The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 234. Kill Bill (67) | Pardy, Haskell, Kay

Episode Date: March 12, 2022

This episode was recorded on 03/09/2022Canadian Bill 67, which purports to be nothing but an "anti-racist" bill, is in fact the most pernicious and dangerous piece of legislation that any Canadian government has attempted to put forward. Dr. Peterson is joined by Barbara Kay, Bruce Pardy and Dr. David M. Haskell. This bill makes C-16 look like child’s play.Barbara Kay is a columnist for the Post Millennial, the Epoch Times, and Western Standard Online.Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.Dr. David M. Haskell’s teaching and research focuses on religion in Canada, media in Canada, and religion and media in Canada. He is currently a professor at Wilfrid Laurier.

Welcome to episode 234 of the JBP podcast. This is a very important episode. It's regarding a Canadian bill everyone should be aware of. We're slowly or quickly watching Canada become a blatant example of a politically correct totalitarian country. Canadian Bill 67, which claims to be nothing but an anti-racist bill, is most likely the most dangerous piece of Canadian legislature ever written. Dad says this bill makes Bill C-16 look like child's play. Dad was joined by Barbara K, Bruce Party, and David Haskell just this week to discuss the new proposal, the potential consequences of this bill, and what week Canadians can do about it.

Remember guys, by visiting JordanB Peterson dot supercast dot com, you can listen to the ad free version of the podcast. Dad is also posting on parlor now, the world's premier free speech platform. He has longer form and more personal content there. I think a lot of his listeners might enjoy. That's at parlor.com's last Jordan B. Peterson. Hello everyone, I've brought three people together with me today to discuss Bill C67, Ontario Bill that is entitled, Racial Equity in the Education System.

Barbara Kaye is a columnist for the Canadian newspaper, National Post, she also writes for the epoch times and Western Standard online. David Haskell is at Wilford Laurier, operating primarily within the field of sociology, religion, but makes occasional forays into communication studies. His teaching and research focuses

on religion in Canada, media in Canada. Bruce Party is executive director of rights probe and professor of law at Queens University. He spearheaded resistance to and ultimate repeal of the law society of Ontario's statement of principles policy that required Ontario lawyers to attest to their ideological purity to maintain their license to practice. And so I brought these people together

today, invited these people to come together today to discuss this bill, which the conservatives in Ottawa to their great discredit are supporting. And so Barbara, maybe we'll start with you. You wrote an article a little while ago, a couple of days ago, in the E. Park Times trying to alert Ontarians and Canadians, particularly, let's say, in the center and on the right to the degree that those exist in Canada, to the purported, to what you see as the dangers of this bill. So why is a bill that's hypothetically aimed at something as awful as racism, let's say, what concerns do you have about it and why?

Well, this bill 67, which is heading, is soon heading, well, is heading for third reading before a final vote. And it is billed as an anti-rac racism bill. It's going to give anti racist instruction to children in the educational system. But the bill is in fact pretty well a clone of the programs in the United States that are being resisted all over the place because it depends entirely on critical race theory for the ideas that are in the program and for the rules that are going to govern it. And it is basically, it calls itself anti-racism, but in fact, it is a very racist program because it deals in group identity group, framing all questions

of victimhood in terms of identity groups. It says that it's going to oppose anti-indigenous racism, anti-black racism, and anti-Asian racism, plus anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, but in fact, they do not include anti-carcassion racism because that is going to be the one race racism that is not only going to be allowed, but encouraged according to critical race theory, which I know, Jordan, you've spoken about many times. The basic hypothesis that we're pursuing in this discussion is that under the ages of something as ethically admirable, let's say, as the absence of racism or even promoting

the absence of racism, what this bill actually does is bring in a whole set of ideas that have virtually nothing to do with racism per se, under the guise of a moral endeavor, and make it both likely and necessary that people abide by this particular propagandistic ethic in order to be teachers in Ontario schools and certainly to be promoted. And so I'll just detail some of the details of the bill so that people are aware of this. So, for example, performance of praise will shall include competencies related to a teacher's anti-racism awareness, whatever that is, and efforts to promote racial equity. New subsection 3017.11 requires the minister to establish policies and guidelines with respect to promoting racial

equity in schools and boards must establish and implement racial equity plans. The higher education quality council of Ontario will have to have a member who will be an expert in racial equity in the Post Education Center and that all members must have a proven commitment in racial equity in the post-education center, and that all members must have a proven commitment to racial equity or take anti-racism training. And there's a variety of additional details that are relevant. And what we're discussing today is the fact that all of this means that the education system

in the narrow and the broad sense will be oriented towards set of policies that are radically left in their orientation by necessity and that there will be punishments put in place for failure to adopt that ideological standpoint. So, and this, and this is a supposedly conservative government who's bringing this in. The problem with the bill, I think, is that the word equity is used 54 times in this bill, but you don't ever see the word equality. And the problem problem even amongst politicians who are supposed to understand the philosophy guiding their own party is that they seem to glaze over with the word equity because it sounds a lot like equality and it sounds like a good thing.

And so, equity is predicated on the idea that if there are any differences in outcome between any groups imaginable so those could be groups defined by gender, they could be groups defined by race, they could be groups defined by sex. If there are any differences outcome of any sort that that's not only indication of a profound and systemic bias characterizing whatever domain is being questioned, but that it's incumbent upon all the members of that domain to regard themselves as prejudiced and biased and to view the non-equal outcomes as evidence of systemic bias. That's the tie-in critical race theory, let's say. So that's wrong. Yeah, that's precisely what the problem is with it. And I'm very happy for Bruce to amplify on it because he understands it much better than I do. Well, that's not,

that's, that's obviously not true. But let me just contrast two different ideas, right? Anti-racism, which this bill promotes and insists upon and non-racism, those two things sound equivalent, but they're opposites, actually. Non-racism is the attitude that your race doesn't really matter and that you should be treated as a human being and that the same rules and standards should apply to everybody, notwithstanding the group that you belong to. Anti-racism is the opposite.

Anti-racism insists that your race is fundamentally important, and that being white means that you are both privileged and probably racist. And that is an ideology. And this bill intends to make that ideology compulsory inside the school systems and inside the universities. Yeah, so let's add some more details that are useful here. So any person who is going to be a teacher now, has to successfully complete any prescribed examinations and training in anti-racism in order to be issued as certificate of qualification and registration.

