Diversity, inclusion and "settled science"

Where did common sense go to die? Washington? Ottawa? Brussels?

Diversity and inclusion are popular buzzwords for left-wing politicians and their ilk. But they don’t use them are descriptors for the cosmopolitan population of Canada, Europe or the United States but as rallying cries for outright discrimination, either in favour of some allegedly “marginalized” group or against some group seen as powerful or “oppressive”. These are the watchwords of Communism since the days of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

The theme arises owing to a popular belief that there are groups in Canada who are “systematically” oppressed by racism, sexism, misogynism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, anti-semitism or transphobia with the “oppressors” typically defined to be anyone not in the particular group chosen to benefit from positive discrimination. The only group in Canada subject to systematic discrimination are First Nations, but that discrimination is all but absent in modern Canada except for the relic called the Indian Act which persists in force and is long overdue for annullment.

In the United States, the historic discrimination against Blacks has been replaced by positive discrimination in favour of Blacks. Surely this is not progress but perpetuates the existence of bias.

Victimhood is alleged for so many groups one wonders if there is anyone left to be an “oppressor”. In Canada, the “oppressed” groups are harder to find since Canada has a very “diverse” population and group identity must include enough members in the group to have meaning. In America, the situation is more black and white (pun intended). Companies are being urged to have policies that “promote diversity and inclusion”. What precisely does that mean?

If it means passing over a competent and fully-qualified candidate for a position in favour of one that falls into one of the “marginalized” groups that that policy is itself discriminatory. If it simply means filling posts or promoting employees based on knowledge and competence, no “diversity and inclusion” policy is needed. It means using taxpayer money to advance on group at the expense of another.

Justin Trudeau makes a big deal about having a “gender balanced cabinet”. It is an odd claim since Liberals (also called progressives) argue there a more than two genders. Group identity based politics are a bit of a challenge as a result. A recent appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States couldn’t answer the question “what is a woman” saying she was not a biologist. If a Supreme Court judge can’t define what comprises a woman, how are CEO’s of major corporations to achieve “gender balance” without knowing how to identify a woman? And how did Trudeau conclude his cabinet was “gender balanced” while his Party and ideology deny there are only two genders?

Maybe Prime Minister Trudeau could report to Canadians how many of his cabinet are two spirit, non-binary, transgender, gender-fluid and a plethora of other descriptors of gender that populate progressive discourse today, and provide Canadians with a report on how the percentage of each compares to their percentage in the population at large? That might a bit of a chore if even a Supreme Court Justice in United States is incapable of even defining woman, presuming “woman” is one of the genders being considered.

I had a chuckle when Lia Thomas, a biological male now a transgendered woman, won a major world swim meet and claimed victory in the race was “fair”. In ~1961, I won a high school mile race with a time of 4 minutes 41.7 seconds shortly after running as the anchor for a mile relay where our team finished the mile in 4 minutes and point two of second.

Had I “identified” as a woman I could have set the woman’s world record for the mile and been famous, beating out Diane Leather whose time of 4 minutes 45 seconds was the women’s world record until 1962 (Leather was the first woman ever to run a sub-five minute mile). I won that race without coaching, training or even wearing running spikes (I wore U.S. Keds). Tell me how getting your ass kicked by an untrained teenage boy claiming to be a woman would have been “fair” to Leather who trained and competed for years before becoming the fastest woman miler in 1954 and holding the world record through 1962. The “woke” left’s absurd “gender” ideas are fodder for late night comedy and do not merit sensible consideration.

Throw in sexual orientation, skin colour, ancestral history, faith or favourite sport and the number of “diverse” groups multiplies to infinity, ultimately reaching the point where this should have started - we are all “unique individuals” and we don’t belong to some loosely-defined “group” for any sensible purpose other than the national census. Participation in Cabinet, Parliament, Congress, the Judiciary or the workplace should be based on our knowledge and competence for the fields we have chosen or the tasks assigned.

Group identity under Trudeau and Biden is not limited to the groups mentioned earlier. It now also includes “MAGA Republicans” and “client deniers” for example. How Biden and Trudeau deal with the reality that MAGA Republicans and “climate deniers” come from all walks of life, all races, all religions, all skin colours, all sexual orientations, and all areas of academia escapes reason.

The latest term is “science denier” coined by Anthony Fauci to describe anyone who doesn’t agree with his view of “science” despite that view changing as often as Fauci changes underwear. Some historic “science deniers” warrant some ink.

In the 1600’s the Inca and Aztec communities practiced child sacrifice to change the weather as “settled science”. The apocryphal Pachacuti (also known as PachaFauchi) likely gave regular speeches decrying parents who didn’t appreciate their kids being sacrificed. He would say things that undoubtedly were like “we tortured and killed little Huayta and within three weeks it rained. How much more proof do you need.”

Dr. James Craik, the Presidential surgeon at the time, no doubt similarly defended bloodletting despite it causing President George Washington to bleed to death. His defense surely was that “the science is settled. The correlation between bloodletting and recovery from the common cold is well over 99%. We know it works”. Craik must have studied at the then equivalent of Penn State which produced climate nutter Michael Mann who became famous for altering already flawed temperature data to create now legendary “hockey stick” used to promote the nonsensical theory that CO2 causes climate change.

Heinrich Muckter, the German chemist who experimented on Jewish inmates at Buchenwald, took his “settled science” a step further when he invented thalidomide promoted as a therapy for “morning sickness” during pregnancy. It was for a time one of the world’s most popular drugs. Thalidomide not only caused miscarriages but resulted in children with severe nerve damage and birth defects. The thousands of children born with missing or deformed limbs is a testament to the “settled science” of the 1950’s.

It is time for left-wing leaders to come to their senses and drop the “diversity and inclusion” narrative and accept the reality that CO2 does not have any material impact on global temperatures. It is time for them to accept that open and informed discussion is the only way to advance science and that skeptics play a valuable role.

We have a diverse and inclusive society now and the top down emphasis on forced achievement of pro rata representation by all groups in all industries, boards, committees and Parliament is neither sensible nor constructive. People whose advancement is based on anything other than knowledge and competence are not taken seriously, nor should they be. I would be embarassed to be appointed to anything solely because I am an old, white male of Irish descent.

AGW is outright nonsense. At a minimum, we need leaders to encourage debate rather than try to suppress dissent. We deserve a lot better than we are getting.