire legislature of Canada itself.
We have had self-scrutiny.
We have had commissions.
And we have made racism, real racism, okay?
We've made that one of the most savage taboos that we know.
Sixty years ago, you could make jokes about Jews and get laughed at in all the comedy centers of the world.
You wouldn't do it now, and you certainly won't do it about blacks, and you will not do it about ethnic Canadians either because, A, we don't like the roughness of it.
We don't like the implicit kind of snark.
But in the majority of cases, I insist on this, the majority of ordinary Canadian citizens Are explicitly, explicitly welcoming of others, of those who are different.
And they will help.
They will help at the slightest impulse.
As I said, 9-11 won the great boat to tell us from Vietnam.
We've turned this on its head.
All the efforts to upgrade our moral sensibility, which a lot of Canadians have done over the generations.
Everyone is a product of their time.
But why do people from 50 or 60 countries come to Canada if it is as Mr.
Trudeau?
And again, understand that the leadership taking this point really licenses these kinds of activities, goes on about being systemically racist and genocidal.
The attitude of the ordinary major Canadian, who is not into some professional anti-activist bunch, I like to help.
If you're in trouble, I will help you.
I am not looking at the color of your face to determine whether you're good or you're bad.
And by the way, this also goes two ways.
You're not looking at the color of mine to say, well, if you're white, not only morally deficit, you must be put into some sort of training class.
Listen, we keep saying we're not China.
But on the softer elements of it, cultural revolution, thought control.
My question back to you for that last list you just gave me.
Where does the competence come to in those who are assuming to judge?
The left has a certain tendency to assume and to get accepted as assuming that they have infallibility because they scream about moral wrongs.
The hypocrisies that go on there, take the environmental movement, are immense.
And somehow or other, an entire government Listens to this imported and pernicious philosophy and now allows it to dominate the entire curriculum of a province and pass judgment on its teachers and bring in outsiders.
And its students and its parents.
Well, again, some parents I've had, before I even had any contact with you, I've had notices over the summer of some of the bulletins coming out of Halton and Ontario.
They're always about Either sexual training, induction into the great transgender list.
Let me tell you, there's a school in England that I read about just two or three days ago.
It is one of the most expensive private schools in all of England.
It's close to $50,000 a student.
And parents learned, only $50,000 a student, the parents learned, among other things, that they were into the new gender equity, as equity pops up yet again.
And in that school, and this is not a joke, this is reported, it is print, they were teaching that there were 62 genders.
Now, I don't know how the educated mind can allow itself to slip To such ape-like incompetence that at $50,000 a year, a student must accept the thesis that there are 62 human genders.
You think that's just a particular example?
No, it isn't.
It's a symbolic example.
It's the same thing with the CRT in Ontario schools.
Look, Schools teach.
I don't know what it is about these ancillary causes that they blot out, I'm back where I began, that they blot out the purpose of education, and in many cases, because it's indoctrination, they nullify it.
We need better schools, and we need better instruction in the disciplines that schools are supposed to be teaching.
They can't always be elevating the ancillary and the trendy and the fashionable and the hard left.
As a replacement.
For the millennial-old purposes of real education.
And as you know, you know better, it's the damn universities that set this tidal motion in progress with, again, the nursery of all these ridiculous theories and their microaggressions and their safety concepts.
And I can't have a speaker in here because it'll traumatize me.
The triviality that the universities...
Anyway.
All this language surrounding group identity and the language of oppression was formulated in the universities and taught and not least in the faculties of education and then disseminated into the broader public through the news media organizations that hired graduates of those institutions.
There's been recent documentation of that and anyone who thinks that The relationship between the races and the ethnicities and the sexes has been improved by all the recent dialogue has a different thing coming.
Here's another one that's quite fun.
If the minister learns upon conducting an investigation or otherwise, that a member of the council, so this is the higher education minister, Quality Council of Ontario again, that a member does not have a proven commitment to racial equity in the post-secondary education sector.
The minister shall require that member to take anti-racism training within the following six months.
