Great Reset
Trudeau gov’t to make all women’s and men’s washrooms ‘gender neutral’ in Parliament buildings
From LifeSiteNews
Trudeau’s washroom policy also extends to many federally regulated spaces, such as national parks, and has been criticized by even some women’s rights groups.
For the first time in decades, women will not have a washroom of their own on Canada’s Parliament Hill after the Canadian federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that all washrooms will soon become “gender neutral.”
The move, which will strip women and men of privacy when using the bathroom on Parliament Hill, was recently announced by Minister of Public Services Jean-Yves Duclos. Under his command and with the blessing of Trudeau, approximately 200 washrooms in the Centre Block area, along with the new welcome centre, will be made to be more “accessible” as well as “inclusive.”
According to Duclos, the washroom renovations are being done to “meet the expectations and needs of” LGBT Canadians and adapt to their “needs of the 2030s and beyond.”
The latest LGBT-charged move by the Trudeau government, according to Duclos, is part of a “very broad message of inclusion,” he claimed.
The “gender-neutral” washroom push comes after NDP MP Don Davies brought forth a petition to the House of Commons demanding that all male and female bathrooms be banned in federal workplaces.
“Exclusionary washroom policies cause significant barriers for trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people,” Davies claimed.
At the turn of the 20th century, most public places, including government buildings in Canada, did not even have separate washrooms for women, with only men’s washrooms. It was not until the early-mid part of the 20th century after the first woman MP was elected in 1921 that women’s bathrooms slowly equaled men’s on Parliament Hill.
Women’s human rights are being violated by gender-neutral bathroom policy, says rights group
Trudeau’s washroom policy also extends to many federally regulated spaces, such as national parks, and has been criticized by even some women’s rights groups.
The Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBR) has raised the alarm that the removal of women’s only washrooms could lead to an increase in sexual violence against women.
“Women and girls in Canada are five more times to be sexually assaulted than males, with 99% of sexual assaults being perpetrated by men,” CAWSBR said.
“This disparity in terms of vulnerability and safety is the primary reason for why sex-segregated spaces have been considered a necessity (and, one could argue is a fundamental right for females, under the Canadian Human Rights Act), when it comes to facilities used in public and private sectors, including washrooms, change rooms, and hospital rooms.”
According to CAWSBR, the removal of “sex-segregated spaces” with the introduction of “gender-neutral” facilities means that “women-only spaces that continue to exist are being rendered meaningless, as any male who decides that they identify as a girl or woman may now use girls’/women’s facilities.”
“Girls and women, despite the Canadian Human Rights Act, despite being at high risk of sexual assault by males, are being ordered to open their spaces and their rights when it comes to their most vulnerable spaces to include males. Damn the consequences.”
Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable push in Western nations to actively promote gender ideology to young people, particularly in the United States and Canada.
This has led to governments at all levels actively going along with the demands of those involved in the LGBT agenda to have feminine hygiene products mandated in men’s bathrooms.
A new Canadian federal mandate under Trudeau came into effect on December 15, 2023, that forces Canadian federal workplaces, including military bases, to provide “menstruation kits” in men’s bathrooms to promote “inclusivity.”
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported on how after women’s menstrual products began appearing in men’s washrooms at Toronto public library locations a city resident blasted the move as a potential safety risk, saying that “nobody should have to deal with things like that when visiting a washroom.”
In 2017, the Senate passed a transgender rights bill that adds “gender expression” and “gender identity” to Canada’s Human Rights Code and to the Criminal Code’s hate crime section.
International
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
From LifeSiteNews
Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored.
Euthanasia activists are currently doing what they do best: the bait and switch.
As the debate heats up in the U.K., all of the familiar tactics are on display. First, of course, there is the relentless lying. Despite the case study of Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium – and despite disability activists, judges, palliative physicians, and the secretaries of health and justice warning that no “safeguards” will hold – U.K. euthanasia activists are insisting that this time everything will be different.
The response to these critiques has been predictable but infuriating. Euthanasia activists insist that all of this is about religion – that those nasty Christians are, once again, seeking to impose their suffering-based theology on the country. (This despite the fact that even Ann Furedi, who heads up the U.K.’s second largest abortion provider, opposes the proposed assisted suicide law.) One good microcosmic example of this tactic comes from UK writer Julie Street, who posted to X (formerly Twitter):
Just walked out of Mass bloody fuming – our priest used the homily to read a letter from the Catholic bishops telling people to oppose the Assisted Dying Bill then handed out cards with our local MP’s details on to lobby them. Religion has no place in politics or women’s rights.
There is much to say in response, of course. Why is Street so surprised to discover that her Catholic priest and bishops are, in fact, Catholic? Is she ignorant of the religion that she at least appears to practice? How airtight does one’s mind have to be not to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as religious issues? Indeed, “euthanasia” is Greek for “good death” – the theological premises are baked right into the term. Or does Street think that religious people should shut their mouths in the political arena and voluntarily disenfranchise themselves as the fates of the weak are decided?
