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.

Gutter press or smutter press?


Gutter press. No other word for it. One would expect better from The NY Times. Still why not make a baseless claim for the heck of it should it help paint a narrative? Indeed the Stormy Daniels $130,000 shut-up money story would have legs if she produced the ‘deposit slip’ and the contract which any media outlet would  pay “any price” to insure against any litigation for her breach of it.

Think of the $100s of millions media outlets have spent on tying to take the President down. Whether Russiagate which CNN’s own Van Jones called a “nothing burger” for ratings or MSNBC’’s Rachel Maddow who made that  embarrassing “we got his tax returns!” gaffe. Every celebrity event (Grammy’s, Oscars or Golden Globes) has become more about blasting Trump than blowing wind up the back sides of their own Hollywood hypocrites who blatantly turned a blind eye to all of the sexual misconduct that has gone on for decades in their own industry. Where is the outrage over that? Even career feminist Germaine Greer said that if one opened their legs for a movie role they “consented”.

Indeed if Trump frolicked with Stormy Daniels it appears it was consensual on the basis of the rumours. It is not condoning it but look at all the petty behaviour of Clinton post the election still crying to her elitist buddies in sympathy for losing to a man, who less than a week after the grab p*ssygate scandal, stared down the barrel of a camera to 100s of millions of viewers in the second debate to say “no one respects women more than I do” If indeed it was an election issue, voters overlooked it to boot the establishment. Case closed

Still the one-eyed NY Times has to make baseless read acrosses on Melania’s actions being about her acting in a huff over her husband’s supposed infidelity. Make no mistake had she cheated on her husband the mainstream media would celebrate it and chalk it down for a win for their side. They’d get panels of feminists talking about how his behaviour brought it on and how he deserved it for being a chauvinist pig.

However we shouldn’t point fingers at just the NYT.

Last week The Guardian wrote of Melania Trump: “Seldom seen and even more seldom heard, the former model may not be as popular as her predecessor Michelle Obama, but she is far more popular than her husband. Unfortunately for his Republican administration, she seems to have little interest in using that popularity to do anything of substance with the post.

Well had Tbe Guardian bothered to check, the left has made it clear of how they see her in the public eye. When she went to donate Dr Seuss books for children’s education, the recipient librarian at Cambridgeport School refused to accept the gift, criticizing the Trump administration’s education policies further writing that Seuss’s illustrations are “steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes,” Never did I know as a child that reading about the Cat in a Hat was some conspiracy by my parents to turn me into a hateful bigot. Now it’s all so clear!

The Daily Mail had to settle a $2.9mn lawsuit and issue a full public apology for libel against the First Lady for suggesting she gave more than “modeling services.” What awful slander! Could it be that the press is hardly lining up to champion anything she might host which is of social good? Is trying to be a good mother by not dislocating her son’s education in the early days a crime?

All the jokes from the left thanking immigrants for marrying Trump because Americans wouldn’t do it flies in the face of the very stereotypes they get so easily triggered over. Indeed the racist president married a Slav. Never mind the contradiction.

While the press can speculate over what FLOTUS might be thinking perhaps they should give her advice on the ways they wish her to behave. Should we anticipate Melania Trump’s hashtags on social media championing flaccid and impotent US foreign policy to terrorist groups like Michelle Obama? Mrs Obama is indeed a highly educated person but that doesn’t automatically exclude Mrs Trump from serving the office gracefully and proudly. The Trumps are a power couple

Yes, her husband leaves much to be desired in the manner in which he serves his country. However the scoreboard suggests many of the things he is doing are working. Such is the bias in the press about how world leaders hate him, CBS painfully admitted almost everyone of them lined up for a selfie with POTUS at Davos.

If we look at the last State of the Union address he blew the left out of the water. Even Van Jones admitted he’s going to do 8 years with talk like that. Now he has far more achievements to crow about. So yes, Melania will be there looking a million bucks and her face will speak of how she feels about Stormy Daniels. Storm in a teacup mode like it.

