Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

Security measures in US schools – shocking stats


Let’s get one thing clear. Whether victims of shootings are kindergarten kids, school students, work colleagues or old age pensioners, the sheer act of it points to an increasingly sick element of society. To take innocent lives because of one’s own sense of subjective injustice can’t be justified. That’s hardly an earth shattering revelation. However what is actually going on at schools when it comes to securing students safety? The stats are mind boggling.

A 2017 study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported the following,

In the 2013–14 school year, 93 percent of public schools reported that they controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours. Other safety and security measures reported by public schools included the use of security cameras to monitor the school (75 percent), a requirement that faculty and staff wear badges or picture IDs (68 percent), and the enforcement of a strict dress code (58 percent). In addition, 24 percent of public schools reported the use of random dog sniffs to check for drugs, 20 percent required that students wear uniforms, 9 percent required students to wear badges or picture IDs, and 4 percent used random metal detector checks.

Breaking down some of the categories in the chart 5.5% of primary schools use sniffer dogs to check for drugs!! Over half of high schools have random drug searches. 9% of high schools have metal detectors. How did it get to this? Is taking such preventive action having an impact?

In 1994, the federal government began requiring schools to introduce safety programs in an attempt to crack down on violence on school grounds. Many schools introduced metal detectors to check for guns, knives and other weapons. The year after the measures were introduced, violent deaths on high school campuses across the United States halved.

Then in 1999, the Columbine High School shooting reset the bar on violence inside the schoolyard. Armed with shot guns, machine guns, pistols and pipe bombs two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher before committing suicide. Listening to interviews of those who survived, the answer was the same – the two were regarded as outcasts. It was later shown that they were on anti-depressant medication and had committed multiple felonies. An excellent documentary done by Zero Hour chronologically runs through their mindset

In May 2002, the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 U.S. school shootings showing strikingly similar signals. The findings were:

1) Incidents of targeted violence at school were rarely sudden, impulsive acts. Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.

2) Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.

3) Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

4) Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Many had considered or attempted suicide.

5) Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack.

6) Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.

7) In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.

8) Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.

Trump’s suggestion of arming teachers seems ludicrous to outsiders. To have holstered teachers (boils down to a question of how many would want to ‘carry’ in the classroom) or armed sentries in front of schools hardly sends the right messages about teaching respect. Then again with the ever growing surge of kids growing up in single parent households (currently 40% of white households and 70% of black households) in the US the psychological studies point to an increase in dysfunctionality in kids because of a lack a stable guardian to keep them on the rails.

Banning guns or enforcing gun free zones won’t prevent future massacres. Will America need 100% of schools to have airport style security with pat downs, ion scanners and prison style walls to prevent would be perpetrators breaking in? Maybe they will if families keep breaking down and disgruntled delinquent teenagers feel they need to vent.

Yet come between some Americans and the 2nd Amendment and all manner of excuses to justify ownership surfaces. As an Australian, my country is often highlighted as a success story of mandatory gun confiscation after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

Yes Australia hasn’t seen a massacre since yet there was never a big problem in the first place. 661,000 firearms were removed from circulation. Or 1 gun for every 33 people. In the US it is c.1 gun for every person in circulation. Even if a third of households have them we are looking at 1 gun per 3 people in the US.

The Aussie government offered $500/gun average. If Trump ran the same programme (albeit 21 years later) and taking into account inflation then conservatively at $1,000 a gun he would be looking at a cost of $320bn. To put that in perspective the annual US military budget is around $680bn. So a combined spend of $1 trillion.

Yet as tragic as the Florida shooting is, mainstream and social media has turned this into a cesspit of vile abuse and misinformation.

Whether it be the conspiracy theories of high school student David Hogg being a CNN planted child actor, Trump’s hand written  notes or kids threatening to march on Washington the whole tragedy is turning into a debacle. While we should be mourning the deaths of 17 innocent students at the hands of a lunatic, the media seems more focused on Trump bashing and posting memes of Republicans in the pockets of the NRA.

If guns in schools have been an issue since the 1990s, we have had ample numbers of administrations who could have acted but didn’t. If the 14 gun massacres that occurred under the Obama Administration when the Democrats had control of the House and Senate  resulted in no action being taken why the song and dance by Democrats today? Sounds like political point scoring at its worst.

This isn’t or at least shouldn’t be a partisan issue. This is an issue of a breakdown in social values. By allowing single parent households to simply and easily marry the state through generous subsidies, parental responsibility is being thrown out the window. To be fair automatic weapons are hardly a requirement for a civilian population but let’s deal with the real issues behind why so many students are being massacred rather than just the method of how they commit the atrocities.

