Debate and classroom discussion topics
Please review each article prior to use: grade-level applicability and curricular alignment might not be obvious from the headline alone.
Combat in the classroom: Many Manitoba public school teachers are concerned violence is making their jobs more difficult
9 minute read Preview Friday, May. 22, 2026Judge to determine if dismissal of man’s filing against police was unreasonable
5 minute read Preview Friday, May. 22, 2026Planning for an electric future — now
5 minute read Friday, May. 22, 2026The shift away from fossil fuels to an electrified economy will advantage those who strongly invest in renewables.
Alberta is to vote on whether to hold a separation referendum. Here’s how we got here
3 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 12, 2026CRTC triples streamers’ financial contributions to Canadian content
4 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 12, 2026Is demographic collapse a good idea?
5 minute read Preview Thursday, May. 21, 2026Time for change? Province launches survey to review clock changes
5 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Premier has everyone’s attention on and about social media; now it’s time for some careful thought
5 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Words matter
4 minute read Wednesday, May. 20, 2026I have been following with interest the media’s reporting of the ban in Manitoba’s Legislative Assembly on the use of the words racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist and transphobe to call out hateful speech. The stated goal of the ban is “to improve House decorum.”
I’ve appreciated the fulsome coverage of this issue in the Free Press through the publishing of editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor. I was in particular struck by Premier Wab Kinew’s comments during his May 7 monthly interview with Marcy Markusa on CBC Radio.
Kinew’s strong opposition to the ban raises a critical question: How do we keep democratic civil society alive while silencing the calling out of discriminatory language and behaviour? Of course we can’t. By confusing decorum with silence we run the risk of contributing to a “head in the sand” mindset; to what American journalist and activist Barbara Ehrenreich referred to as a “Smile or Die” culture.
But then a followup question emerges: How do we effectively voice our legitimate dissent in ways that move us towards correcting discriminatory practices? A “no holds barred” approach to voicing our opposition may not be the answer. It’s all too easy to slip into shaming people by lobbing ad hominem/ad feminam attacks across partisan lines.
Designated encampments are a poor solution
5 minute read Wednesday, May. 20, 2026The overall shrinking of public space and degradation of the policy environment on use of public space is contributing to people experiencing homelessness being less safe — and contributing to interest in ideas like designated encampments. Unfortunately, this direction fails to centre the interests of people living unhoused. Further, we forget too easily that any consideration of land use on Treaty 1 land needs to start with historic claims and ancestral rights.
Among people experiencing homelessness, Indigenous people are overrepresented. Many people are living unsheltered on their own ancestral territories. Having endured intergenerational theft that started with land (transferred to settlers whose descendants now enjoy generational wealth), and continued with limits on movement, ability to make money, access to education and more, they are now actively surviving homelessness. Yet, the limits on their person continue.
Recent years have seen the closure and limits on use of public space throughout the downtown and broader city. These include Portage Place mall, the Millennium Library and Winnipeg Transit, and previously through the closure of downtown single-room occupancy hotels and their barrooms.
For some time, the city has been telegraphing an intention to limit access to outdoor public space according to housing status. At every opportunity, those cautioning against this move have raised the problem of limiting those with ancestral rights, and further limiting free movement of citizens on public land. The latter has been decided through B.C. legal process, and suggests the City of Winnipeg’s exposure to risk as it moves forward.