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.





It is no surprise that The Guardian has published a review like this. It is yet another reason why it still begs for donations at the end of every article. Instead of thinking the content might be the problem the paper still thinks it’s readers “just haven’t come around yet”.  It’s consistent with leftist thinking.

Buckmaster writes,

Designed to appeal to US audiences first and foremost, and subsequently exploiting Australia’s inferiority complex, Crocodile Dundee confirmed false preconceptions Americans had (and perhaps still have) about Australia and Australians. These movies constructed a conservative fantasy, where white hetero males do all the hard work and are justly rewarded, and where everybody else, including “the sheilas”, “the Aborigines” and “the gays”, understand their place in the pecking order – which is somewhere below people like Dundee.”

Doesn’t the $700mn that the Crocodile Dundee franchise earned speak volumes of is popularity? Was it a surprise to see Tourism Australia make Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee) it’s pin up boy to tell Yanks he’ll “put another shrimp on the barbie”? The Guardian should take note.  Is it that many people see beyond all of these stereotypes because of the comedy within it? Why would people pay to watch a comedy film if it must walk on egg shells over every potential grievance? Maybe it would please Buckmaster if signs lit up telling audiences when they should applaud and boo? That way we could be indoctrinated inside the theatre. Perhaps filmmakers should pool all revenues at the box office and divide them evenly so those that didn’t do very well get equal pay?

Will The Guardian protest in ways that force the film content approval boards to edit out any “insensitive comments” against minorities? Jerry Seinfeld used to make fun of our differences all the time. One episode saw Jerry asking a mailman who happened to be of Chinese origin whether he knew where a Chinese restaurant was. “Do you think because I’m Chinese that I know where the Chinese restaurant is?” “No I thought you’d know because you’re a mailman” Two perspectives hidden in the comedy. If Jerry Seinfeld wasn’t funny he wouldn’t have been paid millions per episode. The viewers spoke and the network listened.

The problem with the left is that they can’t laugh at themselves let alone life. Most good humour is achieved by making fun of people. Ricky Gervais made a whole comedy series ‘The Office’ which poked fun of the horrible boss most of us had encountered while tackling all the issues around race, gender, sexual orientation, office romances, hierarchies and the politics inside the workplace. It was so funny because the viewer could laugh at the truth behind the storyline as they could rattle off names of their own colleagues who were just like the characters.

But no, humour must be surgically removed by the state. Rules must be put in place to protect people that aren’t necessarily asking for it.  Were Aborigines outraged after the first Crocodile Dundee? No. Should they and other minorities that supposedly had their feelings hurt retroactively seek compensation from Paul Hogan? Should he be dragged in front of the Australian Human Rights Commission?

What Buckmaster overlooks is the hypocrisy of Hollywood. As the #METOO scandal broke, celebrities might have worn black but so short of material were most of the dress makers one would be hard pressed to see it as a legitimate protest against sexual harassment. That’s ok though as their acceptance speeches spoke of gender pay gaps and all the other champagne socialist causes. That’s the difference. Because they support the leftist causes that’s alright even though half of those in the room are perfect examples of ignoring causes until it affects them. Surprise surprise to see the ratings of Hollywood award ceremonies  plummet. Ringing any bells Mr Buckmaster?

So to  Buckmaster’s  hope that the next Croc Dundee film removes the very things that made the franchise such a hit. Why not just let the box office tell the story of what people are prepared to pay for? People can make up their own minds on what they’re offended by. They don’t need the state to control language and thought. Look at all the howls of protest from the left about Tommy Robinson being a hateful racist bigot. Then look to why he has two #1 best selling books on Amazon? Could it be more people actually agree with him but keep quiet to avoid endless tirades from the left? Then they wonder why Trump won. In a sense the president is a Crocodile Dundee. He portrays himself as a silverback who grabs crotches and throws caution to the wind at political correctness.


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.