Is Street also ignorant of the fact that it was largely due to the Catholic Church’s public opposition that Adolf Hitler moved the Nazi’s euthanasia operation underground? (We now know, of course, that the Nazis only claimed to have disbanded the T-4 program.) I thought progressives wanted a Church that stood up for the weak, vulnerable, and dispossessed – and who qualifies more than the sick, elderly, and those with disabilities? Christians are accused of not being loving enough, and then rebuked when they stand up for the victims the political class deems expendable – first the unborn, now those on the other end of life’s spectrum.
But there’s more to this tactic than grating ignorance. Progressives like to play both sides of the fence. Take abortion, for example. Politicians like to claim that it is a religious issue, and that thus they cannot legislate against it due to the fact that we live in pluralistic societies. Many religious leaders are quite happy to follow this logic, claiming that since abortion is a political issue, it cannot be discussed in church. And all the while, the countless corpses of the aborted unborn pile up in the No Man’s Land between.
The assisted suicide debate is unfolding along similar lines. Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored. Meanwhile, because politicians are debating the issue, folks like Street can claim that because this is now a political issue, priests and pastors should keep their traps shut. See what they did there? It’s a neat trick, and despite how farcical and illogical it is, it seems to work with maddening regularity.
In fact, the priest Julie Street had the good fortune to hear was standing in the tradition of the clergy who stood up against Adolf Hitler and his eugenicist gang – and fighting the same evil being advanced under many of the same premises, to boot. She should be grateful. If she can’t manage that, she should at least be better educated.
Aristotle Foundation
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
From the Aristotle Foundation
By
In 2022, Torontonians renamed Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University, “to address the legacy of Egerton Ryerson.”1 Rather than remember him as the founder of Ontario’s system of “free” public schools and libraries, Ryerson was “cancelled” for his suggestions regarding the curriculum for the Indian residential schools that were then being proposed. However, the schools themselves were not built until some 30 years later, after Ryerson was dead. Further, modern complaints about the schools are generally misconceived and have little to do with the curriculum.2
In 2024, Toronto is at it again. This time, the historical figure targeted for cancellation is abolitionist Henry Dundas, as city officials seek to wipe his name from Yonge-Dundas Square. The square is a notable city landmark and one of Canada’s most popular tourist destinations. Filled with brightly lit electronic advertisement billboards, the square serves as an iconic social hub and venue for events connected to Toronto’s cultural festivals. The city’s former mayor, John Tory, summarized the case for renaming the famous square – based on a report from city hall – as follows:
An objective reading of the history, the significance of this street which crosses our city, the fact that Mr. Dundas had virtually no connection to Toronto and our strong commitment to equity, inclusion and reconciliation make this a unique and symbolically important change.3
The new name, “Sankofa Square,” is taken not from anything Torontonian, Ontarian, or even Canadian – but from the Akan people of West Africa.
Ironically, city officials not only appear ignorant of Henry Dundas’ many contributions to Canada, and to the abolition of slavery, but are also blissfully unaware that the Akan people of Africa were notorious slave traders responsible for capturing and selling one to two million of their fellow Africans into slavery.4
The man: Who was Henry Dundas?
Henry Dundas was a Scottish lawyer, politician, and one of British Prime Minister William Pitt’s most trusted and powerful ministers who served during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.
Critically, Dundas was also a staunch abolitionist, committed to ending slavery as an institution in the British Empire and elsewhere in the world.
As early as 1777, when he was in his thirties, Dundas publicly established his abolitionist position on slavery. When Joseph Knight, a slave from Jamaica, was taken to Scotland by his owner, he challenged his status as a slave under Scottish law. Dundas, then Lord Advocate (principal legal advisor to the government), took on Knight’s case in his private capacity as a lawyer. On the final appeal before Scotland’s highest court, Dundas argued passionately, and with some humour, against the inhumanity of slavery:
We may possibly see the master chastising his slave as he does his ox or his horse. Perhaps, too, he may shoot him when he turns old […]
[But] [h]uman nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.5
The court agreed and declared that no slave could remain a slave once they arrived on Scottish soil.6
A decade later, a religiously-inspired Christian abolition movement began in Britain (most famously personified by William Wilberforce) with the goal of ending the Atlantic slave trade. Dundas was a supporter of the movement, but urged that its members go further and challenge not just the Atlantic slave trade but seek the abolition of slavery itself – a much bigger challenge since at that time slavery was practiced on every inhabited continent.
During the 300 or more years the transatlantic slave trade existed, estimates are that 10 million to 12 million Africans were captured, enslaved, and sold by their fellow Africans. The purchasers were largely British, Portuguese, and French traders who acted as intermediaries in shipping slaves to the Americas for re-sale. The destination for 50 percent of the slaves was South America, 45 percent went to the West Indies, and about four percent went to what would become the United States.7,8 Dundas understood that, unless slavery itself was ended – with its unrelenting violence, forced labour, and premature death – slavery as an institution would continue for generations, since legally the children of slaves were considered chattel (like livestock) and were thus also slaves like their parents.
The controversy: Did Dundas’ abolitionism go far enough?