So that means you have to abide by this political ideology, which is even regarded by moderate leftists in the United States, and certainly by centrist as radically left in its fundamental orientation. It also means that colleges that provide such training must be undertaken by all the institutions that are going to train teachers. So it is an attempt to capture the entire education system and subservate to the purposes of a given ideology. And one ideology, and one foul,

but now ideology involves claims like the idea that all of the institutions that characterize the West, certainly countries like Canada, are fundamentally racist and oppressive in their orientation and their aim and that any attempts to constitute an argument that might dispute that are in and of themselves indications of exactly that racism. And, and, well, that's not as far as it goes.

So, it's interesting to note how disparaging this approach is to everybody. On the one hand, it allows and promotes racism against white people. But at the same time, it disparages insults, patronizes, people who are not white. As though they are not really capable of human beings on their own, it must be counted according to their group and compensated for whatever wrong or victimhood that they have been subjected to. So it is bad all around. It is disrespectful of everybody.

And essentially it makes not being an activist a matter of professional misconduct. David, what we might want to, yeah, I was just gonna say what we might want to look at is we were talking that teachers are gonna have to receive trainings. So let's just look at that for a moment. And so what kind of books are they going to say what we might want to look at is we're talking that teachers are going to have to receive trainings. So let's just look at that for a moment and say, well, what kind of books are they going to read in order to become anti-racist? So right now, the most popular, the most well-selling or best-selling books are White Fragility by DeAngelo, and I can't remember her first name,

and then there's Robin DeAngelo, and then there's Ibram Kendi, who actually has a book called How to Be Anti-Racist. Now, what people will find interesting is, we keep saying that anti-racism is in fact racism, and I wanna give a quote from Kendi's book. Now, this book is How to be anti-racist. And he says this, the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.

The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. What these ideas discrimination. What these ideas are saying is discrimination is a good thing if it's applied to the group that is the oppressor. And in this case, it's going to be white kids at our public schools. Right. And that's all predicated. That's all predicated on acceptance of the idea. And this people have to understand this, that the fundamentally appropriate level of conceptualization of all human beings is their group identity, not their individual nature. And so it's okay to punish one group for its past crimes because the group is the proper level of analysis. And that's an absolutely anti-western idea. It's the most profound perhaps of anti conservative ideas, that's for sure, but it's also a profoundly anti liberal idea in the classical sense.

No group guilt. Here there's no presumption of innocence, right? If you're the member of an oppressive group, then you're guilty. And if you're the member of an oppressed group, then you're a victim. That's right. And that's what it'll be taught in our classrooms. Right. And so let's go ahead, Barbara.

Well, I was just going to say that although these ideas are borrowed from American writers and influencers, I have the idea, doesn't say so in the bill, but I'm morally certain that a lot of the intense discussion and a lot of the blame, blame laying is going to focus more on Indigenous matters because that, the Indigenous settler history is not the equivalent in fact, but it is the equivalent in terms of the moral narrative in Canada as slavery was in the United States. The moral, the original sin of Americans as slavery and Canadians original sin is colonialism. So I have the idea that it's going to be not just white but settler privilege that's going to be emphasized. And one of the things that always bothered me about that was that in the United States, slavery was in fact a practice

that was something that all Americans, I mean, not all Americans, but the Americans who had slaves. They were American citizens. They were people involved in a practice that we now consider odious. But in Canada, we were, the whole residential school system, or the way that in the indigenous people were treated

in general, was always a function of the government, or the institutional people in charge of the residential schools, the churches, or whatever. No Canadian citizens were ever involved in abusing indigenous peoples or in setting policy for that matter. So for that to be made an equivalent kind of sin that you're a settler, you're a settler stalk because you're white. This is something that has kind of taken on,

you know, this idea that the residential schools were a genocide and that all of indigenous history in Canada, and it's an ongoing genocide from the point of view of our prime minister. This is a narrative that I think if you're going to push back against that in these classrooms, that too will be considered racism.

And that actually I find a very disturbing kind of concept. David Bruce, any comments on that? Yeah, so it might be worthwhile just to note how extreme this is in terms of its dictation of both attitude, thought and speech inside schools, inside universities. And once you understand what it is, you might think, well, but how, you know, how can this be? It's completely contrary to the whole idea of having schools and universities that engage in thinking and challenge and debate. And one of the reasons why it's so extreme

is that it comes to us from critical theory. Now, Jordan, you mentioned critical race theory, and that's absolutely what it is. It's critical, it's mandatory critical race theory in the schools and universities. But critical race theory itself, of course, is an independent branch of critical theory, and that's a larger idea, essentially an anti-Western ideology, which regards all the features and values of the Enlightenment as inherently evil, if you like,

and to be rejected. And even very basic ideas like evidence and consistency and debate and pluralism, all those things are essentially out. And you can see those, that that rejection in the bill. The bill basically says that if you wish to debate the validity of anti-racism. Then you are on thin ice. There's even an offense included in the bill, which says that if you disrupt or attempted to disrupt the proceedings of a school or a class through the use of racist language, then you argue to even offense. And the problem is that what they mean or going to mean by racist language is language that denies the validity of the ideology that they're promoting.

So, for example, and who knows exactly, but here's a possibility. If you insist upon debating the validity of anti-racism in a classroom by saying, no, I believe all lives matter, and I believe all people are equal regardless of their race or color. Then you might very well be in violation of this provision. So we should delve into that a little bit more too. So the fundamental claim of the critical theorist types is that we use a particular kind of instrumental narratives to structure our perceptions and actions. And that that instrumental narratives is essentially predicated upon the use of power. And so that would be the arbitrary use of compulsion

to demand the compliance of other people, particularly in relationship to their group, so that what Western culture is in its essence, and the attitudes and actions of everyone who composes that culture, is nothing but the attempt to utilize arbitrary power to extract excess resources from other people through compulsion, to hoard it for the purposes of that group, let's say, and that all claims about equality of opportunity or sovereignty of the individual

or even existence of the individual for that matter or individual responsibility, all of that where the conservators operate. That's nothing but justification for the arbitrary use of power and compulsion. And so even to make those arguments, so this is one of the things that's nothing but justification for the arbitrary use of power and compulsion. And so even to make those arguments, so this is one of the things that's so proditious about the free speech debate, the critical theorists don't engage in debate about who should have free speech and who shouldn't. Their claim is that the whole idea of free speech is nothing but the attempt to add a moralizing layer to the will to power that exploits.

