Earlier in the week Premier Notley said “… under no circumstances will we enforce or condone a sexual health curriculum that normalizes an absence of consent,” but did not provide a reference to what she took issue with in the proposed Catholic Curriculum. As was discovered after her statements, this was because there was nothing in the curriculum to have given her the impression that absence of consent was being taught.
Last Wednesday the 25th, I shared on my facebook page Jason’s Kenney’s defense of the Catholic Curriculum, and I mentioned how Notley had brought up consent, and I wished for some clarification from her on what idea of consent should be taught. I’ve since spent the better part of a week reading comments of hate for Catholic Education, and rebutting accusations that I was spreading fake news. The premier of Alberta can insinuate that Catholic’s want to teach that rape is OK, based on literally nothing, but ask her to explain her idea of ‘consent’ and suddenly, you are the bad guy.
Why is Notley’s idea of consent important? Well during the brouhaha, Notley also said “Parents have the right — and they have had the right for a very, very long time — to pull their kids from curriculum and education around sexual health. And they will continue to have that right.” I found that statement interesting, as it is clearly not true, and her own government is working on removing a parents right to know. CHAT wanted to make sure that was very clear during municipal elections. It also seems interesting that Notley brought up ‘opt-out’ while talking about ‘consent.’ Parental consent seems to be important enough to her definition to bring it up at the same time.
It is very clear that Notley and the NDP have a completely different idea of what consent means, after all, she thinks the Catholic’s idea is that it is ok to force your spouse. What does she base that on? Clearly not anything written in the proposed catholic curriculum. She also doesn’t think parental consent for 5-17 year old’s is necessary to instruct kids on things as complex as transgenderism, Eggen is planning to put that all through the curriculum, so opting out is no longer going to be an option. So how does Notley define consent? Who gets to give it? According to Eggen, the student. (IE the CHILD) Is Notley’s idea the same as Eggen’s? We are left only to speculate. Well, let’s hope it doesn’t line up with Sweden’s. After all, Sweden’s is the holy grail of tolerance and diversity. (A couple of other words that Notley needs to define her understanding of.)
I’ve taken a few days since the election to rest, and collect my thoughts. Obviously I am disappointed that I was not selected to represent your values and interests to Alberta Education. Although 2435 votes is nothing to shake a stick at, the simple fact is that I didn’t get the necessary votes. Considering the highest voted board member got 5585, I do think that is a significant voice. A 43.6% voice when compared to the the highest vote. More than enough votes to ..cough.. get a petition accepted.
So the question is, “Where do we go from here?” Policy 621 still expects children to obey the school code of conduct at home, and will punish any teacher that will not report alleged violations. Policy 622 still puts children at risk by refusing to tell the children the truth about the health risks of transgenderism, and the obvious fallacies and lies of gender identity politics.
We know that, at least at present, 622 also ignores the law, and willfully and intentionally applies an illegal idea of confidentiality between students and teachers as young as 5. We also know that the newly elected trustees advocated that they were just following a non-existent law, that Minister David Eggen has as yet not even tabled in legislature. We know that newly elected trustees consider parents to be fear mongers, and that according to at least one of the trustees, who stated this publicly to about 200 people, charter and home schooling is the reason public education is falling behind.
Given that a majority of the elected trustees spoke of how they were going to ask the children how they think they should be educated, and that “you[the children] know best what you need.” Given that 99.9% of the people I spoke to during the campaign were not in favour of the direction of public education, and are not secretly trying to undermine public education by homeschooling or sending their kids to private school. Given the tenuous definition expressed during the campaign of what constitutes bullying. It appears to me that parents concerns have not be calmed. If anything, it appears like they have been amplified, and are not likely to be dealt with, unless someone mediates for them. The irony is, that is what the Board is supposed to do.
During the course of the campaign, I heard a number of alarming stories of concerns being ignored. One such story played out at the ATA Forum, with a mother asking how to contact the board, since when she had a question about placing her special needs child, the only response she got was “this isn’t Wallmart.” I can only speculate as to what that response was supposed to mean, or what the whole context was, but what I did learn, was that parents with concerns over 621 and 622, are not the only parents who have been exasperated by the system.
Like I’ve stated many times before, my role has always been about bringing parents concerns to the board, and making sure they are genuinely heard. making sure communication is open, transparent, and honest. That is why I submitted the petition, that is why I took it to court, that is why I set up this website and made it available for anyone to contribute, and that is why I ran for School Board.
