Beaver herds cattle: in Canada!

April 21, 2017 • 2:30 pm

Ed Kroc sent this curious video taken in Ituna Saskatchewan and reported by the Regina Leader Post:

Adrienne Ivey and her husband Aaron were out checking their 150 cattle near Ituna on Good Friday when they noticed something odd.

The cattle were gathered together and walking slowly behind a beaver, with some of the heifers lowering their heads to get a closer look at the furry cowboy with a funny-looking tail.

When the beaver stopped, the herd would stop, and then follow again when the rodent resumed its stroll.

Ivey says they are used to herding their cows with horses or quads, but nothing like this.

Indeed:

Now of course the beaver isn’t herding anything on purpose, and Adrienne’s explanation is probably the right one:

She says young cattle are naturally curious, while the beaver seemed to ignore all the attention.

“We knew that people would get a great chuckle out of it because you cannot get more Canadian than that,” said Ivey, who posted a video of the beaver-bovine cattle drive on Facebook.

“We talk about how awesome our Canadian beef is, but a beaver leading cattle around? It’s the most Canadian thing ever!”

Ivey said the beaver was probably looking around the pasture for a place to build a dam.

Canadian minister gets all balled up about the meaning of “Islamophobia”

March 11, 2017 • 11:30 am

As I’ve written before, there’s a big fracas in Canadian politics about a motion (“M-103”, which is not a law but a recommendation) against religious discrimination, one that singles out “Islamophobia” as deserving special mention. The bill was introduced last December by the Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani-Canadian, and is being discussed now in the House of Commons. Here it is, and I’ve bolded the contentious part:

Systemic racism and religious discrimination

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It’s been criticized for singling out Muslims among all religions, for the possibility that it could chill freedom of speech, and for not defining “Islamophobia,” a mistake that could, if the word were loosely construed, be used to deem criticism of Islam as “hate speech.” The Conservatives have objected to this bill on the grounds of the nebulous meaning of “Islamophobia,” and suggested that the term be removed. A liberal, Irwin Kotler (see below) agreed, saying it should be replaced by “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Well, I agree about the term, but not that one religion should be singled out. That privileges Islam, and I understand that earlier motions have privileged Judaism. That, too, should be rejected, and the motion could simply call for freedom of religion and opposition to discrimination based on religion—much as the U.S.’s First Amendment does. (Well, it used to until the Hobby Lobby decision came along.)

I’m not sure where the term “Islamophobia” originated, but what it really means is “fear of Islam”, not, as most people use it, “bigotry against Muslims,” or “Muslimophobia”. I myself reject any bigotry or discrimination against Muslims, but I have to say that of all religions, I’m most scared of Islam, which has the potential to do incredible damage to the planet—and in fact is doing so now. If that makes me an “Islamophobe,” so be it. But during the Inquisition (and even a bit now), I’d have been a “Catholicphobe” because of the bad effects Catholicism has on the world. I’ve always thought the word “Islamophobia” should be understood by everyone to mean “fear of Islam,” while bigotry against Muslims should be called simply “bigotry against Muslims.” It’s not “racism,” either, for Muslims aren’t a race: they adhere to a religion and come from many different ethnic groups.

All of these points are made by the CBC interviewer in this discussion with Mélanie Joly, Liberal member of the House of Commons and Minister of Canadian Heritage in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet. Joly has previously called the Canadian motion “cynical,” and noted that “Islamophobia is clear. It’s a discrimination against Muslims, people of Muslim faith, and it’s a term we can’t be afraid to use.” She’s clearly confused, and that shows in her interview below, where she dissembles and evades the interviewer’s very reasonable points, which include these (direct quotes):

“It’s not “Muslimophobia’. . . it’s ‘Islamophobia‘, which is a religion: Islam is not a race, it’s not a people—it’s a religion.”

“The argument is about the word ‘Islamophobia,’ which for some people means, literally, what it says: fear of Islam, which is a religion—which is subject to reasonable criticism. Someone may say that I object, strongly, to Islamic ideas like the death to apostates, death to the infidels, death to gays. They may object to those things and those are reasonable objections; and that is fear of Islam. But it’s not discrimination against Muslims. Do you agree that there is a distinction?”

“But you have the power to make that conversation much, much easier with a very simple step suggested by a very distinguished liberal, Irwin Kotler. . . who makes the proposal, ‘Why don’t you just say anti-Muslim bigotry’; then we know we are talking about people, not ideas. Why don’t we do that?”

