The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 238. Bill 67 is Dangerous for Canada | Rex Murphy

Episode Date: March 25, 2022

This episode was recorded on March 15th, 2022.Rex Murphy and I discuss Canadian bill 67, which purports to be nothing but an "anti-racist" bill but is in fact the most pernicious piece of legislation that Canadian governance has tried to push since bill C-16.Rex Murphy is a Canadian commentator and author who deals primarily with Canadian political and social matters. He is best known for hosting CBC Radio 1’s Cross Country Checkup and writing for The National Post. Rex is a very well recognized and loved figure in Canada.Find more Rex Murphy:Rex’s National Post Column - https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-new-dogmas-infecting-our-education-systemCanada and Other Matters of Opinion by Rex Murphy: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B0031TZBP6/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0Related Episodes:-Kill Bill (67): https://youtube.com/watch?v=fogGeB8YmnQ-Warning - Bill 67: https://youtu.be/iwQy-MVP4u0___________Chapters___________[0:00] Intro[1:30] Education & Dogma[2:00] Related Podcasts (links above)[6:10] Why Education Matters[9:20] Is Bill 67 Anything but Ideology?[12:00] Bias Training[19:00] Racial Equity, Judgment, & Power[24:00] Teachers, Bill 67, & "Anti-racism Awareness"[28:00] Nadia Murad, Disinvited from Speaking in Toronto[32:30] Diversity & Inclusión Programs[36:20] Bill 67 & Affirmative Action[42:30] Alleged Offenses[46:10] Potential Long-term Consequences[50:40] An Example[53:40] Outro#Politics #RexMurphy #Canada #Bill67 #Ideology #Education

Welcome to episode 238 of the JBP Podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This is a very urgent episode again. This is a follow-up episode to the recent podcast about Canadian Bill 67. Dad had Rex Murphy on again to discuss the bill, which claims to be nothing but an anti-racist bill, but is in fact the most pernicious and dangerous piece of legislation that our government has ever tried to push. This is relevant to our listeners in the US too, as it sets a precedent for how far people will allow the government to sneakly take away their freedoms. For those who don't know him, Rex is a Canadian commentator and author who specializes in

political and social issues. He's also hosted CBC Radio One's cross country checkup, a nationwide call-in show for 21 years. Rex is a very well-recognized and beloved figure in Canada. After giving an outline of the bill, they discuss ideology, potential long-term consequences, and the role of education, and how that responsibility is being forgotten

by Western educators, politicians, and left-wing activists across the country. I hope you enjoy this conversation. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ Hello, everyone. I'm here today again with Mr. Rex Murphy, one of Canada's pre-eminent 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 K 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, I begin with, the 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 the 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-carre 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 the 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 the society, computation, literacy, history. One very general point I want to make at the very beginning of this chat. Instead, 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 alteriorterrier possibilities of education we shouldn't be racist. 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 your 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 in mind of the students within by discipline 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 at a hard left movement and made it a centered 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 it one of those wonderful bulletins, advising them, oh, how much are students of children in the poetry? How much are 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. Yeah. Yeah. 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. 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 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, 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 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? Then 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. Now, 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 you'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. I stuck in my mind for various reasons. It was a very, very popular CBC show and the biggest host of the time and probably the biggest host of a radio program ever, was Peter Zoski. And funny thing, that's almost 40 years ago, that he was being interviewed by some race expert

at the time. And Peter's asking because he was always that kind of, you know, contempt of the open, extremely liberal person, he asked the question, and this is why you were either be 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 extrinsing characteristics. You empty the whole moral idea of a Martin Luther King and his famous famous phrase Conduct of the character not color of their skin. You also this is 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-biased trainings that teachers and poor people in corporations in the ZBZ in particular, dragged their employees

off to anti-biased. 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 pedal this, this is tight garden, Jordan, it really is. When do we get so childish that we accept these things? Those expensive training programs too, by definition, can't address implicit bias because the only way you can address implicit biases by mass practice and repetitive training. And so even by the dictates of the theory itself, the proposed mechanism of remediation

is impossible. And so here's another clause from the from the bill. If in the opinion of the minister, a report submitted under subsection one 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. What this means essentially is that all new teachers are going to be required to accept the doctrines of anti-racism, this anti-racism movement, let's say, and that's not the same as non-racism, right? Oh, it's not. So the idea that that you're non-racist, for example, if you don't, if you strive not to let

a prior judgment about skin color, for example, you treat everyone't, if you strive not to let a prior judgment 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 that this doctrine is so extreme that moderate leftists in the US rejected out of hand. Well, again, 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 under either, under suratissiously or silently, they slightly 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 so 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 mentioned that. Teachers have to demonstrate, have to display, have to 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 was to get competence in the idea of instruction and in a good one to also have a particular discipline or two in which you really learned the discipline so that you could pass it on. Widened 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 perfection 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 say, 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. Serious. I really am. I do not know how it becomes so complacent, 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 scandal. If you want to call yourself a conservative governor, I'm here, but you are not. But if you call yourself conservative, why are you embracing one of the wider theories now, we're getting completely trashed in the country where it began, I.eE. United States. This is bizarre. Well, so here's another one. The governments now require 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, etc. or other supports for students, etc., 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, 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. An anti-racism is its purposes 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. 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 in your right, the wording position 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 aggregate 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 deployed, 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 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 messiah, the trucker's protest. It's a really good one. If anyone 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 in the authority? Let me give you a little quote to understand that this thing is not isolate, 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 disadvantage is 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 in 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 mean 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 on the waves after the terrible wars in Vietnam, bang! Most will come in as soon as you can. A smaller episode, when the planes went down on 9-11 and all the passengers