Some have disagreed with my methods. Some have even been angry, and lashed out, but here is harsh truth. Facts don’t care about feelings. The fact is, there are some serious problems with district policy and procedures. There are some serious problems with how special needs children are being ‘included’ in classes. There are some serious problems with bullying and the definition and understanding of bullying, and there are some serious problems with the extent of fiduciary duty. These problems are not going to be fixed by attacking the people who bring them up, and they will not be fixed by changing laws so that people can no longer talk or know about them.
What can fix the problems, is openly and fairly talking about them. What can fix them is educating schools and councils on what their roles are. What can fix them is working with parents, and allowing them to be included.
So that brings me to what I plan on doing next. Yes, I do plan on continuing to attend the regular public board meetings, (at least for the near future.) The next one is tomorrow, the 24th of October @6pm by the way. Would be nice to see some others come out. (I’ll post the agenda separately.) Beyond the board meetings and their summaries, I’ll be making some changes to the CPoSD76 site over the next few weeks.
With the help of some of the other concerned parents, we will be moving into a more of an advocacy role. I will follow up with some of the individuals who I spoke with that had concerns, and see if the CPoSD76 can’t work with them to see some kind of resolution to the issues between them and the Board. I will also be putting up forms, where electorate can submit issues/concerns that they feel have note been resolved, or adequately addressed by the district. There may possibly also be guides setup to help parents and school councils understand school policies, and the appropriate channels they need to follow, as well as knowing the limits of school authority and parental responsibility.
The next four years will be about holding the board accountable, helping parents navigate the system, and making sure parents stay up to date with the direction of the district and Alberta Education as a whole.
Thank you to the people who have visited this site 190,000 times since April, and are staying abreast with the truth of what is going in Public education in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, & the world. Thank you to the 2434 people who put their trust in me to oversee public education in Medicine Hat. Your vote for me has given me strength to keep up the race. We are not at the finish line yet.
Some Points to ponder:
1. In Australia, the program was called “Safe Schools” | In SD76 it is called “Safe and Caring”
2. In Australia “professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.” | In SD76 under Policy 622 you can not present non-affirming evidence to students, and we saw a teacher threatened by administration even before the policy was passed.
Safe schools/Safe and Caring do not protect children from the harm that comes to them from ‘transitioning’, nor does it ALLOW for children to develop naturally. As has been noted in multiple articles “around 90%” of children with ‘gender disphoria’ grow out of it during puberty, or when removed from an environment that is imposing the abusive idea upon them.
I ask you to please Vote on October 16th for candidates who stand for biological fact, and for the true protection of children from this perverse and abusive teaching. Candidates who have the courage to put fact based principles above political dogma, and who are not intimidated by threats from those that wish to break ties between children and their parents in favor of a debunked theory.
39% In Favor of returning to court.
61% Wish to focus on elections.
I respect the will of the people, and I too believe that the most important thing to focus on right now, is getting people on the school board who respect the authority and rights of parents to be involved with their children’s education. As one parent put it, “the lines of communication are down.” Just like I told the Secretary last September, my role is and always has been to restoring communication with parents. From my attempts to record proceedings, to my speaking up to the board, and to my taking the petition to appeal.
Given that the Secretary and Board had clear instructions to accept a copy of amended signatures from the Justice, and they have chosen not do so, it is evident to me and a majority of voters who signed the petition, that returning to court will not repair the lines of communication. I do understand the reasons why so many voted to go back to court. The Board, through allies in the media, have essentially maligned the electorate on the petition. They have portrayed the signatories as if they could not get the support for their position, and that they were unable to file a correct petition, when that is clearly not the case.
Should any of those signatories who voted in favor of returning to court wish to pick up the banner, and pursue an appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, I will provide all necessary documents and evidence needed to do so. I support their right to do so, and I understand why they may want to. I will however point my focus on rebuilding the lines of communication, through the election of candidates that support parental authority, educational choice, and quality curriculum.
(For consistency and ease of understanding in this post I will be using the numbers that the Secretary used when discussing the number of signatures on the petition. There is some disparity between the numbers that I hold to and what the Secretary holds to, but in the grand scheme of things, those small differences would have no affect on the final outcome.)
On August 14, 2017, Secretary Jerry Lebossiere of SD#76 rejected an amendment to the petition I submitted in September, 2016. His excuse for rejecting it was that he could not accept any of the 121 signatures that had had their addresses corrected. In his rejection letter the secretary stated that “These addresses are not set out opposite to an original signature but are simply written in over the photocopied signatures,” and that “as Secretary Treasurer I have no discretion to permit the inclusion of names on a petition that do not comply with the requirements.” Additionally when the Secretary rejected the initial amendment of the petition on July 7th, he set out a an expiry for the petition of July 21, 2017.