Banning guns seems so simple to cure the problem but as the stats above make clear, the solution is far more complex than armed teachers, rent-a-cops at school gates and metal detectors. Parents need to start taking far more responsibility and the media needs to start focusing on keeping it real.

It is disturbing to turn a tragedy into yet another excuse to crank up Trump Derangement Syndrome. He may have handled the messaging poorly (as he does with most issues) but let’s look at the history. Almost 20 years have gone by since Columbine High and despite countless repeat events, where has the same level of outrage been? Exactly. Nowhere. Tragedies should never be used for political gain. Where is the dignity for the dead? Perhaps we can just boil the whole behaviour surrounding the awful event as merely “moving with the times”. It is the term we seem to hear for every other excuse to shut down sensible debate.

Ultimately it is for Americans to decide to vote for parties that will change laws for the greater good. The rest of the world can shake their head and waggle the finger at America’s gun laws but perhaps they should focus on how good they’ve got it at home by comparison.

Playing down a mass suicide note


With the release of the Nunes memo, do top Democrats honestly believe that such collusion by the DNC with the nation’s judiciary and intelligence services doesn’t expose the hypocrisy of a party which proclaims its platform is all about equality and liberal ideals? Does it not expose that these politicians are only in it for themselves? Is it any wonder the Democrats are proclaiming this memo is ‘misleading’ or worse that Americans are too stupid to understand the memo? On reflection they probably had wished they’d stood and applauded during the SOTU address instead of childish frowns of bitterness and playing Candy Crush on their smartphones.

While many Americans probably suspected corruption (so brilliantly conveyed in ‘House of Cards’) for decades, they have had it transparently confirmed.  The DNC hope was that the illegal and doctored FISA application would sink Trump as a candidate and lock in a Clinton White House. By then the scam could be lost as easily as 33,000 emails. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who could forget Bill Clinton’s chance meeting on a Phoenix tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the day before her testimony on Hillary’s email scandal? Did anyone honestly believe they just talked about grand children? Lynch downplayed the severity of the private server as ‘careless’. Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch has found 30 pages related to the encounter at the FBI, after being caught for hiding them in another lawsuit.

Obama was front and centre of the Clinton campaign. Hillary caught the jump seat on Air Force One numerous times. Are we to believe that this dossier was never discussed on board? That Obama, so obsessed with protecting his legacy,was in no way complicit in making sure Trump wouldn’t get in the Oval Office?

If we go back to mid 2006, news broke that the NSA was tracking the calls and emails of tens of millions of Americans to create  the “largest and most comprehensive database ever assembled in the world.” In the summer of 2007, the Bush administration pushed FISA amendments known as the “Protect America Act” through Congress which authorized the surveillance of any phone call or email by any American suspected of ‘suspicious dealings’ with ‘foreigners’.

As a presidential candidate in the 2008 election, Senator Barack Obama pledged that there would be “no more illegal wiretapping of Americans”. Post the election win, Obama reversed his position and continued the Bush-era surveillance via FISA. Obama’s Department of Justice aggressively defended court challenges from anyone who suspected their phone calls or emails had been illegally traced.

In his last days as president, Obama authorized the NSA to share its volumous databank on Americans with other federal agencies, opening a can of worms for politicians to dig up dirt. Talk about muddying waters in an already dirty swamp. This seems like a move that could badly backfire if a cleaning house of the FBI and DOJ is undertaken. What option has the president but to do it? What better way to talk of transparency to the American people than lop heads of such duplicitous people.

Therein lies the problem. When the state’s own intelligence services are working so closely hand-in-hand with political parties to keep dynasties alive one has to question democracy. Despite Wasserman-Schulz stabbing Sanders in the back, a mainstream media overwhelmingly behind Clinton, a p*ssy grabbing opponent, we now learn that not even a dossier paid for by the DNC in cahoots with the FBI and DOJ to cheat FISA got Democrats across the line – what a hatchet job.

Even Turkish President Erdogan would blush at the level of ‘duplicity’ of this scandal. This is abuse of power on an industrial scale.  One wonders whether the often made claim that the ‘Obama administration was one without scandal’ maybe tarnished with one of the worst. We haven’t heard the last of this.

Even your steak is at stake with the left


In order to create change in our society, we must challenge current belief systems and force people to take a side; oppression or justice, cruelty or compassion.” – Melbourne Cow Save Animal Liberation Army (MCSALA)

35 members of the  MCSALA forced their way into the Rare Steakhouse to protest last night. What is it with the left? Even diners can’t enjoy a meal without being harassed. Maybe customers were celebrating a birthday, anniversary or wanting to enjoy a steak after a hard day at work. Parting with good money to consume is a choice.

