a traitor wrapped in prairie smoke
she smiles freedom
while cutting the country apart
Thursday, September 4, 2025
Traitor Wrapped in Prairie Smoke
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Universities in a hostile MAGA world
- from https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3lxu5id4pa52j
What is the average reading level of a MAGA supporter? It seems a stretch to expect universities to “rebuild trust” across party lines when one of those parties has increasingly positioned itself as anti-university, anti-intellectual, and openly hostile to higher education.
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
Book Banning in Alberta Is a Dangerous Path
“Sorry kids, even the books from your own backpack need Premier’s approval first.”
Book Banning in Alberta Is a Dangerous Path Alberta Premier Danielle Smith recently called the Edmonton Public School Board’s removal of books “vicious compliance.” She said she would hold the school board’s hand to get it right. These actions raise serious concerns about censorship in schools. At the news conference she held to criticize the school board, Smith appeared to mock their compliance while also offering to oversee their decisions about which books can stay in libraries and classrooms. The message is clear. This is not a freedom of choice or local oversight. This is control from the top. When lawmakers allow governments to determine what children can read, it has deep historical roots. Book banning in Nazi Germany targeted authors who challenged state power. Schools were stripped of works by Einstein, Kafka, and many others. The Soviet Union also suppressed books that did not fit state ideology. In the 1950s America experienced another wave of censorship. During the Cold War era, books by black authors, civil rights leaders, and political radicals were often banned in school libraries. These bans were a tool to suppress dissent. They told the next generation what they should not think or question. Alberta’s ban is aimed at books with sexual content. But critics are concerned that it targets LGBTQ topics and suppresses marginalized voices. Margaret Atwood warned of rising threats to expression. She said she cannot remember a time when words themselves felt under such threat. That warning should not be ignored. When governments restrict what children read, they walk a dangerous path toward authoritarianism. Thought control, even if it starts with books, leads to less debate and more repression. Schools should not be battlegrounds for censorship. We must push back against banning books in public education. We cannot trade curiosity for control. Our children deserve access to diverse ideas and stories. Sources Global News, Margaret Atwood takes aim at Alberta’s school library books ban with satirical story https://www.globalnews.ca/news/11358174/margaret-atwood-takes-aim-at-albertas-school-library-books-ban-with-satirical-story/ The Guardian, Banned the 20 books they did not want you to read https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/aug/23/banned-the-20-books-they-didnt-want-you-to-read The Guardian, Margaret Atwood says she cannot remember another time words themselves have felt under such threat https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/may/12/margaret-atwood-words-under-threat-freedom-to-publish-british-book-awards Yahoo News (via Global News), Alberta premier criticizes Edmonton schools’ banned book list https://ca.news.yahoo.com/edmonton-public-removing-more-200-151745127.html
Monday, September 1, 2025
CBC's Golden Consultant Not Needed on Home Defence Policy
Why Canada’s Current Home-Defence Laws Are Enough
Pierre Poilievre has proposed changing Canada’s Criminal Code so that any force used inside one’s home is automatically considered reasonable if someone breaks in. He says that people under threat should not have to worry about whether their actions meet complicated legal standards.
This idea sounds simple. However, Canada already allows people to defend themselves when someone unlawfully enters their home. The law says that force must be reasonable under the circumstances. That means it must be proportionate and appropriate to the level of threat. Judges and police use criteria like whether there was a weapon, the size and age of the people involved, and whether there were other ways to respond. These rules protect both victims and ensure that force is not abused.
Lawyers have said that the current system works. It allows self-defence when a person truly feels threatened. It also keeps the standard clear. People do not need to think of nine separate legal factors in the heat of the moment. They only need to act in a way that is reasonable. That protects both homeowners and the legal system.
There is also a legal principle called necessity. It applies when a person has no choice and is facing an imminent threat. Canadian law says self-defence is allowed if someone honestly believes they are in danger, and their actions match the threat. This principle balances protecting lives with preventing misuse of force.
Canada does not have laws that make it automatically legal to use force, even if it is inside your home. Some places use a “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” rule. Canada does not. It maintains a way to review whether force was reasonable. That protects innocent lives and ensures justice is fair.
In short, Poilievre’s proposed change is not needed. Canadians already have legal protection when they face a home invasion. The current laws strike a balance between defending oneself and following fair legal standards.
Sources and References
Global News, Poilievre pushing for ‘reasonable’ self-defence definition in Criminal Code
https://www.globalnews.ca/news/11355963/poilievre-criminal-code-self-defence/
CTV News, ‘You can’t just get mad’: Lawyer explains limits of self-defence in Canada
Ground News, Fact File: Canadians can defend against home invaders but force must be ‘reasonable’
Wikipedia, Stand-your-ground law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Wikipedia, Necessity in Canadian law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_Canadian_law
Sunday, August 31, 2025
Balanced Coverage
"Balanced Coverage"
CBC and the Poilievre Problem
CBC is supposed to be Canada’s national broadcaster that covers all sides fairly. Lately, it feels like they look to Pierre Poilievre for his opinion on almost everything. At the same time, there is much less focus on what Mark Carney and the government are saying about those same topics.
The Numbers
An analysis by The Maple looked at how often reporters asked questions to Poilievre compared to Carney during the campaign. The results showed that Poilievre was asked only 30 questions over 17 days. Carney was asked more than three times that number. Many of the questions to Poilievre were neutral or easy. Carney was asked a much higher number of tough questions. CBC was part of the group of outlets included in this coverage.
How Access Works
Poilievre’s team carefully controls who gets to ask questions at his events. Reporters who push too hard can be blocked out next time. This makes journalists less likely to ask difficult questions. CBC has been part of this system, which means Poilievre often faces less serious questioning.
Why It Matters
Poilievre has spoken many times about wanting to cut funding to CBC’s English services. Some people are concerned that CBC’s soft coverage could make him seem stronger and more influential than he is. Carney, on the other hand, often faces harder questions and more critical coverage. That means his ideas and policies are not getting the same space or attention.
The Result
When CBC treats Poilievre like its main source or consultant, it shifts the balance of information Canadians receive. Instead of hearing clear views from both leaders, audiences often hear Poilievre’s opinion first and most often. For a public broadcaster, this raises questions about whether CBC is living up to its role of providing fair and balanced coverage.
Sources
The Maple, “Poilievre Getting Easier Ride at Media Events Than Carney”
Wikipedia, CBC News allegations section
Policy Options, “The high stakes of defunding the CBC”
The Times, “Pierre Poilievre defeats Mark Carney”
Business Insider, Canada election result coverage
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Traitor Wrapped in Prairie Smoke
a traitor wrapped in prairie smoke she smiles freedom while cutting the country apart
-
"Balanced Coverage" CBC and the Poilievre Problem CBC is supposed to be Canada’s national broadcaster that covers all sides fairly... -
“Sorry kids, even the books from your own backpack need Premier’s approval first.” Book Banning in Alberta Is a Dangerous Path Alberta P... -
Why Canada’s Current Home-Defence Laws Are Enough Pierre Poilievre has proposed changing Canada’s Criminal Code so that any force used insid...