Category: Forward!

The Perils Of Progressive Parenting

As a new, supposedly more equitable tradition – at least outside of the Spanish-speaking world – it seems scarcely less prone to complication and trade-offs. When hyphenated offspring come to name their own children – and if they follow the same rules as their hyphenated parents – the whole thing rapidly becomes unworkable, and, at risk of causing offence, names will have to be cut. Lest each child sound like a law firm.

Though I suppose one could take it as a kind of unintended symbolism, a measure of modern progressivism. In that, the problem it allegedly addresses doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for most of those it supposedly oppresses, and the solution offered is somewhat short-sighted and soon results in something close to absurdity.

On marriage, surnames, and the looming hyphenation crisis.

Pleasuring Themselves

On bridge blocking and other terribly radical acts:

Note the lofty defence offered by our pronoun-stipulating champion of the obstruction – that “protests are meant to be disruptive. It’s the whole point.”

A protest, then, is not meant to persuade the general public, or to get them on-side, or to make others sympathetic with whatever this week’s cause may be. But simply to be disruptive. To gratuitously frustrate, and aggravate, large numbers of law-abiding people. To exert power. By doing random harm. That’s “the whole point.” A vision doubtless attractive to those with antisocial inclinations.

And those inclinations aren’t being indulged and given rein reluctantly or under duress. The screwing-over of others is sought out and chosen, over and over again. This is recreational sociopathy.

Breaking: NDP Add A Free Granola Bar To Go With Your Child’s Free Fentanyl. Why? Because They Care.

Jagmeet Singh is boasting about the NDP forcing the Liberal government to provide a national school lunch program…

I guess all that free recreational fentanyl is making children hungry…

‘No minimum age listed in protocols for providing youth with taxpayer-funded recreational fentanyl.

It seems that parents will actually be powerless to stop the government from supplying their children with fentanyl, as safer supply technically counts as a health-care intervention and youth have substantial control over their own medical decisions in Canada.

While some provinces set a minimum age (typically between 14 and 16 years old) for when minors can make such decisions, British Columbia has no minimum and relies instead on a fluid idea of “capability” — youth in the province are considered “capable” if they understand what a medical intervention involves, why it is needed and its risks and benefits.

Yet it is hard to imagine any scenario where a drug-addicted minor would be capable of providing informed consent for safer supply fentanyl, given that addiction hijacks the brain and inhibits rational decision-making. While adults have extensive rights to personal self-determination, which permits them to make impaired or self-destructive decisions if they so choose, it is hard to see why this same freedom should be extended to youth when it comes to using hard drugs.

It is true that many drug-addicted youth are in foster care or estranged from their parents, and that, for them, securing parental consent is near-impossible. Yet making an exception for this subpopulation, and permitting them to receive free fentanyl, could incentivize other underage drug users to cut ties with their families and run away from home to secure free drugs.

As parents are often a youth’s greatest asset for recovery, any safer supply system that undermines child-parent relationships is harmful.

In a sad twist, the same laws that allow the government to give recreational fentanyl to kids without parental consent also prohibit parents from sending their children to involuntary addiction treatment — in other words, the government won’t help you force your kid to get clean, but they will give them unlimited “safe” drugs against your will.

As I argued in my MLI report, “By reframing the provision of unlimited recreational fentanyl as medical care, the provincial government may inadvertently turn itself into a parent’s worst nightmare — an unstoppable drug dealer with endless supply and unrestricted access to their child.”

While Health Canada confirmed to me in an email that it did not play a role in the development of these protocols, it did not respond to a follow-up email where I asked if the federal government had any objections to giving recreational fentanyl to minors.’

Radical Regurgitation

On the incantations of progressive art:

I think it’s fair to say that, whatever her creative limitations, Liberal Jane, aka Ms Caitlin Blunnie, does like her slogans. One might say incantations. Almost all of which have an air of self-satisfaction, as if some previously unregistered profundity had been heroically unearthed.

One creation extols the radical virtues of skiving in the workplace and not doing the work one is being paid to do. “Craft is resistance in a late-stage capitalist society,” reads another. Also, “Self-love is self-care.” “Riots, not diets.” “Hex the imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.” “Fantasy is for everyone.” “Abortion builds new futures.” Oh, and “Smash the state and masturbate,” and “Stretch marks are ubiquitous to the human experience.”

Oh, there’s more.

Our Little Secret

More educators titillated by the prospect of deceiving parents:

Teachers are also warned not to congratulate parents on their child’s performance in a school play. Why this humdrum politeness should be avoided, with the threat of disciplinary consequences, is not entirely obvious and no hints are offered as to the reasoning. It is, however, framed as equal in sinfulness to informing a parent that their child has been “snorting a white powder.”

Because if little Billy is chopping them out in class, it’s now a teacher’s duty to keep parents in the dark, you see.

Oh, there’s more.

Fake Tears And Hissing

Despite the competing feats of Olympic-level hyperbole, two formal investigations by the university uncovered no evidence of racism or indeed violence, whether colonial or of some other kind. However, the social work department – this bastion of “equity,” “diversity,” and “decolonisation” – was described in one of the reports as an intimidating and hostile workplace, with one witness favouring the phrase, “cliquey, scary, and tense.”

Or, when one Designated Victim Group collides with another.