And all of this language that we see in this bill is derived from that theoretical background. Yes. Now, I, you know, I'm putting myself in the place of the audience who's listening to us speak, and all of us have been steeped in critical race theory for years. We've been looking at it and saying what a terrible thing it is. And I'm trying to picture how people could get a hold of this. And maybe the example is what we entered in on. So here we have this bill that really will promote division in our school system. And the conservative, promote division in our school system. And the progressive conservatives of Ontario, who are abstensibly supposed to be conservative, all voted in favor of this bill. And even there's another party we have now, the Ontario Party, Rick Nichols is the sitting MP. They have a specific

policy platform against this kind of stuff. And even he voted in favor. So what's going on there? What's going on there is that the wording, the wording is just beguiling for everyone. We just can't, for us to try and explain is so difficult because the left has really common-deared the definition of words. When someone sees anti-racism, they think, of course, I want to be anti-racist. So perhaps, let's give the benefit of the doubt,

maybe the conservatives were just fooled. I know that this fellow Rick Nichols on the Ontario Party was fooled. He had no idea that this bill actually will promote racism in our schools. that this bill actually will promote racism in our schools. You know, David, since you mentioned the Ontario Party's platform, I actually think that their policy with regard to teaching, what they have to say in our audience, I think might be interested to know what would be the opposite,

what would be a curriculum that taught, that racism was bad and all these things were bad, but that had a curriculum that was fair to every student and they actually spell it out and what they say is their platform in their platform, they would make it illegal for any teacher, school administrator or any school board official to teach, disseminate or promote materials to students that explicitly or implicitly state, one that males and females do not exist as separate biological realities, because of course gender is included, subsumed under the racist umbrella,

will not be allowed to state that any individual by virtue of his race or sex is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, that will not be allowed to state that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex. And you can't say that an individual by virtue of race or sex, there's responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. And finally, that any particular Canadian province or Canada itself is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist. These are all the things you won't be allowed to say. And that, I think, is if you asked most Canadians, do you think that sounds fair? They would say, yes, that's exactly. We might want to point out that the entire educational system that's associated with classical Western values

is the most successful manifestation of the most fundamentally non-racist ethos ever developed and that ethos insisted that each individual regardless of their group membership was of intrinsic worth and characterized by natural rights and that it was to their advantage and to the advantage of all others that no arbitrary barriers be put forward against them. As they manifested their attempts to take their place in the world in a manner that was reciprocally beneficial to everyone around them. And there isn't an ethos that's more fundamentally non-racist and not one. And it's time for conservatives and liberals alike to start being apologetic about that.

And great, great. Yeah, can we just add, just to dive back into critical theory for a moment, Jordan, picking up what you were saying earlier. So I believe it was James Lindsay, who is an American critic of social justice and critical theory. He, I think he was the one who coined the term the the iron law of woke projection. You were talking earlier about critical theory characterizing western

society is essentially based upon a power relationship and nothing else. Abuse of power relationships in which everything that happens really is a search for power underneath the service. So what is happening here is that the, the woke, the critical theorists, the critical race theorists are actually turning Western society into exactly that. And this bill is an example of the simple application of power to insist upon an ideology and to essentially cast out or cancel or accuse a professional misconduct,

those people who will not go along with the story. That's a pure power play. And there's really nothing else in it. It rejects the idea that there might be another point of view. It rejects the idea of pluralism. It rejects the idea of debate. And this is called neo-Marxism for a reason. And the reason is that Marx was the one who came on board and said, look, Western society is a power struggle, but he emphasized the economics struggle between the upper and lower classes.

And the critical theorists ditched that particular struggle in favor of the struggle over identity politics and between different. Right, but they use exactly the same language and the same conceptualization. Absolutely. And I want to reiterate a couple of things out in other detail. So first of all, here's another detail from the bill. The Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities Act is abended to add a new section, which sets out anti-racism and racial equity requirements that apply to every college of applied arts

and technology and every university that receives ongoing operating funds from the government for the purposes of secondary education. So in that one section alone, which is only a small fragment of this bill, we now have a demand from the most radical of the radical leftists possessed by critical theory and also critical race theory that every single educational institution and Ontario at the highest level that receives ongoing function will now be mandated to accept that ideology And now I just can't I just can't forgive the conservatives for not noticing this This is appalling like if there's if they're that blind we're in real trouble because You shouldn't be that blind by this point in time if you haven't caught on to the fact that equity doesn't mean equality of

that line by this point in time. If you haven't caught on to the fact that equity doesn't mean equality of opportunity, which is what everyone wants it to mean, then you have been asleep at the switch for like 10 years. Well, things are falling apart around you. Yeah, at least, at least 10 years. Yeah. And to sit and ridden by an NDP member, right, this bill.

Didn't that clue them in? Yeah. Let's talk clue them in? Yeah. Let's talk about her for a bit. That should have been an alarm bell right there. The the drafter of this bill had been the head of equity at Laurier University and had drafted the sexual violence policy under which Lindsey Shepherd, who many people will remember in 2017

for having shown her students, a graduate student, for having shown her students a balanced discussion in which you featured Jordan on gender pronouns and shown that segment of that panel discussion to her class was invited in to be interrogated in session with several members of the administration and staff of faculty, but they told her that she was transphobic because she had breached the sexual violence policy which this individual who wrote this horrible bill,

you know, and as you say, that conservatives could let this pass is really terrible. One of the terrible things about racism as they understand it is that the offense of having said or done something racist is judged not by your intention, but by the person who is claims to be offended. So much for the presumption of innocence.

Exactly. So we know what's at stake here, right? The new ethic is it doesn't matter what you intend. All that matters is the impact on the person claiming victim status. They don't even have to demonstrate that in any important way, that they were in fact victimized by the claim or demonstrate any, and let's just delve into that for a minute, because one of the things that's in this bill that's so cute

is also the establishment of the necessity of putting in boards of inquisition to which students can apply if they ever feel that they have been offended in any manner by anything that anyone says. Now, let's make two things clear. There are you people do say offensive

things and I do believe that there is such a thing as hate speech because speech can be pretty vicious. That's not the point here. The point is that there are now, there will be boards of inquisitions set up at all educational institutes in Ontario if this bill passes, that anyone with a grudge can weaponize against anyone they want. And if you don't think that will

happen, you are full because it happens all the time. And it's happening more and more at the college level board for physicians and psychologists and at the law society and so and this is going to make the establishment of those inquisitorial bureaucracies which are basically extrajudicial structures right operating outside the normal judicial system without the presumption of innocence is going to make the establishment of those mandatory. And so again, I can't believe the conservatives can be so ungodly blind. It's it's it's and catacly surreal. One of the and again, I'm just trying to bring this back to the common person and say, how does this work? And maybe a way to understand it is when you think the word is going by its traditional definition or what you think it should mean, it simply doesn't. So when we see equity, all of us think, well, equality, we think that we want to see people have equal opportunity,

but it doesn't mean that. But related to anti-racism, anti-racism means, yes, you should discriminate against one group, in this way, it's whites, but not only that, as Bruce has already suggested, it's very racist toward people of color, because it suggests that you have to rig the game in order for them to succeed. And that in and of itself is the height of racism.