Joly doesn’t even try to respond to these points; she’s working above her pay grade and is sworn to defend the motion without even thinking about how to respond to counterarguments.

I’d much rather have the interviewer in Parliament than the dissimulating Joly. Reader Diana MacPherson identified him for me:

The interviewer is Terry Milewski and the show is CBC’s “Power and Politics“. Milewski was guest-hosting the show (he’s retired and does some guest stuff sometimes).

I hope the rest of Trudeau’s cabinet is savvier than Joly.

Do Regressive Leftists enable the Right? A view from Canada

January 8, 2017 • 1:30 pm

Over at the CBC News site, journalist Neil Macdonald, who considers himself a liberal and has nothing but opprobrium for the likes of Donald Trump, claims that Regressive Leftism (or “Illiberal Leftism”) is shooting itself in the foot. In his column “Advice for anxious liberals—tone down the snark,” Macdonald argues that, in Canada (and by implication, in the U.S. as well), the anti-free-speech rhetoric, hectoring, and absolute self-assurance of Leftist identity politics is turning people rightwards. I’ve gone back and forth on that, and am pretty sure that—with the exception of the excessive respect accorded to Islam by the Illiberal Left—it didn’t have much to do with electing Trump or other Republicans. But it’s still worth considering what Macdonald says, as I hate to see the Left riven by this kind of absolutist infighting. After all, we’re but twelve days away from at least four years of oppressively crazy conservatism in the U.S., and if we don’t hang together, by Heavens we’ll surely hang separately.

A few quotes from Macdonald’s piece (have a look at the two links as well):

At protests and over drinks and at dinner tables, liberals are arguing over the proper response. Some have for weeks been yelling through bullhorns that “Trump is not my president,” which is just loopy. If you’re an American, Donald Trump will be your president as of Jan. 20, and he and his elite billionaire friends will almost certainly, in the name of the common man, set about reducing the liberal china shop to a knee-high pile of crushed eggshell porcelain.

Others argue liberals must never flag, never give an inch. “We double down,” a friend defiantly declares.

Well. Certainly the rise of Trump nation, a bizarre place where anti-Semitic white supremacists comfortably cohabit with evangelical Christian conservatives and Jewish pro-Israel absolutists, is no reason for liberals to waver on values like protection of the most vulnerable among us, or helping those fleeing genocidal wars, or equality regardless of gender, sexuality or race, or curbs on the rapaciousness of unshackled capitalism.

But with all due respect to my earnest friends on the left, a bit of advice: stop being so damned irritating about it.

Particularly on campuses, the left has developed a prissy, hectoring self-righteousness, which is what happens when a bunch of people who think the same way get into the same room and congratulate one another endlessly on being right. (“Herds of independent thinkers,” as columnist and author Nat Hentoff so beautifully puts it).

Not only do they block out any opposing viewpoint, they begin to shout it down and censor it (because, you know, it’s wrong), and ultimately try to regulate it, writing rules and laws prohibiting its expression. Consult a few university speech codes — particularly those drafted by student unions — for elaboration.

To many social activists, free speech (except when it protects their speech) is just another tool of patriarchal suppression. All debate is just false equivalence.

And because any other viewpoint is patently valueless, perhaps even dangerous, they almost immediately go ad hominem, rather than engaging on the issue.

The last line is largely true, for the best weapon the Illiberal Left has is simply to call people racists, transphobes, and sexists without engaging their arguments. It’s effective because we’re all so sensitive to those slurs.

While I’m in favor of abortion on demand, and of respecting the wishes of transgender people to be called what they want (and use whatever restroom they want), there are serious discussions to be had about affirmative action, the notion of gender (feminism is being fractured that that issue), and, yes, abortion. (Consider, for instance, the flat claim that abortion is a “right”. You can’t do that without defining what you mean by the concept of “rights”.) And you simply can’t have those discussions if you begin calling your opponents names.

So while Macdonald is right to argue for ditching the ad hominems, I’m not sure how much they give succor to the right, as he claims:

But as the media repeated and amplified the story, which the media loves to do (nothing like lefty infighting to sell papers) you can bet a lot of non-urban Canadian conservatives were reading, just as they read the vicious attacks by progressives on Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi’s brilliant lawyer, for doing her job so well.