When I took the petition to appeal on March 10, 2017, I did so seeking clarification on the act, as well as I contested the rejection of 259 signatures that had listed only a Postal Code, and did not include the street address. Through the proceedings on March 10th, Justice Tilleman made it clear that a copy was sufficient for the amendment. From The Court Transcript: “Okay, so her[secretary’s legal council] last words were the secretary is absolutely willing to evaluate fairly any petition that is re-filed or resubmitted, so, I mean, I take that to mean for example if you used a photocopy of the previous that someone, in an affidavit, certifies is the true copy, and the secretary says no, I’m not going to accept that, you’ll be back in court and I wouldn’t be very happy. It’s going to be accepted.” The Justice earlier in the conversation stating “…then you would need addresses on the 259 so you’re 100 [this is rounded] short, sounds to me like you’ve collected other names, assuming you want to go the (b) route,…” To top it all off, the Secretary’s legal council said, in her own words, “There’s no time limit on the petition names, there’s nothing that says that their name is on the petition for only a set period of time”
Taking the rest of the transcript into context, it is clear to me that the Justice gave the Secretary clear latitude to accept amended address on a copy, and also expected him to accept it, and the district freely told the Justice that we had no deadline/expiry on signatures. I will admit that I did not give a sworn copy of the petition sheets. I did however use the copy that was given to me by his legal council during the appeal proceedings, and red ink was used to indicate clearly which lines had been amended. The secretary did not contest that the pages were not a true copy, he contested that he had no way of knowing if the addressed were true. In affect insinuating that I or others had committed fraud, and made up the addresses. I might add, he provided no proof for his accusation.
In an effort to calm the Secretary’s concerns, on the 21 of August, 2017, I e-mailed the secretary outlining my objection to his rejection of the 121 corrected address. I offered to provide him with sworn affidavits from the individuals who had collected the address information on the 121 addresses. I requested that he inform me by the 23rd of August whether he would accept that, and there by accept the petition. As of the 25 he has not. And so, just like in October of 2016, he refused to provide clarifications in a timely fashion.
That brings me to the point of this post. I am ready to go back to court. I am ready to swear under oath, and before the God of heaven and earth that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. I stand by the petition, and I stand by the amendment and that it fulfilled all the requirements necessary to be accepted by the Secretary. I am ready to defend that position before a Justice once again. I however will do what the people would prefer. The accusations against me mean nothing, as I and those who know me, know they have no truth to them, so I don’t need to clear my name in court. (Although I would be ok if it were officially cleared. I’m good either way.)
I’m posting to put it to a vote. To you the people. On Monday, if the vote is in favour, I will file at the Court of Queens Bench once again. If I file, a ‘speak to’ date will be set by the Clerk. At which a justice will weigh the merrits of the appeal, and will determine if I have sufficient grounds to appeal. So, by filing on Monday, it does not confirm that it will go to appeal. It may get thrown out. (Looking through the transcript, I find that highly unlikely.) If it isn’t thrown out, I believe we have a very strong case.
Given that the election is mere weeks away, and we might have a different Board after October 16, I want to give everyone the opportunity to state if they think court would be a worth while endeavor. As I’ve done from the beginning, I will do what the people wish for me to do.
Votes will be closed 8pm Sunday August 27th, 2017.
The voting is closed. Results will be posted tomorrow.
I want to just remind parents of children in SD76, that what is happening at the Rocklin Academy School is exactly how currently written procedures in SD76 would handle a similar incident in SD76. There is no age appropriateness set in SD76, and therefor there is no clemency for young children who may find themselves afoul of the ludicrous assertion that they have bullied a fellow 6 year old if they ‘misgender’ them.
The Secretary and the Board have made it very clear through the petition process that the letter of the law is the standard by which they judge, not the intent or the purpose.
This article shows EXACTLY what David Eggen has asked all school districts to allow. SD76 has written in black and white both policy and procedure to permit this to go on in Medicine Hat. This is the essence of what the CPoSD76 are fighting. What this teacher did in California is the very definition of Sexual Interference and Abuse. As policy is written right now in SD76, it would be allowed, even encouraged, and there is nothing that you as a parent would be allowed to do about it. Not even if 2500 of you signed a petition wishing to express your concern. THAT is why the CPoSD76 are considering taking SD76 back to court. If your elected representative doesn’t care to hear from 1/3 to 1/2 of those who would vote in an election, you have a SERIOUS democratic and human rights issue on your hands.
