News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Perhaps the province should mandate that the schools include study of our system of government so they understand what a constitutional monarchy is.

Civics classes must not be what they used to. When I was in High School back in the early 2000s we learned all about government during the Civics classes (which I believe were mandatory).
 
Perhaps the province should mandate that the schools include study of our system of government so they understand what a constitutional monarchy is.

So far as I can discern, this is still mandatory, I looked it up.

Grade 10 History is listed as a mandatory course; as is a 0.5 credit Civics and Citizenship course.


So then I looked up the 2018 curriculum


1663332864642.png

1663332977204.png
 

Why are Canadian youth so weak spined. What the hell is this triggering?
I don't think it is necessarily children that are sensitive. It is a school of thought that took hold in academia and has spread. The only thing is that trigger/content warnings, safe spaces, etc. are not well-grounded in evidence as beneficial. Evidence suggests that exposure improves resiliency and well-being.

I am of two minds. I think microaggressions, for instance, are a real thing. It is something we should be aware of and try to avoid inflicting on others (they are generally rude). On the other hand, people should be able to brush off such microaggressions--I do it myself all the time.
 
I don't think it is necessarily children that are sensitive. It is a school of thought that took hold in academia and has spread. The only thing is that trigger/content warnings, safe spaces, etc. are not well-grounded in evidence as beneficial. Evidence suggests that exposure improves resiliency and well-being.

Not unlike what has been learned about allergies; that introducing small amounts of allergens early in life, increases resilience, in general. There will always be those among us who react severely, and out of proportion to something, be that an allergen, or an idea; but for the vast majority, more exposure is better over time.

I am of two minds. I think microaggressions, for instance, are a real thing. It is something we should be aware of and try to avoid inflicting on others (they are generally rude). On the other hand, people should be able to brush off such microaggressions--I do it myself all the time.

Likewise, I'm a fan of being polite, and pleasant and respectful; and being on the receiving end of same. But one can't have the maximum reaction to every possible, or real slight. It causes the receiver more harm to react that way than anyone else, on average; but is also socially harmful.

It allows one to take small slights, some intentional, some not; and make them into something that matters, at a level they never did.
 
Last edited:
The initial point of YRDSB's choice was from what I'm told by teacher friends, a two-part thing, but the primary part was:

1) Not mentioning the Queen's death was a consideration made for young kids who may have lost family members during the pandemic.

A bunch of old people die, we act like nothing happen and want to "go back to normal". Another old person dies, we make a huge stink about it. See the problem there, especially for kids not old enough to really understand why we live under a monarchy?

2) Bringing up imperialism was secondary, and only if students *asked* about it.
 
I don't think it is necessarily children that are sensitive. It is a school of thought that took hold in academia and has spread. The only thing is that trigger/content warnings, safe spaces, etc. are not well-grounded in evidence as beneficial. Evidence suggests that exposure improves resiliency and well-being.

I am of two minds. I think microaggressions, for instance, are a real thing. It is something we should be aware of and try to avoid inflicting on others (they are generally rude). On the other hand, people should be able to brush off such microaggressions--I do it myself all the time.
Absolutely. Trying to protect people from what is essentially a fact of life is ultimately harmful. It doesn't have to be something as traumatic as death. There are all sorts of 'bad things' that happen in life, caused by other people or just life, and people need to learn to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Obviously, in an educational setting, how it is presented and handled needs to be age appropriate, but to shield everybody from the world because it might be 'triggering' to some is not healthy.

Every kid who grew up on a farm know death. I lost my mom at age 12. Traumatic at the time, sure; but life moved on. I see this lack of social resiliency all the time manifested in so many ways large and small.

Imagine growing up in London, or Berlin, or any of the other communities who were exposed to nightly bombing during WWII, or the citizens of occupied Europe as their towns became the front lines. To come out the other side of that is a lesson in resilience. My step-mom lived through it all in Greater London (and still enjoyed the Air Show btw).
 
Absolutely. Trying to protect people from what is essentially a fact of life is ultimately harmful. It doesn't have to be something as traumatic as death. There are all sorts of 'bad things' that happen in life, caused by other people or just life, and people need to learn to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Obviously, in an educational setting, how it is presented and handled needs to be age appropriate, but to shield everybody from the world because it might be 'triggering' to some is not healthy.

We're talking about children though. Does a 5 year old kindergartener need to be taught the realities of death with the example of a woman they never knew? Most kids don't realize death's permanence until the age of 7.

But above all that, curiosity in the younger ages ultimately leads to follow up questions, and I can't imagine a certain group of parents being all too pleased at any answer given when the first kid asks "so what happens after we die?".

Lets please remember the memorandum wasn't "don't talk about the death of the queen", but “perhaps try and avoid starting the conversation” (literal quote). Let the kids initiate it.

There's a big difference there and a lot of people are reacting like YRDSB was telling teachers not to talk about it at all.

Every kid who grew up on a farm know death.

I say this as a kid who did grow up on a farm—school assemblies and class projects don't happen when bessie gets sent to a slaughterhouse.

The last couple of years has been extremely traumatic for kids, even those who didn't lose someone due to Covid. Anxiety and depression rates are through the roof, school psychologists are creating waiting lists and the school systems don't have the resources to deal with half the cases, let alone all.
 
We're talking about children though. Does a 5 year old kindergartener need to be taught the realities of death with the example of a woman they never knew? Most kids don't realize death's permanence until the age of 7.

I attended funerals when younger than that.