Instead of abusing customers why not whine to the government who clearly allow such supposedly inhumane slaughtering practices? Did they protest in front of the Indonesian Embassy when videos of Indonesian abattoirs showed how cruelly live cattle were being killed? Why not raid the Halal Certification Board? Ah no, that couldn’t be done because that would clash with the left’s other ideologies. It is not the principle but the side. Only soft targets with limited repercussions will do.

CM sincerely hopes charges are pressed against the MCSALA. Normally demonstrations in public spaces require permits. The Rare Steakhouse is a private space. It has a right to refuse entry to those that ruin the ambience. It rents the space to run a business and one can be sure the manager would not have invited them on the premises. It employs staff who equally shouldn’t face interference in the workplace.

CM wishes to see the restaurant get a lot of free publicity off the back of this stunt. That customers, through their own volition, exercise choice based on offering rather than be ranted to by protein starved vegans. Surely the ultimate irony would be to see the Rare Steakhouse see a large tick up in business.

People don’t have to take sides on every issue but the flaw in the MCSALA’s statement is that the left doesn’t believe in choice. It believes in shoving its views down the throats and those that don’t tow its line must be ‘outed’. No options but control. Indeed in its statement the MCSALA says it must “force”. Tells us all we need to know.

Imagine the howls if butchers and beef farmers walked into a vegan cafe and razed hell? Sadly they’re too busy making a living.



Totalistralian Open


From today’s papers – “Stacy Cole and his husband Brian Hewitt have travelled from Dallas, Texas for the first Grand Slam of the year but won’t be buying tickets to Margaret Court Arena after the stadium’s namesake expressed her views on same-sex marriage.”

CM thoroughly endorses their right to choose not to watch matches in it. What CM doesn’t endorse is the motive behind the action. The Margaret Court Arena was named after her for sporting achievements. Period. Just because she possesses different values on marriage is not an excuse to go down the path of vilification which seeks to remove the name. As they said,

I hope that the Australian Open takes the fact that her name is on his Court very seriously and maybe considers having another name because it does make us feel a little uncomfortable buying tickets to go in.

As John McEnroe would say, “YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!?” Uncomfortable? Perhaps the Australian Open can compensate them for their trauma. Had they stayed in Texas, would they have turned off the TV were any matches played on the Margaret Court Arena? Give me a break.

Stacy & Brian identify their same sex union as a traditional husband and wife sense. The 2016 Census highlighted same sex couples as 0.7% of total relationships. Those identifying as husband & wife in same sex couple relationships was less than 0.03%. So the media are giving Stacy & Brian a platform to shove a message down people who voted overwhelmingly to support SSM in a plebiscite. What purpose does it serve? Surely victory is already theirs on SSM? They can toast the fact that all of Margaret Court’s activism on the NO campaign was fruitless and now a law confirms her lost cause. Yet the left can’t let go. True victory only comes when the enemy is completely crushed, humiliated and stripped of any accolades richly deserved for the manner in which they were awarded.

What the left consistently forget is that they only push the very people they are trying to bring around to their way of thinking further away. What can’t be argued with reasoned logic must be protested with threats or acts of force.

Welcome to the tolerant left. Margaret Court should be forced to watch her name being removed from the stadium for extra effect. Maybe the International Tennis Federation should retroactively strip all of her championships and prize money indexed with inflation? Setting examples is the only way forward for totalitarians.

An end to sex segregation in sports?


The ever impartial and balanced ABC posted an article talking about how it is time to eradicate sex segregation in sports by using formulas/classification systems to ‘even it out’. Were these social experiements warranted, how was it that Michele Mouton finished runner up in the 1982 World Rally Championship against an all male field with zero free kicks? She won four races in the season. Call it raw talent. She didn’t require complex formulas and spreadsheets to give her a handicap. She won on her own merits. No system required. Isn’t that the thrill of competition?


In the Moto 3 motorcycle championship, Maria Herrera competes against an all male field. She is not a championship contender but she isn’t always last. Still she has no handicap. If she wants to race with the men then accept all the same rules of competition. You won’t find Maria moaning about being hard done by.


Ana Carrasco, a 20-year-old from Spain, became the first woman to win a world championship motorcycle race last year. No sex segregation but grit, hunger and determination. No handicaps.


Still, the driving factor (no pun intended) behind these three women has been the machines which level the playing field but the importance was they won on their own skill.

Sadly, it is an inescapable fact that men and women are different physiologically. Especially in sports which rely solely on the physicality of the athlete. Should Merlene Ottey have been pitted against Usain Bolt in the 100m? Give her a size, weight and twitch fibre handicap? However shouldn’t whites or Asians be equally justified to complain that black athletes tend to dominate track and field. Perhaps they should be given race based handicaps? Perhaps a flyweight female boxer be given a 20 point start against a flyweight male boxer? Whatever it takes. So much for betting agencies setting fair prices (although what a way to match fix by a subtle tweak to a handicap formula).