You can bet they’re listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they’re denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns “he” or “she” without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase “Merry Christmas.”

There are millions of people out there who aren’t terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between “cisnormative” and “heteronormative,” and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

Yes, we should stop being so damned irritating. No argument was ever won by name-calling.

h/t: Taskin

Teacher fired at ritzy British Columbia school after mentioning that he opposed abortion

December 12, 2016 • 9:45 am

This is a story that will chill you to the marrow, at least if you have any respect for due process, freedom of speech, and a loathing for the Regressive Left.

You can find two successive versions of the tale in the Vancouver Sun and the National Post, so it seems kosher to me. It’s about the hounding and then firing of an anonymous 44-year-old male teacher (we’ll call him “AT”) for making an innocuous comment in a class at a very ritzy and expensive private school in Vancouver, Fraser Academy. The school, which teaches students from grades 1-12 (tuition: $30,000 per year), specializes in students with “language-based learning disabilities”, but also seems thoroughly imbued with Regressive Leftism. As the Sun reports (my emphasis):

Before classes even started last fall, teachers underwent serious “gender training” given by QMUNITY, an organization for LGBTQQ2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning and two-spirit) people. Teachers were told in no uncertain terms, for instance, that “no one is 100-per-cent male or female” and that everyone is somewhere on the “gender spectrum.”

Unsurprisingly, students at the school, where $30,000-a-year tuition buys small classes, regularly say “I’m so triggered” and are allowed to walk out of class.

The triggering event at issue occurred on November 24, and seems tame enough, but it mushroomed into a huge fracas that led to AT’s firing. AT describes what he said to a 12th-grade class unit on criminal law, vice, ethics, and morality (my emphasis):

“I was working my way through examples of how some people’s sense of personal ethics was more liberal than the letter of the law,” he said in an email.

For example, he told them, many people might roll through a stop sign on a deserted country road, deeming it morally acceptable, even if unlawful.

In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.

“I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”

A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.

There ensued a series of stressful meetings between the teacher, his bosses, and the student. AT was asked to show contrition in a meeting with the student and another teacher, but AT refused on the grounds that it would set a bad precedent. But he then apoligized to the student. That wasn’t good enough, even though he’d been recognized as an outstanding teacher at Fraser. He later met with his class and the boss to tender a public apology, knowing that his job was on the line. And he did apologize, but in the wrong way. Here’s AT’s account (my emphasis):

It was exactly the horror show [AT had] imagined: His boss sat among a crowd of students, ran through a list of what had gone wrong and “what I needed to do to change.” While most students appeared to be on his side, the offended girl was still furious.

He apologized specifically to her, but then made what was apparently a fatal error: He said he liked her, that she was a bright and engaging student, and said he’d told her father just that at a recent parent-teacher night.

She stormed out of the class in tears, and he was again castigated by his superiors, this time for having been “too personal” in his apologia.

On Nov. 30, he showed up at the school, was retrieved by an administrator and taken to the “head” of school, the private school equivalent of a principal.

He was told he “could no longer continue in the classroom,” and was offered a short-term medical disability top-up for employment insurance.

He was then escorted down the hall and off the premises.

Now remember that this is AT’s account; the school won’t comment on personnel issues and, according to the Post, Fraser has put its teachers under a gag order. Nevertheless. the school sent a public relations representative to the Post, but it was an off-the-record contact, so we have no information. But the Post‘s interviewed four ex-employees of Fraser, reporting that they complain about the lack of due process for teachers and “a querulous, autocratic, and unpredictable administration.” (Remember, these are ex-employees, but they are also the only ones free to speak given the gag order.)

The Post article gives several other stories of teachers fired for ridiculous things, including leaving the school Christmas party and eating on his own after a parent-teacher pizza party. This reminds me of the episode, recounted in The Gulag Archipelago, in which people stood up and applauded Stalin after a speech, and the applause went on for minutes, with everyone afraid to stop clapping first. And the one who did was arrested and sent to the gulag.

I’ll take AT’s story as true for the time being. I’m horrified by what happened to AT and by the power these easily-triggered students have over faculty. And remember that AT was a highly lauded teacher (he apparently now works for the Vancouver School System). The Offense Culture is now infecting both the US and Canada, and in some ways it’s worse in Canada.

