Like, a journalist, especially a freelancer who has to round out the budget, may write an op-ed from time to time... but that op-ed is still not journalism.
Last time I shit-talked the cops for VICE my editor was grilling me on fact checking to the point where I had to cite the exact line in court documents to support an assertion
my last op-ed, the editor just reworded a few clumsy sentences
not the same type of work
So someone who is a full-time opinion columnist is more often than not someone being paid to be wrong, because fact-checking is seldom relevant to their work.
They're printed next to news. They aren't news. (Well, aren't *supposed* to be news anyway).
Like, "that's just your opinion" is categorically not a response you can make to journalism.
That is also connected to the residential schools, a euphemism that perhaps fails to properly capture the incomprehensible cruelty behind these genocidal programs.
But yes, an allegedly developed democracy has an entire class of schools who can just throw up their hands and go "nah" every time the public tries to protect human rights in their systems.
I'm extremely cynical about what's really being said in these cheesy "should trans people have rights" polls, and I'll walk you through a local example as to why.
Back before it was devoured by The Star, a local paper called Metro News conducted a poll they claim was about Bill C-16, a law that amended federal Canadian rights to include gender identity. I say "they claim" because they failed to interpret a very important gap in their data.
They asked first a more general question, along the lines of "do you support adding trans Canadians to human rights law." You'd think answer no to that question would make you look like an asshole, yet a whopping 25% were comfortable saying as much anyway
Euro-colonial cissexism was never a system rooted in logic, trying to use it as a tool to make declarations on validity of identities derived from it is a fool's errand. #TransRational
Rationalism is important, but as is often the case with people who self-identify as rationalists, it's an important ideology being bastardized by people who wouldn't pass a single fucking philosophy essay.
Of course when you put trans identity under the microscope it's not going to make sense. But the exact same is true of cis identity, because the entire pretext of cissexism is convergent folklore, not a meticulous theory of existence. Physician, heal thyself. #TransRational
Now that I think about it, no right-winger has actually justified to me *why* their policies should be imposed against popular will, other than "we won."
Democracy to them isn't a means of achieving consensus, but rather a means of acquiring power to enact their will. They will (and do, and have, repeatedly) cheated in that vein.
Very few Conservative policy positions even have a basic majority (51+%) of popular support. Abortion? Even in the USA it's like 80% who support at least some access, and the ones who want unconditional access outnumber the ones who want it banned 2:1.