Wilfrid Laurier University & its Social Justice adherents who censor

A storm of poopÂ đŸ’©Â has concluded at Wilfrid Laurier University.

This poopÂ đŸ’©Â debacle was caused by a trio and one more: Two professors, a bureaucrat, and a “them” from the Rainbow Centre.

The infamous three were: (1) Supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

The “one more” was Toby Finlay, the manager of the Rainbow Centre.

The trio attempted to censor a teaching assistant named Lindsay Shepherd.

Who-is-Lindsay-Shepherd

Lindsay is a student who’s doing a 12 month Master of the Arts at Wilfrid Laurier university. Her MA is specified as “Cultural Analysis & Social Theory“.

The English Communications class that Lindsay taught was CS101, “Canadian Communication in Context”.

Canadian-Communication-in-Context_CS101

CS101 was the class where “one or many” students spoke a complaint about her.

But the “one or many” only went to the university’s Rainbow Centre.

Wilfrid Laurier Rainbow Centre

The “one person or the group” spoke their complaint to the Rainbow Centre, and the manager of the Rainbow Centre (Toby Finlay) was the one who next informed (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Herbert Pimlott & (3) Adria Joel to call a disciplinary meeting of Lindsay.

Why-was-a-complaint-made

CS101 was meant to teach the following to 1st year Communications students:

An Intro to key issues in Canadian mass communications from a variety of perspectives, including such topics as social history of mass media in Canada, public policy and politics, and popular culture.”

Canadian Communication in Context, or CS101, was meant to teach English grammar and beyond it.

Lindsay’s job as teaching assistant required her to introduce a classroom discussion about (1) Canadian public policy, (2) politics and (3) popular culture whenever those three concerned themselves with the English language.

An example that Lindsay tried to teach was the Jordan Peterson & Nicholas Matte debate from public television, which was TVOntario.

Link to the transcript is here: https://tvo.org/transcript/2396103/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech

Link to the full video is here:

The Peterson/Matte debate on The Agenda was a sample of the contentions that Canadians are right now discussing as their criticism of Bill C-16.

Bill-C16

Bill C-16 is a radical law because it makes pronouns compulsory for all Canadians to speak & write whenever a transgender person wants someone to describe “them” by “their” chosen pronoun. An example would be: “They” or “them” as a pronoun.

Bill C-16, as a language law, will extend protection against hate speech toward “gender identity” and “gender expression“.

Bill C-16 will add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Bill C-16 would, in all, amend both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

This legislation is summarily radical because laws about words & propaganda within a democracy only prohibit words being used as slurs.

So a language law for a democracy consistently prohibits words from being used as “hate speech” rather than enforcing an entire population to use certain words as “gender pronouns“.

Bill C-16, however, has already been done in communist & fascist countries. Think of “comrade” being legally required for all communists to speak & write while in public schools, and so on. North Korea would be an example of where people are compelled to use specific words.

An example would be from the Washington Post. It published on November 17th, 2017, the stories from Koreans who had escaped from North Korea.

One story was very telling. It was by “a university student, 대학생, who escaped in 2013“:

We had ideological education for 90 minutes every day. There was revolutionary history, lessons about Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un. Of course, they taught us about why we needed nuclear weapons, and they would tell us that we needed to make sacrifices in our daily lives so they could build these weapons and protect our country, keep the nation safe. I was so sick and tired of hearing about all this revolutionary history, I was so sick of calling everyone “comrade.” I didn’t care about any of that stuff.

As well, Jared Brown, the lead lawyer for Brown Litigation spoke the same misgivings about enforcement of words as pronouns on May 17th, 2017 at the Senate:

Jared Brown reasoned his own misgivings at the Senate’s third & last review of Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 in a university

Bill C-16 was wrongly assumed by “one or many” students to mean that a discussion about English pronouns must be censored. Someone from CS101 made a complaint to the Rainbow Centre about seeing a TVOntario clip of Jordan Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked to a meeting with her supervising professor (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

However, Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay:

The apology is here:
https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/nov/apology-from-laurier-president-and-vice-chancellor.html

Herbert Pimlott & Adria Joel didn’t apologize.