No teacher should have been treated like that, and I fear for those students when they leave the cocoon of Fraser and enter the real world. Of course what the “real world” is becoming in Canada may be congenial to the coddled.

h/t: Cindy

Yesterday in Montreal

December 6, 2016 • 1:00 pm

The first snowfall in the city found it unprepared. This wouldn’t happen in Chicago; what’s with the Montrealers?

The story of this accident (nobody was hurt) appears on the CBC News; the accident was witnessed by Colin Creado, who works in an office on. . . well, you read the story. A snippet:

One by one, buses, cars, a police cruiser and even snow-clearing vehicles slid down Côte du Beaver Hall [JAC: a street] toward Viger Street and collided with each other. Police say no serious injuries were reported.

Colin Creado works at Aimia, a marketing and analytics company on Viger Street at the corner of Beaver Hall.

. . . Creado said even he didn’t expect the roads to be so slippery, and he was on foot.

But he said today’s snow was forecast so he doesn’t understand how this happened.

“You would have thought … they would have salted the area or at least cordoned it off, because that road is pretty steep,” he said.

The City of Montreal wasn’t immediately available for comment.

h/t: Anne-Marie

Queen’s university policing Halloween costumes

November 25, 2016 • 10:00 am

Canada is quicking joining the U.S. in its frenzy to turn colleges into Nanny States. The subject, as ever this time of year, is party costumes, rapidly become a political flashpoint, and a great excuse for Regressive Lefists to call people “racists”.

What happened last Saturday in Kingston, Ontario, as reported by the CBC, is that students held a costume party off campus. The theme was “countries,” and students dressed as Buddhist monks, Mexicans (with sombreros or as Mexican wrestlers), Turks (with fezzes), and people from other countries. Here are some of the costumes (the CBC gets some of it wrong: the fezzes don’t adorn “Middle Eastern sheiks” and the face coverings are not “Mexican prisoners”):

Mexican wrestlers:

Asians:

Mexicans:

Buddhis monks, with stocks meant to represent bald heads:

Turks and gypsies?

Daniel Woolf, Principle and Vice-Chancellor of Queens, then issued two statements on the University’s website, threatening sanctions against these students. Here’s an excerpt:

As the principal of Queen’s, I am upset and disappointed by this incident and want to learn more about it so that the university can take appropriate measures to address concerns that have arisen, including my own.

As I stated yesterday, any event that degrades, mocks, or marginalizes a group or groups of people is completely unacceptable at Queen’s.

That is why I have asked the provost to gather as much information as possible, and, based on what he learns, determine if this event falls within the scope of Queen’s Student Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is applicable to students’ off-campus conduct in certain circumstances.

Others objected as well:

[Toronto comedian Celeste Yim] called the event “shockingly racist.”

“The costumes are indisputably and unequivocally offensive, tasteless, and should not be tolerated. Context and intentions have no bearing,” Yim wrote.

Most of the students at Queen’s University who spoke to CBC News on Wednesday said the images from the party were inappropriate.

“It’s definitely a joke in poor taste. And it’s not right in present society,” said Sutheeksan Sunthoran. “I think we can do better. We should do better — not just as members of Queen’s, but as Canadians, generally.”

Hisham Imtiaz called the party costumes “extremely inappropriate.”

“It doesn’t represent the university as a whole, but it definitely represents a small part of the uneducated group who just says it’s all in good fun — when it really isn’t.”

John Siferd said he believed issues around cultural insensitivity exist on other Canadian universities as well, and that it would be a mistake to view the weekend’s party near Queen’s as a special case.

“Other campuses probably have similar issues relating to race on their campuses. And they should be addressed.”

Well, judge for yourself, and remember that it was a costume party meant to represent “countries”. If the USA were represented, what would the costume be? Probably a Hawaiian shirt and plaid Bermuda shorts, maybe with an American flag in the hand. How about Canadians? Probably a flannel shirt with moose antlers on the head, and a Molson’s—or a Mountie costume. Are these costumes representative of bigotry and racism, or the students’ attempts to look like members of different nationalities? Do they show racism and bigotry? What about the Mexican wrestler masks? You be the judge.

What isn’t ambiguous, I think, is the University’s threats to discipline students for what they do off campus. Even if you think some of the costumes were tasteless (and I probably wouldn’t have worn many of these), one should have the freedom to show poor taste without being disciplined by one’s university for an off campus party. The costumes are simply an expression of free speech, and Queens, while it may have the right to condemn those costumes, has no right to threaten or punish their wearers.