When a block of voters the size of those that signed the petition circulated by the CPoSD76 are being ignored, it evidentially shows that “Children First” does not mean what you think it means. “Children First” means ripping children out from under parental oversight and authority, and either placing them under the ‘care’ of unqualified admin who think it is their right to traumatize children with deeply disturbing adult cultural trends, or asking these immature, undeveloped children how they think they should be educated. “Children First” means the children are in charge.
Your authority as a parent is under attack. Not just in Alberta, at a provincial level, but at a district level. For all the talk of ‘meeting’ with concerned parents;
SD76 has had 18 months to clarify these issues, and we have seen none. Sure I might have been told one or two answers personally, but according to CHAT and SD76’s Chairman, I’ve defamed them, so why would they make it my job to inform parents of what their position is. Again, according to them, I can’t accurately convey their position. Besides, aren’t public statements the Chairman’s job?
Way back in March 2016 I referred to the study undertaken in Sweden that is mentioned in the above link. I even told Trustees in SD76 about it. The response? Crickets. When I say Policy 622 endorses abuse, I mean it. Pushing Transgenderism on children, and forcing School Staff to accept it unquestionably, is without a doubt, child abuse. Death is a real probable outcome to lying to a child that they can change their gender. To promote such a policy, and to refuse to acknowledge the risks, or hear counter arguments is, like I said, the very definition of bigotry. Anti-bullying policies are laudable, but they must prevent bullying of all types, and can not dictate a forced acceptance of reckless and dangerous behaviours or believes. In such a case, the bullied become the bully and adherence is out of fear, not acceptance or understanding. Is that what we want our children to learn? To fear those that are different to them? Policies like 622 are not combating ‘transphobia,’ they are creating it. Except it isn’t an irrational fear, it is a justified fear that any wrong pronoun used, or out of context comment can ruin your life, as the LGBT™ inquisition will come down on you without mercy, compassion, logic, or reason. They will come and beat you into submission through school district endorsed courts of ‘social justice’. They will label you for the rest of your life as an LGBT™ ‘hater,’ make you take ‘sensitivity’ training at re-education centers, and exclude you from any prestigious higher education. These are not exaggerations, these are actions that have actually been taken against people who question the LGBT™. You have to look no further than the ridiculous accusations against me by the media. Any and all resistance must be silenced with extreme prejudice. Let’s get back to the table, and discuss a policy that provides real direction and protection for ALL children from ALL kinds of bullying.
If you think the Guidelines to Best Practices were written with young children in mind, or for their emotional, intellectual, and physical development, think Again. The ‘Gender Unicorn’ is derived from hard left intersectional (feminist) social ‘theory,’ and is written as a ‘diversity’ course for TA’s. It cares not for what is best for your child’s development, and (intersectionality) seeks to destroy the family as a founding goal. Below is a video of the actions of the kinds of people who developed it, and lists it’s use as a required course for TA’s in Minnesota.
Skip to 16:30 for the part specifically about the ‘Gender Unicorn’
In the Bible, there is a proverb which states, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.” – Proverbs 13:24 (NIV) Now, if you will excuse the pun, this is a proverb that has been beaten into the minds of generations upon generations of children in the west. While most commonly used in the debate about corporal punishment, there is another aspect that is usually overlooked. That of it being a proverb.
What is a proverb, and how does that change the significance of that quote? Well, for starters, a proverb, according to dictionary.com, is “a short popular saying, usually of unknown and ancient origin, that expresses effectively some commonplace truth or useful thought; adage; saw.” In other words, a proverb is a commonly understood principle or truth, put to words, as succinctly as possible. While I am sure some inane person is probably trying to figure out some way of reading into this post that I am endorsing the beating of a child,(which I am NOT endorsing,) I will actually be trying to explain the principle of Proverbs 13:24, and how it ties into Bill 10.
Some of you may be wondering how this ties into the Concerned Parents, or thinking to yourself, “Here it comes, the appeal to higher authority,” but hopefully you will see how it ties in as you read, and I am not going to argue the principle in Proverbs is true, you can determine that for yourself. I am simply going to explain what the principle of the proverb is.
The principle of the proverb, as I understand it, is that a person who does not discipline their child, does not actually love them, but in fact hates them. I’m sure some are aghast at the suggestion, but I’m sure each of you can think of a spoiled child that is heading down a bad path because of the spoiled actions they engage in. Think on what spoils a child. Being given everything they ask for? Consoling public outbursts as understandable and acceptable? Failing to correct the child when they do wrong? Putting the child in charge? Now consider, knowing the causes of a spoiled child, yet willfully committing to those actions anyway, with every child in the Province.