But also denies it, it dies them the, I've been thinking about this in regards to, so there are claims from the critical theorist types, for example, just so everyone knows that the concepts of merit and excellence are in themselves racist in the same way that the concept of free speech or individual sovereignty is racist.

And so I think, well, of all the demoralizing things that you could possibly tell people who are on the, let's say, on the margins of society, the most demoralizing thing you could possibly tell them is that excellence, the idea of excellence or the idea of merit is nothing but a plot conjured up by your oppressors to subvert you and that therefore if you strive in a meritorious way towards excellence that you're doing nothing but identifying with the oppressor. And you think, think about the black music scene in the United States. I always think about that because the black culture in the United States has been so absolutely brilliant in its musical innovation and has changed the entire culture, the and it's changed the entire culture,

the United States and the entire culture of the world. And to tell, for me to think about someone like Billy Holiday or Louis Armstrong as something other than a manifestation of individual merit in the purest sense, in the purest and most redeeming sense, is to me utterly, it's appalling and shaming. And then to deny that that same movement towards excellence in a given domain to individuals on the margin is the worst thing you can do for them, being put forward under the guise of compassion and benevolence. It's sickening. I agree. And conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for being so goddamn dumb. I completely agree. Very infantilizing. It's very infantilizing to speak of people from other backgrounds or

other races as without moral agency or without the ability to to compete on their own terms against the people of other races. I agree with you, Jordan, and I go ahead, Bruce. Well, I was just gonna say that it's also ironic tragedy because the things that the ideas that would protect and promote people who are not privileged are things like merit. I mean, the idea of having standardized tests

for entry into universities, for example, is the thing that gives people who are not wealthy, not privileged, not connected, that the opportunity to prove what it is that they can do. The irony here is that everything is upside down. In order to understand this, you just have to take your assumption and flip it upside down about what racism means, about what privilege means. Essentially, this is a program that protects the privilege of all those people who are yelling about privilege. If you take away the merit idea, then you pull the rug out from underneath all those non-privileged

people to be able to show that they are deserving of getting a spot, getting a job, getting a, you know, having... Well, Adrian Waldrich wrote a whole book on the idea of merit in the West. And so he showed historically, which I think is extremely interesting, that the alternative to merit per se, as an index of selective value, it has been dynasty and nepotism. meditary family connections, dominate, what are the most important determinant of how you progress up the ladder, whether you maintain your position, or it's callous and cross-favoritism. Now, the utopian might say, well, we could scrap merit and we wouldn't revert to nepotism or dynasty, but we certainly would instantly, because that's what happened throughout history and set it all.

So we already have. We already have. We already, we already remember to do that, I think. And we've all, what, what, what's merits on the way out? You've got to have some other way for picking people and those, the ways that are left are nepotism and, and favoritism. And there's got to be some criteria for what that is, but it's got nothing to do with the individual.

There's got everything to do with who your people are. And, I mean, look at the impact of this already. We have Asian students who are applying to the elite schools like Harvard, who now can't get in, not because their SATs weren't through the roof, but because for the means of diversity, they're now excluded. Yes, we should also point out that in these hypothetically white supremacist societies, that many people who aren't so easily, what would you say? Categorized as white seemed to be doing just fine. So Indian immigrants, for example, do extremely well in the United States. And East Asian immigrants do extremely well.

In fact, both of those groups of people, although I hate to speak in the language of groups, do better economically than the native foreign Caucasians who are hypothetically the epicenter of racial privilege. And that's a big, what? Stick in the throat of the critical theorist types. And they, they really can't adjust their theories to account for that. Go ahead, Barbara. What? Stick in the throat of the critical theorist types and they They can't adjust their theories to account for that go ahead Barbara one of the one of the things You're not allowed to say is that these groups one of the reasons that they do get ahead is because they

usually have strong family support and and strong work values of work work ethic and... Yeah, well, they put both conscientiousness and so it's very make- Exactly, from a trip you see.

But to see that, you're not allowed to say that because if you talk about strong families and you talk about how important fathers are, for example, that is considered racist because that's like suggesting, well, it's both misogynistic and racist because it's like suggesting that single mothers can't do exactly the same work in bringing up productive and strong, you know, confident children as a united family, a two-parent family, and it's also because it's a sore point when you talk about race.

Is it also means that you validate the oppressive institution of patriotic heritage, which is obviously nothing but a manifestation of men's desire and willingness to dominate women. And I mean, nothing but because these theories are always nothing but. Right, so let and Bruce, you talked about projection. I always think of the critical theorist types as manifesting a Freudian, an unconscious Freudian confession in relationship to their own motivations,

is that people who believe that power is the fundamental principle that governs social relations, they either believe there's some saintly exception to that, or that is actually what they believe, and they assume everyone else is the same. And I've been thinking about this technically, you know, and social relations based on power are actually unstable, technically speaking, they don't work in chimps, they don't work in rats, they don't work well for psychopaths who are almost always failures and never constitute more than 3% of the population. And it's much more, you're much more likely to advance

in a stable manner. If you play reciprocal games with other people, reciprocal mutually beneficial games with other people, reciprocal mutually beneficial games with other people. And I think that's the fundamental principle that animates Western society in its best sense. And then sometimes that's corrupted by power. And that's a very different claim than its power itself, that's the fundamental ethic. Right. Right. Well, it reminds me of that reminds me of that very well-known saying, you know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So if all you've got left is power, then you have a corrupted society. And that's where we're going. And also think about what that does. Let's say, okay, you accept the doctrine. This is, and I want to remind the listeners, this doctrine we're discussing is the doctrine that is now being mandated for acceptance across all Ontario institutions of education. So the doctrine is nothing governs the social relations

between people at every level except the will to power. And that's use of arbitrary compulsion. So Bruce, that means you and I, if our interests differ, we can't engage in productive dialogue about that because there's no such thing as productive dialogue. And what that means is that if our interests aren't aligned momentarily, I have to treat you as an enemy, and I have to assume that all you're using is your will to power, and I have no other option but to respond in kind. and I cannot think of a more corrosive cynical and bitter way of looking at human beings than that. Can you imagine the

psychological impact on students if this is what they are getting a daily dose of? Imagine you are a student who comes into the classroom and you're a student of color. And you come in without this indoctrination and you think, I can be whatever I want to be, that's what you're thinking. And then slowly over time you're told, no, the game is rigged against you. You can't. You can't be what you want to be. And perhaps you begin to believe that. And that you would be able to speak to this more than I, Jordan.

