Shocking anti-white bias of taxpayer-funded help service which fired brave staffer who stood up to non-binary bully

A taxpayer-funded agency set up to help vulnerable Canadians has an anti-white bias and hired a non-binary lawyer who helped intimidate one of its employees, it is alleged.

Nick Osmond-Jones worked for the British Columbia ombudsman for 11 years, but was fired after he leaked slides of a woke lecture in which he claimed Canada inspired the Holocaust.

In a long article for QuilletteOsmond-Jones, a married father of four, describes how he believed the service was changing before his eyes. The service was set up to address complaints from ordinary Canadians who felt they were being mistreated by public services, but ended up as an Orwellian, equity-obsessed nightmare, Osmond-Jones claims.

“When I started my career, the commitment to impartiality and nonpartisanship seemed universal. Discussion of personal politics was generally avoided at work. I could collaborate with people on extended projects without ever learning their personal ideological views,” Osmond-Jones begins.

“But as the years passed, things began to change. While the goal was once to treat the people of British Columbia on an equal and impartial basis, a wave of policy changes and training sessions that channeled questionable offshoots of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) began to promote the idea that people should be treated differently based on their identity.”

Osmond-Jones is not a right-winger. He started his career as a welder and enjoyed his job, but says he quit because he feared it would make climate change worse.

He says he was working at the Canadian Ministry of Health in Victoria when the department suddenly expanded access for patients with gender dysphoria.

He assumed that such treatments were only for adults and that strict safety measures had to be taken before they were approved, but he soon discovered that in fact there were no restrictions whatsoever.

In adults, genital surgeries were performed with little to no review, including ‘gender-affirming’ mastectomies. Puberty-blocking drugs were also prescribed to children, despite little evidence that they were safe or effective.

“There was mounting evidence that the government agency was no longer basing its decisions on the available evidence, but was increasingly acting on ideological considerations or out of fear of falling foul of the ideological puritans,” Osmond-Jones said.

But when he started as ombudsman, everything changed.

Osmond-Jones had hoped that this job would allow him to investigate complaints from Canadians without any ideological bias, but that turned out not to be the case.

Complaints originating from a member of a “group entitled to equality” were placed on top of the pile.

It was explained that anyone who was non-white or who checked a box identifying as one of the many subvariants of LGBT would automatically be given priority, regardless of the nature or urgency of their complaints.

‘When one of my colleagues pointed out that this would increase waiting times for other complainants who might have equally (or even more urgent) issues, this concern was dismissed as a form of “binary thinking”,’ Osmond-Jones writes.

During a training session attended by more than 100 other employees, Adrienne Smith, a well-known trans activist from the Vancouver area who is a woman and identifies as non-binary, explained that she believes “gender is not binary and claiming it is binary is a form of colonial thinking.”

Smith told listeners on the Zoom call that public officials should make decisions based on their self-identified gender identity, not their sex.

Osmond-Jones disagreed with what Smith was proposing and attempted to refute her comments.

“I noticed that a lot of people think that some policies should be based on sex, not gender, but they’re afraid to say that. I wanted to ask her how we can have the difficult conversations that we need to have so that we can move forward on these issues,” he explained.

But the loyal government official was not given a chance to explain himself and instead received a lecture from Smith, who called his remarks racist and called him a “signal to those who seek the genocide of transgender people.”

After being humiliated, Osmond-Jones got into further trouble and was was summoned to speak with the deputy ombudsman, who explained that he had to promise to respect the human rights of people who complained to the office.

Although Osmond-Jones insisted he had not said anything hateful or even offensive, he was told his comments had nevertheless been “interpreted” as hateful and that he should undergo training in communicating respectfully.

“It was now clear that I was trapped in a workplace whose values ​​I no longer respected and, perhaps more importantly, were at odds with the objectivity that should characterize our work,” he wrote.

The final straw came when Osmond-Jones was accused of leaking slides from a presentation that had been posted on the office’s intranet.

It was argued that ‘capitalism is a system of oppression that can be compared to a disease; Western cultures are based on ego and domination, while indigenous cultures are based on unity and cooperation.’

There was a list of banned terms, with suggestions for replacement words, and acceptable substitutes.

The slide suggested, among other things, that the word “pristine” should be replaced with “beautiful,” that “tribe” should be called “community,” and that “artifacts” should be called “possessions and heirlooms.”

It was also suggested that white supremacy had a number of characteristics, including good manners, punctuality and neutrality.

After Osmond-Jones quit his job in the public sector, he took a job that was the opposite of what he had been doing. He went to work for a tree-care company, shaping hedges and pruning trees using chainsaws.

The work was satisfying in a way, but offered few benefits or free time. So since January 2023, he has been running his own business, free from government bureaucracy or other imposed dogmas.

‘Suffice it to say that I earn good money, maintain my self-esteem and have enough time and energy to provide for my family. I live my life on my own terms and enjoy it, partly because I am now free to express my opinions in accordance with my conscience,’ Osmond-Jones writes, filled with relief.