Dundas is criticized today for amending a motion in Britain’s Parliament in 1792.9 His original motion called for the immediate end to the slave trade. But outright abolition was unrealistic at the time, and thus historians agree that Dundas’ original motion would surely have failed.10 Moreover, Britain’s competitors – especially the Portuguese and French – would have simply picked up where Britain left off. Realizing this, Dundas made a strategic pivot and called for a gradual end to the slave trade. His strategy worked, and his amended motion succeeded with a significant majority.11
Change would take time. Only about one percent of the adult population had the right to vote,12 and many had at least an indirect financial interest in West Indian plantations (as did numerous Members of Parliament), and trade with the plantations generated income for businesses in England and tariff revenue for the Crown. Surmounting such entrenched interests would not happen overnight.
And this is why Dundas’ successful motion was key: it shifted the tenor of the public discourse. For the first time, ending the slave trade was up for debate. The British empire at this time was nearing its peak as the largest empire in history, with enormous influence, and thus this step was significant in the eventual abolition of slavery worldwide.
The Toronto connection: Dundas the humanitarian
For his role in abolishing slavery, Dundas ought to be celebrated. The same is true of his major influence on the colonies that would become Canada and, in particular, on what would become the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto. Importantly, that influence was wielded in support of issues that, today, would be described as relating to equity, inclusion, and reconciliation—ironically, the exact criteria (“commitments”) justifying the city’s condemnation of him.
Appointing Simcoe, the empire’s first legislator to outlaw slavery
Dundas was a close friend of John Graves Simcoe (another staunch abolitionist), and he appointed Simcoe as the first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada in 1791. It was Simcoe who, two years later, would introduce the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada, the very first legislation in the entire British empire to limit slavery.14
The legislation passed, beginning the abolition of slavery in the province. Although the legislation did not free slaves already present, it freed the children of such slaves at age 25, and made Upper Canada a safe haven for slaves fleeing the United States.15 Like the precedent Dundas set in Scotland, no slave could remain a slave on Upper Canadian soil. Over the next seven decades, more than 40,000 black men and women would risk their lives to escape slavery and find freedom in Upper Canada.
When Dundas appointed Simcoe, he knew about Simcoe’s abolitionist sympathies—and almost certainly anticipated the legislation he would propose.16 And thus, Dundas made possible what became known as the Underground Railroad.
Honouring black soldiers
Dundas also ordered the governors of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to honour Britain’s promise of land grants to 4,000 former slaves who had fought for the British against the American Revolution, and to offer free passage – courtesy of the British navy – to any who preferred to return to Africa.17
Initiating official bilingualism
Upon the division of the then-province of Quebec into Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec) in 1791, Dundas instructed the English governor of Lower Canada to allow French-speaking parliamentarians to pass laws in French.18 This was a serious point of disagreement in the newly formed legislative assembly, as the (powerful) English minority insisted all British subjects be governed in English. Dundas solved the impasse by ordering that legislation be passed in both languages, in what is the first example of official bilingualism in Canadian history. (For context, this occurred only months after England and France were, once again, at war; and thus this act was truly magnanimous.)19
Defending indigenous peoples
Finally, following American Independence, Yankee incursions into Canadian territory were a very real and constant threat. Dundas, as secretary of state for Home Affairs, instructed the Canadian governor Sir Guy Carleton to intervene against the Americans and protect the interests of the “Indian Nations”:
…securing to them the peaceable and quiet possession of the Lands which they have hitherto occupied as their hunting Grounds, and such others as may enable them to procure a comfortable subsistence for themselves and their families.20
The irony: Replacing the abolitionist with slave traders
Given the evidence, Toronto city council’s treatment of Dundas is clearly not only ahistorical but shameful. Regrettably, so is their adoption of the replacement, the term “Sankofa” from the Akan language. Little needs to be said here, other than this: The Akan peoples of West Africa were notorious slave traders. During the transatlantic slave trade, the Akan captured, enslaved, and sold one to two million fellow Africans into slavery. In other words, the Akan were the source of 10 to 20 percent of all transatlantic slaves.
Conclusion
The Toronto city council narrative surrounding the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square flies in the face of historical fact. Dundas was demonstrably ahead of his time as a humanitarian. And as a politician, he was not only principled and morally courageous but effective. Dundas was one of the key figures in abolishing the slave trade, opening up the Underground Railroad, and protecting minorities of various backgrounds—black, French, and indigenous. If the city really wants to promote the act of “reflecting on and reclaiming teachings from the past,”21 as it claims, it might do well to start with the truth about Henry Dundas’ legacy. There may be times to rename a place or landmark, but this is not one of them.
Endnotes
About the author
Greg Piasetzki is a Toronto-based intellectual property lawyer, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and a citizen of the Métis Nation of Ontario.
About the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy
Who we are
The Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy is a new education and public policy think tank that aims to renew a civil, common-sense approach to public discourse and public policy in Canada.
-
Business2 days ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta24 hours ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Business2 days ago
From ‘brilliant’ to ‘aghast’: Reactions to RFK Jr.’s nomination for HHS secretary run the gamut
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
ESG1 day ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!