But I have to imagine that there's some psychological principles out there related to whether or not you think you can succeed. And if that doesn't have a self-fulfilling prophecy to it. Well, imagine that you're told as a young person. So a young person, a young black guy, for example, you're told that you've been propagandized into believing that there is such a thing as agency and freedom by people who are using those concepts to do nothing but exploit you.

And so to the degree that you believe you have agency, that does nothing but provide evidence that you're upon in their game. Okay, so that's what they have to contend with, that demoralizing and bitterly distrustful view of the world. And then imagine that you're a young white guy and the whole notion is your entire culture and all the institutions that make it up including marriage

are nothing but the manifestation of the patriarchal desire to oppress throughout history and to the degree that you have any ambition whatsoever at the individual level, that's not ambition, that's laudable, that has nothing to do with you wanting to act as a moral agent in the world, it's nothing but that corrupt will to power that's capable of atrocity. And you should squelch it if you're moral. And I see tens of thousands of people around the world, people that come to my lectures, for example, who've been utterly demoralized by these propositions, like hurt to the core, wounded to the bone, and now we're going

to make it mandatory, because we're too stupid to notice what's right in front of us. There was a study, there was a study done in 2019 in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that looked specifically at what happens when you teach people about anti-racism, especially one of its concepts, the idea of white privilege. And what they found was that it did not make people more sympathetic to poor people of color, black people. But what it did do was make people a lot less sympathetic to disadvantaged whites. So the only thing that this kind of teaching does

is actually create greater animosity to the disadvantaged white person, which to my mind, if you know that, and we have studies that show that, that in and of itself should be enough to say, we can't do this to our kids. Speaking of, David, speaking of not doing this to our kids, you would think that parents,

some parents, would be very concerned about what their kids are learning, concerned enough to mobilize and to get to coalesce into activism groups. In the United States, there's a lot of headway being made by parents who are fed up with this kind of stuff. There was a tremendous success in San Francisco recently by parents, not parents, but but people in general in San Francisco, which is an incredibly progressive city. I think there's something like 6% of people vote conservative in San Francisco. And yet, this school board that had three people were recalled by a petition drawn

up by the parents because they couldn't stand the direction. It was going in. It was exactly this direction and they lost their jobs and it was considered. I think 70% of people voted to get these people off the, sorry, the mechanism I forget, but it was considered quite a victory for the anti-CRT movement. And in the United States, there is a real movement headed up by this Christopher Rufo, Jordan, I'm sure you know him, you probably talked to him or followed some of his work. He has been doing great work in helping groups to organize parents to, and there's now,

I don't know, I began my talk, my column with, the numbers were, sorry, the numbers were, that, yes. were sorry the numbers were that yes in 37 state 87 curriculum transparency bills have been filed by legislators legislators in 37 states since the beginning of 2022 and introduced in 20 or more states so pretty soon you're going to start seeing, and you already do in Florida and other conservative states. You're going to see pushback against this and there will be a lot of treat to the future. I'd be talking to a lot of conservative types,

well, and Democrats for that matter too, by the way, who are concerned that their party is being pulled far too far to the left about the dangers of critical race theory and critical theory and diversity, inclusivity and equity, et cetera. And there is a wider degree of awareness about such things in the United States. Our conservatives in Canada are falling far behind the curve. David, in relationship to your discussion of studies, we did a study at the business school in Rotterdam.

We used a program that helps people make a future plan. So you have to lay out what you'd like in your life in seven different areas, seven important sub areas like intimate relationships, and friendships and friendships and career and education, et cetera. And we looked at four-year previous performance in the business school, and we looked at the relationship between race were doing the best followed I believe by the non-Cocasian women and then Caucasian men and then non-Cocasian men. And they did this program which was an agency program, right? So it's predicated on the idea that you could in some sense chart your own course. And the consequence was that within the next year, if I remember the study exactly, the non-cocasian men had caught up to and exceeded the highest performing

Caucasian women. And we did the same thing at Mohawk College, although Mohawk never adopted the program and curses on them for failing to do so. 90-minute plan that was agency-based dropped their dropout right among young men, 50% in the first year. And so we've been using that program online, but it's a testament to the utility of personal agency. And we can say, look, different people face different barriers as they progress through life. And some of those are arbitrary prejudices. That's for sure.

But that doesn't mean that failing to insist that personal agency is still a a reality, a redeeming reality, and also that you really have it at your disposal if you're willing to use it. Our culture just aren't that corrupt. People with agency can make progress. Well, that's what the immigrant literature certainly shows in the United States. Absolutely. Well, that's what the immigrant literature certainly shows in the United States.

Absolutely. When you look at them, for example, I mean, they're always held up in studies the Nigerian blacks in America and in Canada. I mean, they outperform the white population. Similarly, just last year it was the first time in the history of the Bureau of Statistics in the US that Asian women now make more on average than white men in the history of the Bureau of Statistics in the US that Asian women now make more on

average than white men in the US. But when you dig into that and you look at the culture, you have parents who are saying you can make it. You can do this. This is a country where there is a level playing field. And that kind of self talk or talk from parents really makes a difference. Right, but it's that level playing field that's being threatened, right? Because you will buy anti-racism, by anti-racism. By anti-racism. By anti-racism. By the idea that you will not in fact

be treated as an individual, but treated by the system as simply a member of your group. I mean, let's go just circle back for a moment to the word equity and describe it in equality terms. Right? There's two different competing and opposite ideas about equality. I mean, the traditional one, the classical liberal idea is simply that the same rules and standards should be applied to everybody without regard to who

you are, without regard to your identity. So this is the equality of treatment under the law concept, the idea that like cases should be decided alike. We don't care. We don't care what ratio are. We don't care what sex are. It doesn't matter. The same legal rules are going to be applied and justice should be blind. The competing idea, which is substantive equality, or if you

like equity, is the idea that the same rules and standards should not be applied to every individual, but they should be changed, depending upon the group that you belong to. And once that idea gets incorporated, and by the way, it has been incorporated into Canadian law over the past 40 years. At least for a couple of years. And this bill will incorporate it into every classroom from K to 12. That's absolutely true. But my point is that the ground has been laid, the groundwork's been laid already.

