Connect with us

Opinion

Jordan Peterson tears into Trudeau for backing gender ideology: ‘Worst medical scandal ever’

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In a scathing post directed at the Canadian prime minister, the prominent psychologist said ‘there is absolutely no excuse for what has been done on the ‘trans’ front. … In the same category as the medical ‘experiments’ under the Japanese and the Nazis in the 30s and 40s.’

Well-known anti-woke Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson accused the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for going along with the “worst medical scandal ever” after continuing to promote transgender ideology by not banning puberty blockers for children with gender confusion.

“Do you see this, you son of a bi**h? @JustinTrudeau,” Peterson posted Thursday on X (formerly Twitter).

“It’s time for the liars and the butchers not only to be stopped but to be prosecuted. There is absolutely no excuse for what has been done on the ‘trans’ front. It is the worst medical scandal ever, I believe. In the same category as the medical ‘experiments’ under the Japanese and the Nazis in the 30s and 40s.”

Peterson was commenting on a May 29 announcement from the British National Health Service (NHS) that in effect bans the prescribing of puberty blockers to “children and young people under 18 in England, Wales and Scotland.”

The UK’s “emergency ban” will last until September 3, 2024, and will apply to prescriptions written by “UK private prescribers and prescribers registered in the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland.”

LifeSiteNews has previously reported on how the NHS was forthcoming.

In Canada, healthcare falls under provincial authority, but the federal government does regulate which drugs can or cannot be approved for sale in the country.

Some provinces, such as Alberta, have taken action to ban puberty blockers as well as forever body-altering “top” or “bottom” surgeries for minors.

On January 31, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced what is the strongest pro-family legislation in Canada, protecting kids from life-altering so-called “top and bottom” surgeries as well as other forms of transgender ideology.

The Trudeau government, however, has gone all in promoting transgenderism and gender ideology, as can be seen from their federal “2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan,” which gives $100 million in funding over five years for homosexual and transgender initiatives.

The Trudeau government also banned parents, counselors, and pastors from helping children accept their God-given bodies, via Bill C-4.

The bill bans so-called “conversion therapy” and punishes anyone helping children or others with gender confusion or unwanted same-sex attraction with jail time of up to five years. It is illegal in Canada for anyone to try and reverse a person’s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, even if that person is an adult who is voluntarily seeking help.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre only recently voiced support for a ban on puberty blockers for minors, as well as Alberta’s ban on “transitioning” kids.

Peterson has called out Trudeau’s government as well as its promotion of extreme transgender ideology on many occasions.

A recent study, as reported by LifeSiteNews, gives unequivocal evidence that people who undergo so-called “gender reassignment” surgery are at higher risk of suicide — an astounding 12 times that of the general population.

When it comes to puberty blockers, which it should be noted are used to chemically castrate sex offenders, studies have shown they can devastate bone density in children. This puts them at risk of osteoporosis, fractures, and other serious injuries. The drugs also carry with them many other side effects, such as emotional disorders, pseudotumor cerebri, paralysis, renal impairment, sudden cardiac death, and stroke in men, as LifeSiteNews has reported.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Joe Rogan Tells Elon Musk He ‘Changed’ History By Buying Twitter, Calls Out Previous Government Interference

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Hailey Gomez

The popular podcast host thanked Musk for deciding to buy the company, noting how social media companies had coordinated with the government to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, impacting the 2020 election.

Podcast host Joe Rogan told billionaire Elon Musk on Monday that he “changed the course of history” by buying Twitter in 2022, recounting how the government had become intertwined with social media platforms.

In October 2022, Musk won a legal battle to become the sole owner of Twitter, now known as X, and promptly fired several top executives, including CEO Parag Agrawal, chief financial officer Ned Segal and Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust and safety. On “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the popular podcast host thanked Musk for deciding to buy the company, noting how social media companies had coordinated with the government to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, impacting the 2020 election.

“First of all, thank you. Thank you so much for buying Twitter. Thank you so much. I’m not exaggerating when I think you changed the course of history. I really do. I really think you made a fork in the road. We were headed down a path of censorship and of control of narratives that is unprecedented,” Rogan said.

“Forget about what they were able to do back when they had newspapers and the media under control. What they were doing with social media by suppressing information and when you had a combined government effort — like with what they were doing with the laptop story,” Rogan added. “We have 51 former intelligence agents saying that this is Russian disinformation, take it off offline, and Twitter complied. If you didn’t buy that we wouldn’t have known that. We had no idea.”

Musk explained how he became aware that the system on Twitter was changing, pointing out how former President Donald Trump was permanently banned from the platform after Jan. 6, despite calling on his supporters not to riot.