So now, indoctrination becomes a mandate.
Willingness to submit to indoctrination by anti-racism experts has become a criteria for serving on this council.
I wonder what would happen, you know, go back 15 years ago if, say, a Catholic school board or a Pentecostal school board for that, but it doesn't really matter.
If they said to all the teachers coming in, you know, I've got to check you on the doctrines here.
Are you a good believer in transubstantiation?
Do you stand by the sacrament of extra munction?
Do you have any queries about the Trinity, perhaps?
We insist, you know, you give us evidence and proof of this, and if you don't, we're going to get rid of you.
Where did this streak of investigations and inquisitions, Do we not have it?
Well, after the Emergency Act, I don't know anymore.
We used to think we had a charter of rights and freedoms.
This thing is a bulldozer on speed going through all of them.
It's also a defiance, going back to the competence and integrity of the majority.
You don't have to prove you're not a racist.
This is negative.
Negative investigation.
You can't prove a negative to begin with.
But they're going to set up, they're going to give authority to, and they're going to allow them to occupy, this is my biggest thing, they're going to occupy the curriculum.
If you're doing this, you're not doing that.
And instead of applauding and cheering young people, the person makes a great drawing or plays a new piece of music or has a fine sentence and the teacher comes down, all smiles and genuine enthusiasm.
Hey, my God, Maggie, you have done so well.
Only now it's, oh, is she looking the wrong way at the wrong person?
Is my fellow teacher over there, is she subconsciously racist and doesn't want to hear about it?
Am I up to date on what is the latest dogma from CRT? No!
It's the subjects they're supposed to be in love with.
It's the students they're supposed to be inspiring.
It isn't to sit there as agents of some, as I said, hard, left, arid, desiccated, angry little doctrine.
Here's the bureaucracy that's going to be produced.
Every college or university shall collect from its students, faculty, staff, and other persons, whatever that means, and provide to the minister such data and other information related to the following, as may be requested by the minister.
The number of times support services, complaints, resolutions, and accommodation relating to racism are requested, made, and obtained by students enrolled at or faculty or staff of the college or university, and information about those supports is provided.
Any anti-racism initiatives and programs established by the college or university to promote awareness of the supports and services The number of incidents and complaints of racism reported by students, faculty, and staff, and information about how such incidents and complaints, including how the incidents and complaints were addressed or resolved, the implementation and effectiveness of the policy.
So that means every...
And that's not just for colleges and universities.
If I have read this correctly, it's throughout the education system as a whole.
So that means the establishment of a bureaucracy that is...
Devoted to doing nothing but gathering such data and reporting it.
And so all you have to do is think for about 15 seconds to imagine what that's going to mean, because systems tilt themselves to produce what is being measured.
Exactly.
But again, it's...
Where are they going with this?
Again, it is from the authoritarian regimes.
You check on thought.
You check on the number of complaints.
And by the way, if you start to invite complaints on a truly hot subject, It can get very personal very quickly.
There are people in their various jobs, teaching, broadcasting, business, anywhere else.
If you set up an investigative structure and a reporting structure and a tabulation structure, if I want to do damage to you and I pick the right side of this particular context, I'm going to move you out.
We cannot allow the bureaucratization Of the search into people's attitudes and souls to become a legislative possibility.
You know, I get- Legislated necessity.
Yeah.
Let me give you one other thing.
This is a proof of what I just said.
This is a very high standard proof.
This is Great Britain itself.
I'm just going to read the headlines.
Again, it's a story, it's print, it's real.
Their race oversight, his name was Tony Sewell, and he wrote a report.
He was appointed by Boris Johnson.
This is not, you know, some freelancer.
And he found that Britain, and here's again, Trudeau would systemically race.
He found, by the way, he's black, which shouldn't matter, but these days we have to say it.
He found that Britain was not institutionally racist.
and blast Northerham University cowards for withdrawing his university honorary degree.
He was given the degree in 2019, but they withdrew it after a study that was commissioned by him objective in nature, not proving, certainly asserting, That Britain was not institutionally racist.