And we are in a really bad spot. And this bill is a terrible, terrible thing and needs to be defeated, but it's not a sudden thing. It is shocking, but not surprising. Well, so let's go back to the issue of why the conservatives, let's say, had the wool pulled over their eyes. I mean, they didn't pay any attention to the fact that it was someone who regards herself as a democratic socialist, to say the least, pen this bill. Like, that was an alarm bell, especially given her previous activities. And then there's the all the equity language. And I'd like to talk briefly about the weaponization of guilt,

because one of the ways these ideas are put forward is by accusing people who oppose them of the most high-ness motivations. And that will happen, certainly, now after mouth of this conversation, is that the reason that we oppose this bill is because we are essentially racist. And, you know, if you're a decent person and a bunch of people come after you and say, you're a racist, you're prejudiced, especially if you're conscientious and conservatives tend to be that, you're going to examine your conscience and you're going to feel set back on your heels because, you know, how off new, a bunch of people come and accuse you of something that's absolutely not true.

And so, as conscientious people fall over themselves to step backwards because they're willing to take some responsibility when accused, all it does is allow the people who are pushing these ideas forward to do it without any opposition. And I was thinking about this a lot, so say, well, position. And you know, I was thinking about this a lot. So say, well, we're all the beneficiaries to some degree of our arbitrary talents. And the advantages we've been given even by history, the right way to respond to that is by living a responsible productive and reciprocal life and trying to make good use of, you know, what you've been granted by grace. That's the proper mode of atonement, not to wallow and guilt and then let ideologues trompolo review, which is exactly what's happening right now.

You mentioned the conservatives again. And I was thinking about back in 2021, the George Floyd was thinking what was happening, the tragic death of George Floyd. And we had Doug Ford come out and say that, you know, Ontario or Bruce or Barbara might remember better. I think it was Ontario or maybe it was Canada, it was systemically racist. At first he said no, but it was at that point that I realized that something's going on within the conservative party where they've, they've, they're in bribing at the critical race theory tap.

Yeah, well, it's, I think it's part of this weaponization of guilt. Go ahead, Bruce. No, it's going to say, listen, the, the, the Ontario progressive conservative party has to have not behaved like, like what they claim to be for a long time I mean you can identify nearly anything you can include their their their draconian COVID policies they can include the way that that Doug Ford stripped truckers of their licenses without due process you can identify just about anything and you could say go ahead no no go ahead bar well I was going to say you could say that about the,

I mean, the federal conservatives are no better. They voted for the conversion bill, which would allow, which would insist that every child that questions, that has any question at all about their gender identity should only be affirmed and you shouldn't, doctors would be criminals. Right, right. If they looked into any other, you't, doctors would be criminals. Right. If they looked into any other, you know, so, and I'd like to comment on that for a sec,

Barb, if you don't mind, because I've thought about that in relationship to therapists, because the mandated requirements for therapeutic conversations are even more stringent, therapists neither affirm nor deny. What therapists do is attempt to have truthful conversations with people about confusing situations. And so if I all of a sudden as a therapist, and mandated to affirm all the choices of my clients, then I'm no longer a therapist. What I am instead is a cowardly advocate for whim. And now that's law. Yes. That's law. And the conservatives love, they all voted for it. I am sure that under Bill 67, it will be considered, they'll call it racist, I mean anti-racist, to deny that biology is exists on a spectrum.

If you say, I don't believe that trans women are women, that will be hate speech. Gender-wise, it'll cover a variety of, or if you say, I don't think that male rapists who claim to be female should be in female prisons and women's prisons, that might be deemed racist. Anything that any of the mantras that go along with any of the ideologies that are presently. So the federal liberals, federal conservatives are just as bad as the provincial ones. I think what we're witnessing here is, you know, a revolution that's over.

They've won, and this is mopping up operations. Putting these bills in place is simply, you know, everybody's lying around on the battlefield to, to exhausted, to put up a fight anymore. So it's like, okay, now, you know, here, here are the actual laws. Here are the laws that are going to make sure that we state that that what we want entrenched is going to stay there forever unless, you know. And in that respect, the the US has something that we do not, which is an actual political opposition. You know, the Kniq.

But, you have to go ahead, Dave. I'm just saying that we are seeing, if we're saying that the battle is over, we still see the guerrilla fighters. Oh, yeah. Right? And, I mean, let's get back to this notion. We do have some parties that are trying to gather support for common sense. And whether it's federally with the people's party and they're demonized, right?

The mainstream media hate them, so they don't get any kind of fair coverage. But now, at the provincial level, we've got a party like the Ontario Party, which is putting forth the kind of ideas that would actually bring unity and harmony, but again, they'll be villainized because the media is totally on board with this particular agenda

of critical race theory as well. That's right, and you go ahead. No, I'm just going to say that the Ontario party has zero support and the PPC people's party couldn't even field. They couldn't even, you know, get a vaccine, burn you into into office. So, and I agree with that. And and and a lot of the pushback in the US, you see coming from parents themselves like in Virginia, for you. And the real question, I think, in this circumstance, with Bill 67, is whether a critical mass of parents, once they find out what this really is, as opposed to what it appears to be, if they would respond by saying, you know, no way, like heck, you're not educating

my children in a system like that and You know that that really remains to be seen how many parents in Ontario Would would respond in the same way as a lot of parents have in various places in the US and say this this just won't do as opposed to Going along with the prevail. Well Canadians Canadians have been able to trust in the fundamental integrity of their social institutions for most of our 150-year history. And so the default assumption has been, well,

people generally know what they're doing if they're leading us. And they're not leading us down the garden path. And the problem with Bill like Bill C67 and getting people to understand it is that they also have to simultaneously swallow the fact that our fundamental institutions, educational and political have become so compromised and so co-opted by by derivatives of a narrative so radical that even most Democrats on the left reject it outhand, well, who's gonna believe that?

It's a lot easier to think that the four of us are right-wing conspiracy theorists and that this is all nonsense. And in fact, it's easier for me to believe that sometimes than to believe the alternative. But I read this bill and I know what means, and I know it's ideological derivatives and the underlying idea system. So yeah, I said before that our that our biggest obstacle is disbelief. People don't believe it. People don't believe that what we're describing could actually be true.