I doubt that these students are racists; if anything, they’re probably just naive and clueless. So boo to Queens for investigating this incident. Yes, perhaps there can be a dialogue about this incident, but the dialogue should not consist of the Perpetually Offended demanding that others agree with them. That’s a monologue.

Here’s what the Advice Goddess Amy Alkon said:

I become more and more convinced: College is now nursery school with beer.

If you, back when I went to University of Michigan in 80s, told me that college students would be “investigated” for going to costumes dressed up in “bad taste,” I think I would have just stood there and gaped at you.

Isn’t that the point? Costume party…dressing up in bad taste?

Canada plans Ark Park!

September 25, 2016 • 8:30 am

O Canada! How could you do this? According to several Canadian news sites, including the National Post and the CBC, there’s going to be an Ark Park in Canada. Reader Bryce alerted me to this noxious development in an email:

I thought you might be interested, if you haven’t already gotten wind of the plans for a new ark park in my hometown of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada. Typically we don’t see the type of evangelism up here that you do down in the US, but it has become increasingly common, and Saskatchewan is on the more conservative end when it comes to Canadian provinces, much like its neighbor, Alberta, which has its own Creation Museum (sigh). I thought this might be of interest, as was especially disconcerting to me, as I grew up and lived in Moose Jaw for 18 years. It is also concerning that none of the “news” sites that reported on this mentioned anything about how the story is completely false. It is complete pandering. ughh.

And, indeed, neither the Post nor the CBC mention the falsity of the Ark story. More details from the Post:

A Chinese businessman wants to build a biblical theme park in southern Saskatchewan with a massive replica of Noah’s ark complete with animal reproductions and a digital experience of the life of Jesus.

The yet-to-be-named park, which still needs some government approvals, would be next to a private cemetery south of Moose Jaw.

“I’m getting lots of people saying, ‘You’re putting an amusement park on your cemetery?’ Well, it’s nothing of the sort,” said Marc L’Hoir, manager of Sunset Cemetery, who is working on a plan with the developer.

“It’s going to be an educational process where people can come and learn about loving one another. And we need more of that in the world.”

L’Hoir said the owner of the cemetery and the adjoining land is friends with Sun Wenquing, who has already built a Bible-themed park in China.

Sun converted to Christianity from Buddhism in 2009 and has dedicated himself to the religion, said L’Hoir.

“This is part of his legacy he wants to leave behind, that he wants to spread that word.”

Sun told the China Christian Daily last year that it’s his dream to build an ark of the same size referenced in the Bible, which says Noah is warned about a great flood, builds a boat and loads it with two of each animal.

L’Hoir said the Saskatchewan replica would be three-storeys high, 23 metres wide and 135 metres long — nearly the length of a CFL football field. It would also contain a children’s playground.

He said workers from China would be brought in to build the park over four years at a cost of about $1.2 million. The China Christian Daily lists the cost at $40 million.

A tabernacle for worship has already been built in China and shipped to the Saskatchewan site for use in the park, said L’Hoir, who added he’s confident the project will be approved and construction of the ark can begin soon.

Here, courtesy of the Holy Bible Theme Park, are replicas of the Taberbacle and Ark of the Covenant. LOL, they look like they’re made out of Lego blocks!

ark-of-the-covenant-in-moose-jaw — According to Canadian law, the Hebrew must be supplemented with French letters of identical size

But perhaps this isn’t a done deal yet, for the developers, lying for Jesus, apparently misrepresented the nature of their park:

Mike Wirges, administrator of the Rural Municipality of Moose Jaw, said council approved the development earlier this week of a “passive park” with a walking path, statues and murals.

News that a giant ark was part of the plan came as a shock.

“Those plans were never presented to our municipality,” he said. “Had we known that there was certainly more to it, rest assured, we certainly would have done a little more investigation, hearings.”

Wirges said the ark will need further approvals from the rural municipality as well as the province, since it will be next to a highway. Because the spot is also close to an air-force base, there will also be height restrictions and approval may be needed from Nav Canada.

Here’s what the developers plan; the animals inside will, of course, include Canadian favorites like the beaver, moose, and polar bear:

	JezGrove on Jesus ‘n’ Mo…
	John Dentinger on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	JezGrove on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	JezGrove on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	Jim Batterson on Saturday: Hili dialogue