There has been widespread coverage through various media outlets about the exposure of Wilfrid Laurier’s postmodern “academics” trying to dictate what TA Lindsay Shepherd is allowed to present in a debate. Fortunately, Shepherd had the foresight to record her superiors which allowed Canada and the World a sneak peek into the postmodern kangaroo court system:
The full conversation can be found in this National Post article.
Regardless of your views of Dr. Jordan Peterson, one of his predictions about Bill C-16 has come true. This recording is a clear sign of how Bill C-16 is being weaponized to remove her right to speak freely. Simultaneously, the bill is granting the power to control her speech to supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, another professor, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel, manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support.
Rambukkana: So the thing about this is, if you’re presenting something like this, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you’re creating. And this is actually, these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Even since … C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression.
Despite no objective evidence of Shepherd “targeting” anyone, Rambukkana is passively issuing a threat: by not complying with his wishes, he has the full force of the law behind him to punish Shepherd. The ambiguity that Dr. Peterson warned about Bill C-16 is being abused here: what constitutes targeting, and how do they know she was acting in a manner of ill-will? To most rational observers, was she not just presenting ideas in the “spirit of debate”?
It is a bittersweet case for Canada. On one hand, we have been exposed to how badly education has been overtaken by postmodern, cultural Marxist ideology. On the other hand, we are finally talking about it. The story has been spread on many channels, and we can at least discuss the damaging effects of restricted and compelled speech while we still can before more sinister bills are passed preventing us from debating it at all. It has started a much more important conversation about the growth of the nanny-state and malevolent behaviour that have effectively masqueraded under “social justice”: a well-understood strategy borrowed from proletariat-bourgeoisie class division tactics from prior generations of Marxist ideology.
Some other observations I had during the entire unraveling of this story:
- The language of postmodernism is prevalent in Rambukkana’s speech. He makes up words like “problematic” and “positionality”, and gives new meaning to existing words to create an argument that Shepherd can’t win. This allows postmodernists to deconstruct anything at their will, and replace it with something they’d prefer instead.
- There have been hundreds of stories from victims of university kangaroo courts — ranging from false accusation cases, to similar cases dealing with suppression of speech and ideas — but this one stands out because it is one of the rare instances where the court adjudicators were caught on tape, and thus one of the rare cases where an apology was publicly issued. Due to the low ratio of admission to instances of malpractice, the apology was merely to save face for this particular instance. Postmodern “academics” clearly think they are deserving of this power to judge without due process, and are willing to manipulate public perception to maintain that power. If there is no pending overhaul of the system or implementation of due process, that is if nothing changes, then the apology is meaningless.
- Many media outlets outed themselves as no longer being objective news, but rather pure opinionated ramblings. Macleans published two articles that are personal attacks on Dr. Peterson, making the actual objective story about Lindsay Shepherd a mere aside. One was filed under opinion (which is fine), the other was filed under news. How do these first two heavily opinionated paragraphs qualify as news? (Bold emphasis on the subjective parts mine)
Unfortunately, it is time for people outside the academy to stand up for the free speech rights of Jordan Peterson, the irritating University of Toronto psychology professor who has become a star by producing tedious YouTube videos complaining about people trying to silence him.
Peterson, who is wrong about almost everything, is right when he says, over and over again, that he has a fundamental right to speak.
Jordan Peterson and the big mistake of university censors
November 17, 2017
It is apparent that postmodern ideology is just as prevalent in the media as it is in academia. It is scary to think that Stephen Maher thinks it is “unfortunate” that people “finally” stand up for Dr. Peterson’s free speech rights. Reading between the lines, Maher would thus find it fortunate that a person he disagrees with has his or her right to speak taken away. That is scary, and in a strong twist of irony, the Shepherd story is fortunate for Canada and unfortunate for Maher. No one should have the power to shut another person up, particularly ideologues such as Rambukkana and Maher themselves.
Let ideas flow freely in a rational debate. It is supposedly what Lindsay Shepherd wanted all along in her tutorial about critical thinking. Her superiors and media pundits have shown they want none of that.
* * *