It's just so far out of the zone of what they consider to be normal life, normal civilized life in this country that it's very hard to take in unless you've sort of seen it for yourself in front of your own eyes over and over again and you're forced to admit that it's actually happening. So media research is one of the things I do. And this isn't my work, but it's a guy named Zach Goldberg. He's out of Georgia State University. Anyway, Zach looked at what was going on in mainstream media

related to coverage of race. And race, the word race, the word equity, the word anti-racism, it's gone up by 1 a thousand percent in the lab while he was marking from 2013 and 2014. And here's the interesting thing. When you look at other sociological data, during that time, racial tensions in terms of other societal measures were going down. The United States had a black president, and so it was actually getting better. But if you read the news, particularly the more left leading, so he had looked at New York Times, he looked at Washington Post, it was saying exactly the opposite.

And people were being convinced. And in particular, he found, this is Goldberg's work again, he found that those people who were of a liberal persuasion were even more convinced that we were going to hell in a hand basket in terms of racial division. Yeah, well his work pointed out that as these press institutions got started to hire recent graduates

from universities who had been indoctrinated into this theory. They started using that language in their articles and that seeped into the popular culture. So it wasn't that racism became worse in the domain of real interactions. And then people noticed it was that the journalists educated at high level institutions who were hired by these hypothetical news sources insisted that this was the case and started to introduce that doctrine into the entire culture. And well, with this bill, for example,

being a late consequence of that. Well, we can actually transpose that. We can transpose that on the university. So there was a guy Paul Kelsdead out of Texas A&M. And what he showed was that the news media drive the perceptions in the culture and then the culture kind of becomes what the news media said it was. Well, that's gonna happen with these kind of bills as we pass them, uh, provincially, you'll have students who never thought about racial

disharmonie, who suddenly that becomes their, their only thing on their mind. And, and it will just cascade. And the thing that we might want to point out is that this kind of propaganda is really easy for incompetent people to teach because you only have to master about two principles. So the first principle is, well, let's say there group and that doesn't require much differentiated thinking because who cares about all those pesky individuals and then the third thing you have to accept is that the world is best construed as an eternal war between oppressors and those who are victimized and exploited by them by every institution. Now, you master those three things, you can teach everything you need to teach about diversity, inclusivity, equity, all of that. And it's a substitute for actual knowledge.

The fourth thing is you've got to keep moving the goalposts because for revolutionaries, the revolution can never end. I mean, they're not in it for it to end. They're in it to keep it going because that's what's exciting for them. So in other words, what was racist 50 years ago or 20 years ago would be a racist action or somebody saying a terrible thing or the N word or whatever it is. Now, since that's diminished, now they've moved the goalposts

so that it's, well, it's unconscious. Yeah, you're not seeing. Oh, it doesn't matter if you don't see the racism. Then there's these microaggressions and there's what's in your mind. Yeah, you're not see. Oh, it doesn't matter if you don't see the racism. Then there's these micro aggressions and there's, there's what's in your mind. It used to be an action. You used to have to behave in a racist way. Now they're telling you what's in your mind. And so you don't have to act at all. You can be a person worse than not. It's worse than that, Barbara, as you pointed out before, because you don't even have to to be prejudiced, you just have to be perceived as prejudiced by someone. That's it. And that actually,

because there's no you, there's no soul there, there's no individual there, all you are is the consequences of your actions. And you think, could you come up with a principle of justice more appalling than that? Is that none of us are going to be judged again on our intentions, but only by the worst consequences of our actions? Unbelievable. Barbara has reminded me, and she said it really eloquently, of the idea of concept creep. So concept creep was a Nick Haslam bagai at University of Melbourne came out with this around 2016 and he was basically saying the definition of negative terms has expanded. So that's where you get So that's where you get, now racism is equal to any kind of disparity. So if you see unequal outcomes, that is de facto racism, which is crazy.

There are many reasons why there might be different outcomes of which racism is probably the least in our society, but now, according to anti-racism, and this is really one of their key tenants of their faith, because it is like a religion, they say, any disparity is evidence of racism. And when you've got any suggestion to the contrary is racism. Yes, I agree, unless the disparity goes the wrong direction. Right, right? Yeah, because that's the thing. That's the thing about this.

It's also so peculiar because certainly the success of Asians in particular, in, let's say, the United States and Canada puts the, poses a significant challenge to the domination theory. It's like, well, so Asians are increasingly significant challenge to the domination theory. It's like, well, so, you know, Asians are increasingly treated like honorary whites in this regard, let's say. Well, they're white adjacent.

They're white adjacent. Right, exactly, right, right. And Jews are considered hyperwhite, hyperwhite, because they used to be victims, and now they're victimizers. There's a trap here, though. There's a trap. And the trap is... It is a trap. Well, the real trap is to try and work this out rationally, in a way that assumes it's rational,

and assumes that it's consistent, because those are the two of the things that have been rejected. If things are not consistent, if they're not rational, they don't care about that. That's not the point. The point is to achieve what it is that they have in mind. Right. So let's go back to the, so let's go back to critical theory and post modernism, just for a minute. Right. So there's, there's a postmodernism suggests that there is no such thing as objective truth. My truth truth, truth is personal. And you know, I could live with that because the the logical extension of that idea is well that everybody makes up their own truth. So if you think that you are a certain kind of person and you wanna believe that, that's fine,

and if somebody else doesn't agree, then that's fine too, because they have their truth. But the thing is that that idea that truth is subjective is not carried through. What they basically say is, there is no truth, except our truth, which you will comply with under penalty. And that's what this bill is doing. This bill says, oh, by the way, here's the truth.

You will do it or you will be cast out. And not worse than that. Worse than that. You will do it or you will be cast out. And we're going to insist that you participate in the process by which your children are led to think this way. Yes, right.

Yes. Now, that's a lot of that's being rejected by parents in the US. It was not that just went too far. They would accept this to some degree for themselves, but parents wouldn't accept it for their children. Well, they're accepting it here. And they're accepting. Look, I thought the

rubber would hit the road with gender. I thought that parents would rise up when their children were, you know, shown the gender-brit figure and unicorn. Yeah, the unicorn and girls aren't really, well, girls can be boys if they want and boys can be girls. And I mean, I thought, whoa, whoa, parents will never accept this. And a few parents didn't, but on the whole, they, as you say, people don't want to be shunned. They don't want to be isolated. And they're afraid to stick their heads over the parapet, especially Canadians.