Nathan Rambukkana only published an “open letter”:

The “open letter” is here:
https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/nov/open-letter-to-my-ta-lindsay-shepherd.html

Deborah MacLatchy finally concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

Her statement is here: https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/dec/president-statement-re-independent-fact-finder-report.html

Meanwhile:

Michele Kramer, president of the Wilfrid Laurier Faculty Association, made a public statement that the faculty association “condemns violent speech“.

To myself, this statement was very questionable because Herbert Pimlott is also a Vice President of the faculty association:

Wilfrid-Laurier-Faculty-Assoc-Executive-Committee

So, the faculty association wants to define any “discussion” as “violence” when this speech is heard and righteous anger is felt toward it?

This is a pro-censorship problem. Any debate could be defined as violence because it only takes a few people to feel upset when hearing a “discussion” and to then define that speech as violence to silence it.

Gred Bird (or Uccello) certainly believes in censoring any spoken debate and writing that upsets anyone’s feelings:

Greg-Bird

He had run a petition that argued the safety of genderqueer & trans people on Wilfrid Laurier’s campus were threatened with violence.

In conjunction, Toby Finlay (the Rainbow Centre’s administrator) also repeatedly called any conversation about Lindsay as acts of violence:

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_01

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_02

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_03

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_04

Swash_01

Finally, this is a summary of Wilfrid Laurier’s exposed attempt at censorship:

On Nov. 1st, Lindsay showed the students of CS101 a three-minute video clip from the TVO public affairs show “The Agenda.”

The video clip was from “Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech”, which was broadcast on Oct 27 2016.

Link to the full video is here:

Link to the transcript is here: https://tvo.org/transcript/2396103/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech

Lindsay said she was trying to demonstrate the theory that the structure of a language will affect the perception of the people who speak and write that language.

Lindsay-Shepherd_Dec-6th-Tweet

She said she had mentioned to the class that traditional beliefs of English speakers about gender have probably been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns of “he/him”, “she/her”, and “they/one/it” that for centuries have been the only gender pronouns in the English language.

Someone later after the class complained. That person complained despite the video clip was **neutrally** shown by Lindsay.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked, through email, to a meeting with (1) her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

She next contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published an editorial about the attempt to shame and censor Lindsay. Blatchford called it:

Christie-Blatchford_Thought-Police-strike-again

Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay.

Nathan Rambukkana, however, only published an “open letter“.

Deborah MacLatchy followed up and ran an investigation, which concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

MacLatchy also hired Robert Centa as a lawyer to represent the university during its inquiry. Howard Levitt also contacted Lindsay and became her lawyer. He did this as pro bono for her.

Howard Levitt discovered from Rob Centa that only a spoken complaint was made to the Rainbow Centre.

No-formal-complaint-filed

Specifically the complaint was spoken to Toby Finlay, whose own gender pronoun is “they” and “them”.

Toby is the main admin for the Rainbow Centre (or is the “them” who’s the top “they” that manages the Centre).

It was this “them” who contacted Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel to call a meeting with Lindsay so that she would be scolded.

During their tribunal, Herbert Pimlott, Nathan Rambukkana & Adria Joel intended to censor her.

All three ignored academic freedom because Lindsay is a teaching assistant.

Lindsay knew the trio were wrong. So she contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published, “Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video“.

Other media soon followed and published their reporting of Lindsay’s experience of a kangaroo court at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Swash_02

From start to finish I watched Lindsay’s updates on twitter.

I also ran a petition.

I agreed with her because I see that the Humanities and Social Sciences in both Canadian and American universities are mostly populated with professors who are Social Justice acolytes.

Rather than being advocates, these professors (including TAs & students) behave as acolytes who value Social Justice as a dogma.

As Social Justice liberals, they righteously enforce their ideology through shame and censorship whenever their feelings are offended. Any disagreement to their maxim of “gender/race/etc. intersectionality” will cause them deep felt offense.

To myself, it was very problematic that Nathan Rambukkana had published an open letter to Lindsay Shepherd that ONLY provided his reasons that he taught by critical pedagogy and by the narrow worldview of Social Justice.

I personally see that Social Justice, as a righteous belief, can delude anyone into calling a Mao Zedong style kangaroo court to censor a teaching assistant. That ideology had certainly deluded Nathan Rambukkana.