disembarked 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 to start 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 stop 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 and bringing an attitude in 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 an legislature in the 21st century, most of whom, by the way, are educated themselves, allowed this thing to dribble in with so little response

and so little comment is 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 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 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 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 is going to determine your moral competence, that 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? So don't I do not hear? 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? This, this, 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 at 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 so, and then there's the punitive elements of this too. So 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 exactly that. 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. Let me just tell you, you've already know this. Who's going to judge? I'll tell you who are going to judge. School of boards are going to judge. It may give you a most recent example. The biggest school board in Canada, I assumed the Ontario school board, the most one of the most highly paid students in Ontario, I think a school board in Canada, I assumed the Ontario School Board, the most one of the most highly paid students in Ontario, I think there are something that would be 12 and 15 thousand dollars a student. Well, let me give you an example of their ready races. This is specific.

This is real. This is news reporter. 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 and 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 super, super, no effort of will or walk 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 more conflicts than in those 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, amutated 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 that would jump. De 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 Afghanis d'Angleterre.

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, 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.

That's where 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 of 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 NGO ideologically committed who are declaring themselves the racial experts. That if you get up and declare 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 there kind 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 activists wanders in from some some street to have a size up and say, oh, by the way, you are seven years of this and you're 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 genuine, reflective of my attitudes, of my on-trained ability to assess your moral character. No one has the right to judge another person's soul. We've known that for two thousand years or more. And when you get down to it, you can use the current terms, the anti-racist analysis, when people are judging other people as being insufficiently moral

and inadequately moral to their standards, I mean, 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 to judge precisely the moral attitudes of others. 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 educational,

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 optional. 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 it had not very long ago, when you had the extremes, the absolute extremes of bigotry. There were periods, the Irish, we can go all through, we can go back 2000 years, but no one wants to admit,

and this is what I find personally puzzling, that's let's say our own country Canada. Whatever the flaws of laws, 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. 60 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 welcoming of others, of those who are different, and they will help. They will help at the slightest impulse. As I said, 9-11-1, the great boat, Satellis 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 can again't? 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 in the some professional anti-activist bunch. I'd 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

dish 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, rather, 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 it outside it. And it's parents. It's, 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 books coming out of Houghton 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. Here's 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 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 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 title motion in progress with, again, the nursery of all these ridiculous theories in their microaggressions and and their safety concepts and I can't have a speaker in here because of their traumatized me the triviality that the faculty's 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 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. Willing us to submit to indoctrination by anti-racism experts has become a criteria for serving on this council. I wonder what would happen, you know, about 15 years ago, if say a Catholic school of order or a Catholic school of order, that doesn't really matter. If they said all the teachers coming in, you know, I got to check you on the doctrines here. Are you a good believer in transubstantiation? You stand by this academic of an extra-munction.

Do you have any quarries about the Trinity, perhaps? We insist, you know, you give us evidence and proof of this, and maybe you don't, we're gonna get rid of you. Where did this streak of investigations and inquire inquisitions? investigations and inquire inquisitions. Where's it? Do we not have it? Well, it's like 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 negatively, 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, 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? And 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 the sit there as agents of some, some, 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 of University and information about those supports. Any anti-racism initiatives and programs established by the College of 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. So, but again, where are they going with this? I mean, 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's people in their various jobs to 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 picked the right side of this particular context, I'm going to move you out. We cannot allow the bureaucratization of the search in two people's attitudes and souls to become a legend's possibility. You know, I just laid it down to say, are you? 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 Greg Britain itself. I'm just going to read the headlines. Again, it's a story. It's print. It's real. he did a 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 some freelancer. And he founded Britain, and here's again, like the man Trudeau would systemically raise, he found, by the way, he's black, we shouldn't matter, but these days we have to say it, he found that Britain was not institutionally racist and and blasts North Korean Ham University cowards for withdrawing his university honorary degree. He was given a 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 classes that were all now, a bunch of racists, homophobes, Islamophob, tribesfolk, named the foe, or activeo. That has to be accepted as absolute law. However, 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 the Morris, 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 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 in 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-statue, high qualifications, both black, both ostracized because they spoke a clear truth against these doctrines. So where are we, Jordan's my question. I don't know anymore. Well, 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 that 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 resources to support pupils, teachers, and staff who have been targeted by racism, strategies to support pupils, teachers, and staff who witness 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. The details that you've outlined here, and again, you've done a closer read.

But these are, no, 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, only-dimensional, 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 program that is as deep and this obsessional is that you are exceeding to the thought that thousands and thousands of Ontario teachers are morally

deficit. They're morally that we have been running a system here and until we get these these these new angels of racial purity and to start teaching them all about bias and oppression and everything else that the bunch of running-arrow schools are either on-educated or bigots. But again, so here's the thing that more than it, I gotta keep saying it. Once you make obsessional and pervasive and saturated the concept, the critical racial theory, and make that the soul of the educational effort. You have displaced the educational effort. You are cheating the poor young people. You are cheating their parents. You are lying to them. I would much, I would, 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 betting better. When was the last time that the educational authorities of this province started firing at bulletin 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 that's throwing there? And we're instead of this alien,

throwing 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 was the conservative and the liberals, the small L liberal types, Canadians and 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. Yeah, 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. you