We don't have a tradition of it and I fear that this this fascination with niceness will be the death of us culturally because you know at the certain point it is too late to turn back and I think once this bill is passed that is a sign that, um, well, this is the permanent in, in, in, in Ontario. The passing of this bill is in some sense, the permanent defeat of a classically liberal or conservative ethos because it is capture of the education system. And so that isn't just a battle that's one now. That's a battle that's won for the next 40 years, and it's a mandated victory. It's a complete bloody catastrophe. No question. It's putting into formal legislative terms what has really already happened. I'm not sure how much on the ground will change. It's just that now it is a statutory mandate

and much more usually enforced than it was before. But the circumstances inside the schools now and inside the universities is already traveled a huge distance in this direction. I think you're missing one thing though Bruce, they'll be allowed to purge. Oh yes, they'll be able to allow to purge the dissenters and and this is what this is what will happen And you know the dissenter is going to be the person who puts forward empirical evidence Even though it's empirical, but it will somehow be deemed well, that's racist for example Let's say that I I bring out statistics Canada data that shows that right now Asian Canadians make more than Caucasian and black.

Well, if that offends someone, if that somehow is deemed to be a racist, because remember, racism is in the eye of the beholder, the person who's begrudged, well, maybe now I can be purged for saying something like that. Or what if I- No, maybe now you will be required to be purged. It's not even an allowance. So you understate the danger, right?

Is that these boards are set up so that the mandate is that anyone who expresses opinions that can be misinterpreted in any way as not anti-racist in this strict sense. So divulging from the equity doctrine in any way, they have to be punished and eliminated in some true sense. So it's a complete route. It's a dystopia in statutory form. Right. Right. Well, Right. Well, we've probably- That's not going to be no-

Yeah, well, it is unbelievably gloomy. And to see the conservatives do this to themselves is, it's something staggering to behold. I, every day something happens in Canada that I just can't believe would happen. And there it is, it happens. And then the next day, something that's even more unbelievable happens. And now we have this bill. And so,

as Barbara pointed out, there are some people who are speaking out. There are, there's a new group, there's some fair, fair, it's an organization. I think Barbara has even written about that. I see that there's an Ontario chapter. I think that slowly, well, I'm hopeful.

I look at groups like the Ontario Party and I look at their policy to try and reverse this. I look at fair. And they're trying to organize parents in a way that will get rid of this critical race theory. And I think that these are green shoots and it's just getting momentum. And then, and you know, I'm going to make a connection to current events. I look at what happened with the truckers, the Freedom Convoy.

Who would have thought that such passive Canadians would actually stick it out and go and peacefully protest as they did. And if you saw any of those overpass where people were there cheering on the truckers with their flags, those are just moms and dads every day people. Maybe they'll channel that same kind of energy into the protection of their kids in the school system. Yeah, and risk having your bank accounts frozen. Yeah, and if only they had a political party that they could

invest all that energy and the problem is they don't and any that they do like the Ontario party is not going to grow though it's going to stay fringe and it's going to stay very tiny. So it's a serious problem. So let's say people should go go ahead but roots. I was just going to say I do agree with Dave that the the the trucker convoy and the phenomenon that it that it launched is actually a hopeful sign. You've got you've got the the shoots as he said of of something coming together some kind of political re alignment or they're coming together of an actual opposition inside the population. You know, whether it will have of an actual opposition inside the population, whether it will have, be able to be sustained and grow or may have to be seen, but my goodness, that was the best thing that I've seen

happen in this country for a long time. Hopefully, the conservatives, at least, could be enticed to give voice to some of that frustration in a manner that was actually productive. We could hope that that would happen. I guess every we should ask people who are listening, call your MLA in Ontario. If you're in Ontario, call your member of the provincial parliament and let them know that you're not happy about this, right? Talk to people, right to the minister of education, right to Doug Ford. Tell them this has to stop. And we should, we should underline the point that it's not actually passed yet. It's past second reading.

It's going to committee. It will need the past third reading. So there's time for the MPPs to change their minds on this. So it's not actually done yet. If people are trying to get an understanding of this, John McWater, who's at, I think he's Columbia, he's just written a book. Does anybody know that is it woke racism? Is that what he calls it? I think it is woke racism. And really what he does is he says, why anti-racism? Exactly what's happening with this bill?

Why it is racist? And he takes a lot of time to explain it. So that's a read that some people might want to take a look at. Yeah, it's Wolk Racism, John McWhorter. Yeah, so he asked that would definitely be worth taking a look at. And so I want to just close this and sum up and you guys can make whatever comments you want afterwards. So what we're seeing here to put it bluntly, just so everyone listening knows is that a doctrine of cultural

criticism, so radical that moderate leftist Democrats rejected out of hand is now going to be written into the law governing all of our educational institutions in a province in Canada governed by conservatives. Right. Now that propaganda is going to become the mandated ethos of the entire education system. And it's being done in such a underhanded and morally manipulative manner that the very people that it's being done to, the most intensely, and that would be the conservative types, are cout into participating in the process. Yes, yes, absolutely. That's it. That's it.

That's all folks. All right. Thank you for getting together so quickly, everyone, and for being willing to share your remarkably unpopular opinions at some peril to yourselves. I was loving you didn't know what was going on Jordan but Barb and I I'm hoping that the Ontario Party will make some headway and Barb is far more realistic about this so I was I was enjoying we were sparring a little bit and you didn't even know. I was really enjoying it. Anyway, it's good to be in such... Although unpopular company in our culture, I consider it an honor to be part of this small band of brothers and sister and all the rest of us who are.

As I said to Bruce before we started, I said it's kind of ironic that everybody who agrees, who's on our side, who's a dissenter on this, we all know each other. And in a country of 38 million people, that's kind of a harsh reality. Sad, it's a sad reality. But say not the struggle not. What's even sadder. I feel like

Cassandra, you know, I look at these things. I looked at them 10 years ago and I have this curse. I can see where things are going. And I think oh, this is going in this colossally stupid direction. And it's it can't be the case that it's really going to get to that point. Is it? And then it just happens over and over and over and over. And this bill is the most, this makes Bill C16 look like child's play. Exactly. So it's a hard, it's a hard lesson to swallow. They really mean it. They really mean it to all of us. Yeah. Yeah. Beware Canadians, you bloody well better wake up. you