As well “objectivity” — according to Rinaldo Walcott at OISE in the University of Toronto — is specifically and only “White Supremacist Logic”. It’s logic from White Supremacy within the university despite it being an intellectual neutrality and freedom to allow all ideas & sides to be investigated within a classroom.

Rinaldo Walcott made his opinion about White Supremacy known while he was on The Agenda, hosted by Steve Paikin, during the episode “Freedom of expression on campus“.

What he said at 19:33 to 19:51 was: “The university is deeply implicated [with] producing certain kinds of logics of white supremacy.“:

DRDsHj-WAAEnB0u

In all, I was troubled when I listened to Lindsay’s supervisors attempt their re-education of her by invoking the “Ontario Human Rights Act, Bill C-16 and Wilfrid Laurier’s Gendered Violence Prevention & Support policy“.

Their appeal and deferral to the above sounded exactly like a secular bureaucrat or religious official invoking the dogma of a political manifesto or a holy book.

Secular politics, political values or religious dogma that forbid academic freedom, objectivity, learning to debate, etc., have no place in a university. Values that are righteous and totalitarian have no place in a university. To myself, the intellectual freedom of the TA and students within the classroom must be supported.

Finally, Wilfrid Laurier is no longer a university to me. How can this place be a university when the Humanities & Social Sciences in it drivel Social Justice as a righteous doctrine that could never be questioned because it could never make gross mistakes?

Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria

Linda MacDonald: She runs an online support group for parents of kids, teens & young adults who are transgender.

Linda MacDonald’s website is this: www.parentsofrogdkids.com

However these parents at Linda’s support group want to challenge and critique the dominant beliefs about Transgender. They need to question all that’s done as medical surgery & hormones to a person’s body.

They need to question because both the child and the young adult are doing this trend: Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)

If you don’t like reading Quilette because you only believe any drivel that’s published by fallible scholars, then please read at this link (which links to the Journal of Adolescent Health).

Here’s an excerpt from JAH:

On average, 3.5 [let’s say 4] friends per group became gender dysphoric. Where friend group activities were known, 63.7% of friend groups mocked people who were not transgender or LGBTQ. Where popularity status was known, 64.2% of adolescents had an increase in popularity within the friend group after announcing they were transgender. AYAs received online advice that if they didn’t transition immediately they’d never be happy (31.7%) and that parents who didn’t agree to take them for hormones are abusive and transphobic (37.3%). AYAs expressed distrust of people who are not transgender (24.7%); stopped spending time with non-transgender friends (25.3%); withdrew from their families (46.5%), and expressed that they only trust information about gender dysphoria that comes from transgender sources (53.1%).

The above is only the start of academics trying to define if people feel they are transgender because:

1) They were without friends until they made friends with a LGBTQ clique,

2) They gained popularity & support from that clique of friends when they saw that Transgender to those friends meant status & acceptance,

Or

3) They really were Intersex.

As well, Linda MacDonald was undeservedly banned from this public support group:

Support Group for parents & caregivers of gender creative, trans, transgender children, youth or young adults

This group is run by two organizations in Ontario, which are publicly fundedFamily Services Ottawa and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

I needed to get in contact with Linda MacDonald because she is doing a good thing.

My email to her:

Hello, I would like to introduce myself as a fellow Canadian mom. I write by a pen name or a pseudonym because I often write disagreement and questions.

I often write a minority opinion.

However, I know that writing as a minority is a good thing.

Having beliefs, which permit me to be skeptical and be a conscientious objector, is a good thing.

People, as a group or nation, can be wrong. History has many examples of groups or nations that made grave errors because they uncritically and righteously behaved according to their religion or to their political beliefs.

The group or nation have made errors. They have made severe and large mistakes while viewing their mistakes as correct and righteous. Whenever people have a consensus, most of them won’t dare to see this dominant narrative as available to be criticised.

Most often people agree and have a consensus because they don’t want to be called slurs (like ‘Bigot’, ‘Racist’, ‘Transphobe’), they don’t want to be shamed & told to feel guilt, and they don’t want to be excluded for showing they were skeptical and they needed to critically question.

Please get in contact with me. I think you’re fantastic. I would like to interview you. I actually would like to post your op-ed on my blog. You can write what you want. You can’t make me feel “Unsafe”.

Dotcamom Blog