Bill 67 and the Future of Canada: Rex Murphy & Jordan Peterson

Here’s the bureaucracy that's going to be produced: every college or university shall collect from its students, faculty, staff, and other persons—whatever that means—and provide to the minister such data and other information related to the following as may be requested by the minister. The number of times Support Services, complaints, resolutions, and accommodation relating to racism are requested, made, and obtained by students enrolled at or faculty or staff of the college or university; and information about those supports; any anti-racism initiatives and programs established by the college or university to promote awareness of the supports and services; the number of incidents and complaints of racism reported by students, faculty, and staff; and information about how such incidents and complaints were addressed or resolved; the implementation and effectiveness of the policy.

So that means every—and that's not just for colleges and universities. If I have read this correctly, it's throughout the education system as a whole. So that means the establishment of a bureaucracy that is devoted to doing nothing but gathering such data and reporting it. And so all you have to do is think for about 15 seconds to imagine what that's going to mean because systems tilt themselves to produce what is being measured exactly.

So, but again, where are they going with this? I mean this, again, it's from the authoritarian regimes. You check on thought, you check on the number of complaints, and by the way, if you start to invite complaints on a truly hot subject, it can get very personal very quickly. There are people in their various jobs—teaching, broadcasting, business, anywhere else. If you set up an investigative structure, and a reporting structure, and a tabulation structure, if I want to do damage to you, and if I pick the right side of this particular context, I'm going to move you out.

We cannot—we cannot allow the bureaucratization of the search into people's attitudes and souls to become a legislative possibility. I, you know, I get legislative necessity. Yeah, this is—let me give you one other thing. This is a proof of what I just said; this is a very high, high standard proof. This is Great Britain itself. I'm just going to redo the headlines again: it's a story, it's print, it's real. Their race oversight, his name was Tony Sewell, and he wrote a report. He was appointed by Boris Johnson; this is not, you know, some freelancer. He founded Britain, and there's—again, like Trudeau—would systemically write.

He found, by the way he's black (but that shouldn't matter), but these days we have to say it. He found that Britain was not institutionally racist and blasted Northland Ham University cowards for withdrawing his university honorary degree. He was given a degree in 2019, but they withdrew it after a study that was commissioned by him—objective in nature, pro—not proving certainly, asserting that Britain was not institutionally racist. And they said this was done to him because he was the subject of political controversy.

Well, let me give you a translation of that: the accepted idea among the woke classes that we're all now a bunch of racist, homophobes, Islamophobes—transfer name default arachnophobes—that has to be accepted as absolute law. However, if a person from even one of those groups—this is again the racists of Great Britain—appointed by Tony, I'm sorry, by Morris, and he reports after doing an objective service, and he himself a black person—no, we're not universally racist.

And then all the correct thought stars and the university types and the politicians and most of the newspapers dump him; he's thrown out. The same thing happened to Roland Fryer in Harvard University, who did a statistical study of shootings by police officers and found that more whites proportionately were shot than blacks. He had won the world's top economics prize as a young black man, and yet he got nailed on a sexual harassment idea, but the real provocation behind it was because he reported some good news on the so-called racial front.

Good news is now bad news; good news is racist in itself. There's two people, high stature, high qualifications—both black, both ostracized because they spoke a clear truth against these doctrines. So, where are we, Jordan? My question—I don't know anymore. Maybe we'll close by just reviewing this last section.

So this is in schools in general, and one of the subsection alterations here is not that the minister may establish—that's replaced with the wording the minister shall establish. So this now becomes a requirement that policies and guidelines have to be put in place with respect to promoting racial equity in schools, which must include policies and guidelines respecting training in this racial equity doctrine for all teachers and other staff; resources to support people, teachers, and staff who have been targeted by racism; strategies to support people, teachers, and staff who witness incidents of racism; resources to support them who have engaged in racist behaviors; procedures—this is really a terrible one—procedures that allow pupils, teachers, and staff to report incidents of racism safely and in a way that minimizes the possibility of reprisals.

So there goes facing your accuser, and there goes the presumption of innocence. And that necessitates the establishment of quasi-judicial boards of Inquisition; the use of disciplinary measures within the framework in response to racism, etc., etc., etc. The details that you've outlined here—and again you've done a closer read—but these are, you know, it sounds rhetorical, but it isn't; these are horrifying.

We don't let other people judge other people, and we don't bring in the crowd of self-dedicated, uni-dimensional, predetermined minds on some particular cause then to become judiciary, investigator, punisher, publisher of other people. And we're also building the whole idea of an anti-racism curriculum that is this deep and this obsessional. Is that you are acceding to the thought that the thousands and thousands of Ontario teachers are morally deficient?

They're morally—we have been running a system here, and until we get these new angels of racial purity and start teaching them all about bias and oppression and everything else, the bunch running our schools are either uneducated or bigots. But again, obviously, here's the thing, that more than it—I gotta keep saying it—once you make obsessional and pervasive and saturated the concept of critical racial theory and make that the soul of the educational effort, you have displaced the educational effort.

You are cheating young people, you are cheating their parents, you are lying to them. I would much—I would like to see you just one month that eight or nine Ontario school boards put out something not racist, not about sex, not about transgender, not about environmentalism, but about a damn subject in their schools and how it's getting better.

When was the last time that the educational authorities of this province started firing a bulletin saying, boy, are we teaching better than we've ever taught before? Our students are alive with the hunger for knowledge, and they are ecstatic when they find new adventures in thought! Their minds are growing, their characters are stronger, they love their country!

How that is another one to throw in there! And where, instead of this is this alien, perverse, angry, useless doctrine becoming the central, the cardinal impulse and dynamic of a modern educational system—it is terrible.

Well, Rex, I think that's probably a good note on which to end this rather pessimistic discussion because conservatives and the Liberals, the small-L liberal types, Canadians in general, parents in Ontario and in Canada, take the time to actually read through this bill and think about it, and then to try to ask themselves how in the world we got to this place. That's the big question: how do we get here? How do we get out of it?

Jordan, thank you very much for your time.