One final point - the issue with these Kangaroo Court type deals is the decision is already effectively decided, and the tribunal simply finds people who will support its case, and reality or truth are irrelevant - or better said maybe, they gave THEIR truth and Amy has hers, and theirs wins - because they are in charge. This kind of thing has been happening in totalitarian ideological regimes forever. And as you say, in addition, the process is the punishment.
George Orwell, of course, wrote ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’ This is literally where we are, here.
Gotta make another comment - Peter you make a great observation that the panel has basically elevated one belief system over all others, and made it so that you cannot criticize it. They are acting AS IF there is de facto blasphemy law protecting the beliefs of gender ideology. I have no doubt that some Canadian courts today would in fact uphold a blasphemy law, and if we find ourselves there, then that is truly the point when Canada has become a tyranny. Lets pray that never happens.
Well, I know of no evidence for the efficacy of prayer (though it may psychologically help the person who prays). I hope for an appeal of the judgment.
In the first instance Forstater lost, with the judges of an Employment Tribunal finding that her sex-realist beliefs (beliefs held by the majority of the population in the UK, and also in Canada) were "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" - a really insane judgment. But it was overturned on appeal.
Peter has identified the heart of the matter clearly: "the panel has basically elevated one belief system over all others, and made it so that you cannot criticize it. They are acting AS IF there is de facto blasphemy law protecting the beliefs of gender ideology."
But there is no blasphemy law in Canadian law. Of course, as a resident of Canada, I know what has happened here in the last 10 years. In 2020, Steven Guilbeault, minister in the liberal government of Justin Trudeau, said this on the Quebec talk show Tout le monde en parle*:
"Our right ends where someone else's injury begins."
He was talking about the limits of free speech, not about anybody threatening somebody with physical injury. Guilbeault was saying that in a liberal democracy there is a right not to be offended. This is insane. It's pure invention (and unworkable in practice, since it would allow anybody to shut down their opponents by claiming to have been offended by their talk). From a minister in a LIBERAL government!!! But that was Canada under Trudeau. (Another right recently invented by the liberals is that children have a right of privacy vis-à-vis their OWN parents. This claim was made to justify why schools should be allowed to socially transition kids WITHOUT the knowledge of their parents.)
The Canadian political scientists Eric Kaufmann (professor in England) summarized the essence of wokeness in this way:
"the sacralization of historically disadvantaged race, gender and sexual identity groups" (page xv)
left liberals today "worship the totems of equal outcomes and harm protection for minorities." (page xvii)
And:
the public generally leans 2-to-1 against the woke position [this is what the opinion poll evidence tells us]
page xix:
"it is only when culture war questions decide elections that the moderate liberals will gain leverage against the radicals to support a post-woke politics of institutional reform"
only when conservatives succeed will, on the left side of the political spectrum, moderate liberals win the internal battles against radicals who influence the cultural politics of the left
Eric Kaufmann: The Third Awokening: A 12-point plan for rolling back progressive extremism. Bombardier Books, 2024
(If you are interested, you can just use the Translate feature of your browser to get an English translation. It's very easy.)
*Mathieu Bock-Côté: Steven Guilbeault contre la liberté d’expression? Journal de Montréal
Invité à commenter le débat entourant la censure de La petite vie**, Steven Guilbeault y est allé de cette déclaration surprenante [à l'émission Tout le monde en parle]: «Notre droit s’arrête là où la blessure de quelqu’un d’autre commence».
**Le retrait d’un épisode de La petite vie par Radio-Canada fait réagir. 10 nov 2020
Le diffuseur public remettra l'épisode en ligne jeudi avec un message d'avertissement en début d'émission
My other concern with this is its just another example of denial of reality in BC. There is something seriously wrong in Canada, certainly, but BC is leading the way. The idea that there are NOT only two sexes, and humans are dimorphic, flies both in the face of actual science and just obvious reality. If you are willing to ignore what is plainly in front of your face, or on a related matter, insist that its an established fact that there are bodies in the ground at Kamloops without excavation, then nothing can help you. We are all serious trouble if we become forced to accept unreality and open falsehoods. THAT wont end well.
I will be referring to this work of yours as I try to assemble an official complaint to the Law Society of British Columbia against lawyer Barbara Findlay.
Her tactics and behaviour were unprofessional.
I don't know, yet, if I can put together anything compelling.
But, I am starting to collect reference items - such as the video of Findlay literally sleeping while the tribunal was in session.
If you have ideas on specific instances where Findlay and her team did something unprofessional it might be worth sharing with me.
There are specific things that I already have in my file.
I just mean if you have some examples that you think are worthy of including in an official complaint, having undertaken such diligence in your review of the tribunal.