To use a modern term, the book of Proverbs “doubles down” on the statement that not disciplining your children is to hate them. The author states it a bit further on, in Proverbs 19:18 (NIV), “Discipline your children, for in that there is hope;do not be a willing party to their death.” The author is implying that to not discipline your child, is to be responsible for their death. Pretty strong words, but we have a modern word that could be applied, “negligence.” One could say, “;do not let their death be a result of your negligence.”
Imagine encouraging your child to run into traffic, to dive into a shallow pool, or climb an electrical pole. Obviously you would be responsible for their deaths. Sure they might make it through life unscathed, but chances are, they will not. Ok, well now imagine telling your child to go shower next to a 40 year old male stranger, who thinks they are a female.(Guidelines to Best Practices [GTBP]) Imagine telling your child that they should engage in anal fisting. (Alberta GSA) Imagine telling your 5 year old to go play with their genitals in their bedroom.(Sex Ed, Ont, BC, and you can count on it coming to AB) Imagine telling your child, as young as 12, to engage in sexual intercourse with as many males or females as are willing, but just use a condom.(Sex Ed) Finally, imagine telling your 6 year old child that they should sterilize themselves with chemical hormones, cut out their genitals and replace them with plastic, and join a community with a 50% suicide rate. (Policy 622, and GTBP)
Any adult who endorses (silent endorsement, is still endorsement) the practices listed above is through negligence responsible for the harm or death that can and does come to a child as a result of those actions. Every STD/I, every pregnancy and abortion, every rectal surgery, every ruined relationship, every life doomed to poverty, and every suicide hangs around the neck like a giant millstone of the adult who didn’t discipline the children in their care away from those practices. Alberta has a discipline problem, and it will never be fixed as long as Bill 10 stays as it is. Doesn’t matter if you are in the the repeal or the amend camp, something must be done, or our children’s future will be bleak, and full of death.
As I’m sure most of you are aware, (if you are not, have someone give your head a shake,) children are immature physically, mentally, and emotionally, and that is the reason there are minimum ages on so many activities. Children lack wisdom, and intelligence. Physical or emotional maturity does mean they are wise, or have great intelligence. A child may express wisdom beyond their years in one area of life, but that does not mean they are wise in all areas of life. They are not adept in any field, and lack experience. This is why a child starts with no responsibility, and graduates to independence and full responsibility.
In Canada, the age of maturity is 18. With the exception of emancipated minors, who have proven in court they are capable at a younger age, the parent or guardian is legally responsible for the minor under 18. Our entire criminal court system is based on this principle. This is why punishments for minors are different than for adults. Bill 10 strips adults of their authority, and turns that founding principle of our courts on it’s head.
Bill 10 gives a child the authority to tell the principal of a school that they want to start a club, and that principal is legally bound to adhere to the will of that child. The GTPB takes that principle of usurped authority, and applies it to a 6 year old telling a teacher what gender they are, and the teacher has to accept and believe the child, a child who is prone to foolishness and flights of fancy, like chasing a ball into the street. (Why do you think playgrounds and schools have lower speed limits?)
The former PC government did grave harm to the education system and our province, by ramming through poorly written legislation, lobbied by foolish self absorbed adults who wish to perpetuate their madness. The current education system, under Minister Eggen and the NDP has faired no better, and has only sent this foolish bill into overdrive. Under threat by the education minister, all the provinces school districts; like SD76, were forced to make policy that increases the power of children over adults; like Policy 622.
You need to ask yourself why any adult would want to put children in charge, and would be willing to throw a child in harms way, if they love them. This problem of adults bowing to the tantrums of children exists in every level of governance. From the municipal, to the provincial and federal governments. We need to replace, not just our MLAs in 2 years, but our city councils, and our trustees. The person, and their integrity need to be the deciding factor when you’re voting. They need to be people with the courage of their convictions, who will walk their talk. It is fear of the bully that has allowed our education system to deteriorate to the conditions we see them today. Don’t let childless, bureaucratic ‘academic’ deviants from around the world tell you what is best for your child.
Below you will find Adam Corolla explaining to congress just how the adults in the administration of academia need to start acting like adults, if they hope to see students prepared for life in the world.
Finally, I’ll conclude with one more proverb that I think not only applies to children, but those adults that have the heart of a child, and encourage the kind of coddling that Mr. Corolla mentioned.
Proverbs 22:15 (NIV) “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.”