I'm going to come back to points above; you develop that ability to deal w/trauma by dealing w/trauma. In the grand scheme of the things, the death of someone you've never met, and have no emotional attachment to, is not
particularly traumatic.

***

Really, I'm not at all religious; but I did grow up in Church in my earliest years hearing stories of human sacrifice of your own child, the murder of 'the son of God'........and the stories of plagues that killed millions.

We really must stop over-dramatizing things.

But above all that, curiosity in the younger ages ultimately leads to follow up questions, and I can't imagine a certain group of parents being all too pleased at any answer given when the first kid asks "so what happens after we die?".

A) I don't care what the parents think.

B) The appropriate answer is "I don't know, I've never died"; "lots of people believe lots of different things; talk to your parents."

Lets please remember the memorandum wasn't "don't talk about the death of the queen", but “perhaps try and avoid starting the conversation” (literal quote). Let the kids initiate it.

It still overstates the risk of this conversation. There are children in many GTA schools who were products of the Syrian Civil War....... This is nothing.

I'm not even Monarchist, and would be the first to accept an argument that Monarchy in Canada should be abolished. I'd also be happy to discuss how some deaths are given much greater publicity and apparent gravity than they merit.

Be that as it may; I won't entertain the argument of broadly preventing trauma in this case.

The last couple of years has been extremely traumatic for kids, even those who didn't lose someone due to Covid. Anxiety and depression rates are through the roof, school psychologists are creating waiting lists and the school systems don't have the resources to deal with half the cases, let alone all.

The trauma is over-stated. Most kids did not lose anyone to Covid from a statistical point of view.

Yes, some kids did see their mental health deteriorate, because of social isolation.

Which, we ought to have done less of, particularly for kids.

Be that as it may, having kids return to school only to be shielded from discussions that aren't even remotely traumatic on the risk that they might be for some students is bizarre.

Elementary kids, every year participate in Remembrance Day Ceremonies which are all about dead people; millions of them. They even go around putting fake poppies on and listening to the lament of Flanders Fields, and
and hearing mournful trumpeting.

Kids can be resilient if you let them; the first key to which is building up their tolerance to tough things, which frankly, to most or all them, this is not.
 
Last edited:
The direction from the government was for a "moment of silence and running activities to learn about her reign". Sounds pretty benign to me. I truly do not get the direction from the York board specifically to not play God Save the Queen (which, most properly, should be God Save the King but I doubt a recorded version would be available yet). Quite frankly, from what I've heard out of the York board over the past couple of years, I not surprised. Christmas (virgin birth), Remembrance Day, Easter (death . . . and resurrection) Thanksgiving (colonialism) and Halloween must give them apoplexy. Even Canada Day - there must be somebody out there who is triggered by the sight of the flag.
 
The direction from the government was for a "moment of silence and running activities to learn about her reign". Sounds pretty benign to me. I truly do not get the direction from the York board specifically to not play God Save the Queen (which, most properly, should be God Save the King but I doubt a recorded version would be available yet). Quite frankly, from what I've heard out of the York board over the past couple of years, I not surprised. Christmas (virgin birth), Remembrance Day, Easter (death . . . and resurrection) Thanksgiving (colonialism) and Halloween must give them apoplexy. Even Canada Day - there must be somebody out there who is triggered by the sight of the flag.
It's funny that since the 'freedom' types have taken to draping themselves in the flag, some people have shied away from showing the maple leaf for fear of being taken the wrong way - be done with that. Heck, the other day, I even wore my Union Jack tee shirt !
 
Last edited:
It's funny that since the 'freedom' types have taken to draping themselves in the flag, some people have shied away from showing the maple leaf for fear of being taken the wrong way - be done with that. Heck, the other day, I even wore my Union Jack tee shirt !
It's true. Whenever I see a vehicle, usually a truck, flying the national flag my mind now tends to make assumptions. I have a great cool weather coat with a flag and 'true north, strong and free' and am waiting for the weather to turn (the only reason I'm waiting for the weather to turn!)).
 
Ok.......so its been awhile since the Ford government has announced something I can completely support.

But today was such a day.

The province is moving to formally protect Alfred Bog as a Provincial Park.

This is a very rare habitat with all sorts of rare species just outside the City of Ottawa.

The news release indicates they will be protecting 3,000 hectares which is 7,500 acres.


This will the first new Provincial Park since Ford took power, the last being created in 2017.

Photo below, credit embedded:

1663872106197.png

source: https://thereview.ca/2021/10/21/province-continues-planning-provincial-park-for-alfred-bog/

1663872245581.png


To get a sense of where this is:

1663872322491.png

source: https://thereview.ca/2022/02/03/82-additional-hectares-of-alfred-bog-will-be-protected/
 
Last edited:
We knew that the Province's fiscal position would be better than the government has let on...

We've seen other provinces come in with massive fiscal turnarounds, the majority in surplus territory.......

Well, the Ontario public accounts are now out for last year.


Ontario had budgeted last year's deficit at ~33B.

When this year's Budget came out, they said it was down to 18.8 B

They were off a wee bit.

Ontario's deficit last year, now that the books are closed..............ZERO; or perhaps more accurately, they closed last fiscal year with a 2.6B surplus.

Depending on where you wish to count from, that's either a miss of 35B and change or a more modest 21B and change.

Either way........always an important reminder to look for loose change under the couch cushions, it can add up!
 
Skimming provincial press releases:

Thank goodness we have a government committed to tackling the housing affordability/homelessness crisis:

1664471966016.png

Really.............if that is all you accomplished, in a province with a 200 Billion Dollar annual budget.......... don't brag.
 

Back
Top