Peter, excellent work, as a university graduate I am simply disgusted at what academia in Canada has become. The sophistry and gobblegook coming out of the panel is shocking. Only 'intellectuals' can come up with such nonsense.
At least the ordinary person is increasingly recognizing this as nonsense and eventually reality and the polity will prevail. If Amy loses her license I am sure she is still employable, someone with that amount of [personal courage and skill can easily find good work I would think.
Edit: Leslie here. Substack gets us mixed up even though we sign in with our own e-mail addresses.
These aren't mostly academics. The disciplinary panel are regulators whose decisions have force of law for members of the regulated profession they oversee. If they were just academics spit-balling alcoholically in the Faculty Lounge it wouldn't be so bad. These people have actual power to wreck lives and professional careers just because some asshole decides to make a complaint.
The complaint should have been dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and abusive but the Colleges don't like to do that because it looks too much like they are protecting their own. So here we are. (Or here Ms. Hamm is.)
Yeah correct. I got mixed up a bit on who was on the panel and who were the witnesses, I was referring to the PHD academic types used by the prosecution. And what you say is correct.
Such an excellent piece Peter! Thank you for taking the time to go over all the information. I'm embarassed to be Canadian, we've fallen so low. I keep shaking my head in disbelief. Women truly are second class citizens next to men who think they are women. We now essentially have blasphemy laws but resticted to only a few select groups. I feel like I'm living my whole ordeal all over again.
This was witch hunt in a kangaroo court. The analysis is pitch perfect and disturbing. Thank you for this.
On another note, @kdansky and WoLF have put an amicus brief to America's Supreme Court asking for the Court to recognise gender identity ideology as a religious belief. Let's hope she prevails.
I think you have a typo in the paragraph about UBC nurse witness and trans survey- should it be “ non-binary… not specified “but” female… not “by” female?
One final point - the issue with these Kangaroo Court type deals is the decision is already effectively decided, and the tribunal simply finds people who will support its case, and reality or truth are irrelevant - or better said maybe, they gave THEIR truth and Amy has hers, and theirs wins - because they are in charge. This kind of thing has been happening in totalitarian ideological regimes forever. And as you say, in addition, the process is the punishment.
George Orwell, of course, wrote ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’ This is literally where we are, here.
Thank you, Peter. Having personally watched every day of the hearings I understand how monumental a task it would be to write this.
Your analysis is excellent and will be helpful to sort the wheat from the chaff in the very verbose decision from the panel.
Gotta make another comment - Peter you make a great observation that the panel has basically elevated one belief system over all others, and made it so that you cannot criticize it. They are acting AS IF there is de facto blasphemy law protecting the beliefs of gender ideology. I have no doubt that some Canadian courts today would in fact uphold a blasphemy law, and if we find ourselves there, then that is truly the point when Canada has become a tyranny. Lets pray that never happens.
Well, I know of no evidence for the efficacy of prayer (though it may psychologically help the person who prays). I hope for an appeal of the judgment.
Indeed. Prayer is fine, but it was more a figure of speech. But I am not optimistic that any appeal would be successful.
I have no idea abou the chances of an appeal. The whole thing strongly reminds me of the Maya Forstater case in the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development_Europe
In the first instance Forstater lost, with the judges of an Employment Tribunal finding that her sex-realist beliefs (beliefs held by the majority of the population in the UK, and also in Canada) were "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" - a really insane judgment. But it was overturned on appeal.
Peter has identified the heart of the matter clearly: "the panel has basically elevated one belief system over all others, and made it so that you cannot criticize it. They are acting AS IF there is de facto blasphemy law protecting the beliefs of gender ideology."
But there is no blasphemy law in Canadian law. Of course, as a resident of Canada, I know what has happened here in the last 10 years. In 2020, Steven Guilbeault, minister in the liberal government of Justin Trudeau, said this on the Quebec talk show Tout le monde en parle*:
"Our right ends where someone else's injury begins."
He was talking about the limits of free speech, not about anybody threatening somebody with physical injury. Guilbeault was saying that in a liberal democracy there is a right not to be offended. This is insane. It's pure invention (and unworkable in practice, since it would allow anybody to shut down their opponents by claiming to have been offended by their talk). From a minister in a LIBERAL government!!! But that was Canada under Trudeau. (Another right recently invented by the liberals is that children have a right of privacy vis-à-vis their OWN parents. This claim was made to justify why schools should be allowed to socially transition kids WITHOUT the knowledge of their parents.)