Then we switch into the transgender athletes e.g. males who identify as females. So let’s say a former 125kg All Black wants to play for a women’s rugby team. Apart from the health and safety aspects of such a move, there is no logic or fairness. Or perhaps to avoid health risks give Serena Williams a two set head start against Roger Federer? Make him play with a racket head half the size.

Since the first Olympics in Athens in 1896 the world has had over 100 years of sex segregated sports. No one has really complained. Drug cheating is a bigger issue to be fair. Having said that people want to see athletes break records unhindered by spreadsheet based technicalities. Usain Bolt trained for 16 years to remain at the top of his game. Would FloJo be satisfied to say she ran an adjusted 9.57s to be the world’s fastest sprinter when she only managed 10.49 in real money? Or is it worth setting her starting blocks to run 92m so as to even it out. Talk about hollow victories.

Seriously though, what is wrong with athletes training their hearts out to win glory? What is it with the left that insists on trying to even out absolutely everything. Why not allow women hammer throwers to do the men’s 100m? Surely they can derive a formula for that? Or perhaps the Jamaican 4x100m men’s relay team should complete against the Japanese women’s group synchronized swimming in their respective sports? Why not give the weight of a Djibouti gold medal 10x that of the US or China?

This thirst for loony social experiments is really going too far. The outward push for diversity continues unabated. Yet once again the hypocrisy of the left calls for ‘differences’ to be eradicated so everyone can be a winner. Equality without a level playing field. Now that is straight out of the socialist playbook.

What is more egregious than receiving $800,000?


The $650,000 of that sum paid to the lawyers of a transgender student, Ms. (Mr) Ashton Whitaker, who claimed discrimination against the school which prevented her from using the male bathrooms and calling her the incorrect pronoun. She also added that she suffered from anxiety, depression, migraines and other health problems related to dehydration because she had tried to avoid restroom trips by drinking less water.

Whitaker said, “The idea of using the girls restroom was humiliating and there was no way I could do it…If I were to use the gender-neutral restrooms, I would also stand out from everyone else with a big label on me that said ‘transgender.”

Doesn’t that quote sort of say it all? Whitaker wants the school to accept her as a male yet the idea of using gender neutral restrooms would label her as transgender! Indeed if she is asking the school teachers to call her male pronouns and to be allowed to use the male toilets isn’t she labeling herself in front of her class? Wouldn’t male students who saw her use their bathrooms already know it was because she was transgender?

However this court victory only opens the floodgates to more victim based ambulance chasing. For lawyers it becomes a field day. The days of “have you been injured at work?” will be replaced by “have you had your feelings hurt?” At $650k a pop that is easy money for lawyers.

Should all schools be forced to change curriculums, indoctrinate other students, parents and teachers as well as go to considerable expense to accomodate people like Whitaker? Should parents who wish their kids to study in schools that aren’t caught up in this nonsense be free to send their kids to boys or girls only education without the state determining bathroom policy? Don’t they have just as much right to demand that as a transgender student from demanding the opposite? Yet the ruling is moving toward a scenario where parents who do not accept this be labeled bigots and persecuted for holding conservative views.

Let’s think about this. For girls who ‘identify’ as boys or vice versa why must we be dictated to by law to ‘pretend’ to accept them for what they subjectively (not biologically) feel themselves to be, assuming we know in the first place? California has laws that can jail one for using the wrong pronoun. This is the slippery slope.

Perhaps the solution – if the demand is high enough –  is transgender only schools where people like Whitaker can study, be called whatever pronoun that makes them happy and pee in the bathroom of their choice. They can have their own sanctuary. Why should the students (and parents) of the school that paid the $800,000 settlement suffer from a cutback in educational tools, teachers or other facilities because of a student’s hurt feelings? $800,000 would buy a lot of ‘useful’ equipment for furthering education.

To give a great example of how weak the liberal argument is for the slippery slope of caving in to transgender in schools and general life look at this interview of Tucker Carlson and DNC senior advisor Zac Petkanas. It is frighteningly naive.

Today’s ‘civil rights’ movement is all about removing them from the majority. No one is arguing that transgender people don’t deserve equal status (they have it). It is only because they demand special treatment which once again throws into the fore the problem with institutionalising policy which creates the very opposite to what ‘diversity’ crowd proclaim they promote. Honestly what has gender, race or sexual preference have to do with ‘performance’ in the schoolyard or workplace? Yet increasingly we are asked to provide it to prospective employers who fear being persecuted if they don’t get the ‘balance’ right.