Canada’s new moral code: Tyranny masked as compassion
School is back in session and you’re in it. Your compulsory classes include D.E.I., E.S.G. and C.S.R. There’s no sign up sheet for these courses – they come right to you.
They show up in emails from business associates, correspondence from farm organizations, accounting firms, banks, and news outlets. And also, quite significantly, they show up in government policy of the day.
You don’t pay money for these classes but the cost may be high. Whether you know it or not, you’ve been steadily indoctrinated in this curriculum for years.
The abbreviations expand thus: D.E.I. = Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. The stated goal is to ensure a fully diverse blend of ethnic groups, create equal outcomes for all — regardless of effort — and a society and workplace which are totally inclusive and accepting of people based on outward characteristics rather than character.
The purpose is presented as fairness and compassion for those who see themselves as underprivileged, or victims of oppression through the years. Therefore, historical “victimhood” as defined by the victim, leads to preferential treatment.
Because such mandated “fairness” and “compassion” leaves its own trail of victims, some say that tyranny behind a mask of compassion is still tyranny.
E.S.G. sets standards by which an organization’s performance is graded by its Environmental and Social sustainability impact, and whose Governance meets a shifting set of “sustainability principles.” These principles are created by elites that have presumed the authority to create a new moral code by which we all shall live.
As for C.S.R., this education stream will guide your company into Corporate Social Responsibility which places social benefit above profits. It might all seem confusing, but failure to meet the cloudy rules may mean lost investment or business opportunities or losing access to bidding on government contracts.
Do these lessons spill over onto the farm? I recently received an email from a grain handler that included their newest company policy detailing how they now embrace all the rules of D.E.I., E.S.G and C.S.R. Further, if I want to sell them grain, I must respect their policy.
I replied saying I assumed that they had always treated others the same way as they themselves would want to be treated. So if they are going to operate on principles that might change with the politics of the day, it raises questions about the stability of their company. Since I require stability in conducting business, I replied, “Please remove me from your mailing list and customer base.”
Numerous attendees at the September Outdoor Farm Show at Woodstock, spoke of being accosted by University of Guelph students inviting them to fill out a government survey and “win” $20. The survey began with the usual agronomic questions: years in farming, soil tests, fertilizer placement, etc. It also described the process for applying for grants for adopting “clean technology”.
The survey then took a twist and asked about the participant’s political leanings before more questions inquired about their ethnicity, gender identity and finally, sexual preference.
Some will remember when in 1967, then-Justice Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau stated that “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” and the criminal code was loosened to legalize sexual behaviors that were once punishable under Canadian law. However his son, The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, now wants to know what happens in the bedrooms of the nation as requirement for doing business with the federal government.
How so? As a part of the federal government’s Agriculture Clean Technology Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada policy details how certain visible minorities including 2SLGBTQI+ qualify for more grant money than other applicants. “Under-represented groups”, they’re called.
Just a question — why does the government think it has the authority to dictate the conscience of the individual? Do they think they can improve on the fairly famous line from 2,000 year ago: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
One more story from the Outdoor Farm Show. The question was raised as to why some member comments or questions posted on the website of one farm association could be censored after being posted. Of course, there are legitimate reasons for moderation, such as profanity or slander. However, the disappearing comments were none of those. Rather, they questioned the science supporting human impact on climate change or other controversial, climate-carbon belief systems.
“We want to hear all views, but we need to be careful about what we post because we don’t want to put our funding at risk,” the association’s spokesperson admitted, adding that they need to keep their “partners” happy.
Are they the only ones doing that?
One can peddle in lies only for so long, but it appears that our farm groups have enabled this government’s deceptions by failing to represent the full voice of the farmers whose check-off dollars pay their way.
John Schwartzentruber is a Huron County farmer.