And they said this was done to him because he was the subject of political controversy.
Well, let me give you a translation of that.
The accepted idea among the woke class is that we're all now a bunch of racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, transphobes, named-phobe, arachnophobe.
That has to be accepted as absolute law.
If a person from even one of those groups, this is, again, the racist star of Great Britain appointed by Tony, I'm sorry, by Boris, and he reports after doing an objective survey, and he himself, a black person, no, we're not universally racist.
And then all the correct thought stars and the university types and the politicians and most of the newspapers dump him.
He's thrown out.
The same thing happened to Roland Fryer in Harvard University, who did a statistical study of shootings by police officers and found that more whites proportionately were shot than blacks.
He had won the world's top economics prize as a young black man.
And yet, he got nailed on a sexual harassment idea, but the real provocation behind it was because he reported some good news On the so-called racial front, good news is now bad news.
Good news is racist in itself.
There's two people, high stature, high qualifications, both black, both ostracized because they spoke a clear truth against these doctrines.
So where are we, Jordan, is my question.
I don't know anymore.
Maybe we'll close by just reviewing this last section.
So this is in schools in general.
And one of the subsection alterations here is not that the minister may establish, that's replaced with the wording the minister shall establish.
So this now becomes a requirement that Policies and guidelines have to be put in place with respect to promoting racial equity in schools, which must include policies and guidelines respecting training in this racial equity doctrine for all teachers and other staff,
resources to support pupils, teachers and staff who have been targeted by racism, strategies to support pupils, teachers and staff who witness and Incidents of racism, resources to support them who have engaged in racist behaviors, procedures.
This is really a terrible one.
Procedures that allow pupils, teachers and staff to report incidents of racism safely and in a way that minimizes the possibility of reprisal.
So there goes facing your accuser and there goes the presumption of innocence.
And that necessitates the establishment of quasi-judicial boards of inquisition.
The use of disciplinary measures within the framework in response to racism, etc., etc., etc.
The details that you've outlined here, and again, you've done a closer read.
But these are, you know, it sounds rhetorical, but it isn't.
These are horrifying.
We don't let other people judge other people.
And we don't bring in a crowd of self-dedicated, unidimensional, predetermined minds on some particular cause, then to become judiciary investigator, punisher, publisher of other people.
And we're also building the whole idea of an anti-racism curriculum that is this deep and this obsessional, Is that you are acceding to the thought that the thousands and thousands of Ontario teachers are morally deficient.
They're morally—that we have been running a system here, and until we get these new angels of racial purity and start teaching them all about bias and oppression and everything else, that the bunch running our schools are either uneducated or bigots.
But again, here's the thing that more than—I've got to keep saying it.
Once you make obsessional and pervasive and saturated the concept of critical racial theory and make that the soul of the educational effort, You have displaced the educational effort.
You are cheating young people.
You are cheating their parents.
You are lying to them.
I would like to see just one month that eight or nine Ontario school boards put out something not racist, not about sex, not about transgender, not about environmentalism, but about a damn subject in their schools and how it's getting better.
When was the last time That the educational authorities of this province started firing out bulletins saying, boy, are we teaching better than we've ever taught before.
Our students are alive with the hunger for knowledge, and they are ecstatic when they find new adventures in thought.
Their minds are growing.
Their characters are stronger.
They love their country.
How's that as another one to throw in there?
And where instead of this is this alien Perverse, angry, useless doctrine becoming the central, the cardinal impulse and dynamic of a modern educational system.
It is terrible.
Well, Rex, I think that's probably a good note on which to end this rather pessimistic discussion.
I hope the Conservatives and the Liberals, the small L Liberal types, Canadians in general, parents in Ontario and in Canada, Take the time to actually read through this bill and think about it.
And then to try to ask themselves how in the world we got to this place.
That's the big question.
How do we get here?
How do we get out of it?
Jordan, thank you very much for your time.
Thanks for your time, Rex.
▲
Export Selection