The Canadian political scientists Eric Kaufmann (professor in England) summarized the essence of wokeness in this way:
"the sacralization of historically disadvantaged race, gender and sexual identity groups" (page xv)
left liberals today "worship the totems of equal outcomes and harm protection for minorities." (page xvii)
And:
the public generally leans 2-to-1 against the woke position [this is what the opinion poll evidence tells us]
page xix:
"it is only when culture war questions decide elections that the moderate liberals will gain leverage against the radicals to support a post-woke politics of institutional reform"
only when conservatives succeed will, on the left side of the political spectrum, moderate liberals win the internal battles against radicals who influence the cultural politics of the left
Eric Kaufmann: The Third Awokening: A 12-point plan for rolling back progressive extremism. Bombardier Books, 2024
(If you are interested, you can just use the Translate feature of your browser to get an English translation. It's very easy.)
*Mathieu Bock-Côté: Steven Guilbeault contre la liberté d’expression? Journal de Montréal
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/17/steven-guilbeault-contre-la-liberte-dexpression
Invité à commenter le débat entourant la censure de La petite vie**, Steven Guilbeault y est allé de cette déclaration surprenante [à l'émission Tout le monde en parle]: «Notre droit s’arrête là où la blessure de quelqu’un d’autre commence».
**Le retrait d’un épisode de La petite vie par Radio-Canada fait réagir. 10 nov 2020
Le diffuseur public remettra l'épisode en ligne jeudi avec un message d'avertissement en début d'émission
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1748503/emission-petite-vie-normand-brathwaite-africain
Thanks for those references! Lets hope that the appeal courts strike down what is essentially a blasphemy ruling.
My other concern with this is its just another example of denial of reality in BC. There is something seriously wrong in Canada, certainly, but BC is leading the way. The idea that there are NOT only two sexes, and humans are dimorphic, flies both in the face of actual science and just obvious reality. If you are willing to ignore what is plainly in front of your face, or on a related matter, insist that its an established fact that there are bodies in the ground at Kamloops without excavation, then nothing can help you. We are all serious trouble if we become forced to accept unreality and open falsehoods. THAT wont end well.
Well summarized, Peter!!
Excellent analysis.
I will be referring to this work of yours as I try to assemble an official complaint to the Law Society of British Columbia against lawyer Barbara Findlay.
Her tactics and behaviour were unprofessional.
I don't know, yet, if I can put together anything compelling.
But, I am starting to collect reference items - such as the video of Findlay literally sleeping while the tribunal was in session.
If you have ideas on specific instances where Findlay and her team did something unprofessional it might be worth sharing with me.
I'll give you my email over on X DM.
There are specific things that I already have in my file.
I just mean if you have some examples that you think are worthy of including in an official complaint, having undertaken such diligence in your review of the tribunal.
Let me know if your complaint would be aided by, say, video evidence from the hearing… 😏
Peter, excellent work, as a university graduate I am simply disgusted at what academia in Canada has become. The sophistry and gobblegook coming out of the panel is shocking. Only 'intellectuals' can come up with such nonsense.
At least the ordinary person is increasingly recognizing this as nonsense and eventually reality and the polity will prevail. If Amy loses her license I am sure she is still employable, someone with that amount of [personal courage and skill can easily find good work I would think.
Edit: Leslie here. Substack gets us mixed up even though we sign in with our own e-mail addresses.
These aren't mostly academics. The disciplinary panel are regulators whose decisions have force of law for members of the regulated profession they oversee. If they were just academics spit-balling alcoholically in the Faculty Lounge it wouldn't be so bad. These people have actual power to wreck lives and professional careers just because some asshole decides to make a complaint.
The complaint should have been dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and abusive but the Colleges don't like to do that because it looks too much like they are protecting their own. So here we are. (Or here Ms. Hamm is.)
Yeah correct. I got mixed up a bit on who was on the panel and who were the witnesses, I was referring to the PHD academic types used by the prosecution. And what you say is correct.
Such an excellent piece Peter! Thank you for taking the time to go over all the information. I'm embarassed to be Canadian, we've fallen so low. I keep shaking my head in disbelief. Women truly are second class citizens next to men who think they are women. We now essentially have blasphemy laws but resticted to only a few select groups. I feel like I'm living my whole ordeal all over again.
This was witch hunt in a kangaroo court. The analysis is pitch perfect and disturbing. Thank you for this.
On another note, @kdansky and WoLF have put an amicus brief to America's Supreme Court asking for the Court to recognise gender identity ideology as a religious belief. Let's hope she prevails.
Wonderful summary and analysis. Thank you!
A travesty of Justice and decline of common sense. May she prevail on appeal
I think you have a typo in the paragraph about UBC nurse witness and trans survey- should it be “ non-binary… not specified “but” female… not “by” female?
Extremely helpful and disturbing. Thank you.
Insanely stupid.
Such a well written analysis. And, I really appreciated the "flapdoodle type arguments". In all of this craziness, we need to laugh when we can.
This is difficult to read. It’s like reading the condemnation and conviction of someone in the middle ages for witchcraft.
Imagine writing all of this and still being wrong.
What does "all of this" refer to?