WATCH:

“The reason I bought [Twitter] was because I’m pretty attuned, since I was the most interacted with users on Twitter before the acquisition,” Musk said. “So before the acquisition I had more interactions then — like there’s some accounts like [former President Barack] Obama and whatever had a higher follower count — but I had the most number of interactions of any account in the system. So I was very attuned to like if they change the system, I can tell immediately. And I’m like, something weird is going on here, you know?”

“I just got increasingly uneasy and obviously when they de-platformed a sitting president, you know, de-platformed Trump — that was just insane. The things he was posting … he was posting good things. He was saying, ‘Hey, we do not riot, but don’t do any destruction of property, please stay calm.’ That’s the kind of stuff he was posting, and you’re like, ‘Uh, what’s wrong with that?’ Then some people said, ‘Oh, that’s like some sort of dog whistle, he means the opposite.’ I’m like, ‘Okay, so we’ll give you Trump’s account. Now you post what you think he should post because you can post nothing, he can ask people to calm down, like what? It was insane, it didn’t make any sense,” Musk said.

Following Musk’s acquisition of the company, the billionaire collaborated with independent journalists and authors like Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger to release the “Twitter Files,” which revealed that the company’s former executives justified banning Trump by citing the “context surrounding” the former president and his supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.”

After the interview with Musk was released Monday evening, Rogan announced on X that he endorsed Trump in his bid for the White House.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

U.S. election should focus or what works and what doesn’t work

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

As Republicans and Democrats make their final pitch to voters, they’ve converged on some common themes. Kamala Harris wants to regulate the price of food. Donald Trump wants to regulate the price of credit. Harris wants the tax code to favour the 2.5 per cent of workers who earn tips. So does Trump. Harris wants the government to steer more labour and capital into manufacturing. And so does Trump.

With each of these proposals, the candidates think the United States would be better off if the government made more economic decisions and—by implication—if individual citizens made fewer economic decisions. Both should pay closer attention to Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe.

Why does a country with abundant natural resources, rich culture and unparalleled beauty have one-sixth the average income of neighbouring Botswana? While we’re at it, why do twice as many children die in infancy in Azerbaijan as across the border in Georgia? Why do Hungarians work 20 per cent longer than their Austrian neighbours but earn 45 per cent less? Why is extreme poverty 200 times more common in Laos than across the Mekong River in Thailand?

Or how about this one: Why were more than one-quarter of Estonians formerly exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution when the country was socialist while today nearly every Estonian breathes clean air in what is ranked the cleanest country in the world.

These are anecdotes. However, the plural of anecdote is data, and through careful and systematic study of the data, we can learn what works and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, the populist economic policies in vogue among Democrats and Republicans do not work.

What does work is economic freedom.

Economic freedoms are a subset of human freedoms. When people have more economic freedom, they are allowed to make more of their own economic choices—choices about work, about buying and selling goods and services, about acquiring and using property, and about forming contracts with others.

For nearly 30 years, the Fraser Institute has been measuring economic freedom across countries. On one hand, governments can stop people from making their own economic choices through taxes, regulations, barriers to trade and manipulation of the value of money (see the proposals of Harris and Trump above). On the other hand, governments can enable individual economic choice by protecting people and their property.

The index published in Fraser’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report incorporates 45 indicators to measure how governments either prevent or enable individual economic choice. The result reveals the degree of economic freedom in 165 countries and territories worldwide, with data going back to 1970.

According to the latest report, comparatively wealthy Botswanans rank 84 places ahead of Zimbabweans in terms of the economic freedom their government permits them. Georgians rank 107 places ahead of Azerbaijanis, Thais rank 60 places ahead of Laotians, and Austrians are 32 places ahead of Hungarians.

The benefits of economic freedom go far beyond anecdotes and rankings. As Estonia—once one of the least economically free places in the world and now among the freest—dramatically shows, freer countries tend not only to be more prosperous but greener and healthier.

In fact, economists and other social scientists have conducted nearly 1,000 studies using the index to assess the effect of economic freedom on different aspects of human wellbeing. Their statistical comparisons include hundreds and sometimes thousands of data points and carefully control for other factors like geography, natural resources and disease environment.

Their results overwhelmingly support the idea that when people are permitted more economic freedom, they prosper. Those who live in freer places enjoy higher and faster-growing incomes, better health, longer life, cleaner environments, more tolerance, less violence, lower infant mortality and less poverty.

Economic freedom isn’t the only thing that matters for prosperity. Research suggests that culture and geography matter as well. While policymakers can’t always change people’s attitudes or move mountains, they can permit their citizens more economic freedom. If more did so, more people would enjoy the living standards of Botswana or Estonia and fewer people would be stuck in poverty.

As for the U.S., it remains relatively free and prosperous. Whatever its problems, decades of research cast doubt on the notion that America would be better off with policies that chip away at the ability of Americans to make their own economic choices.

Continue Reading

Trending

X