CPoSD76 update

Category Archive CPoSD76 update

10 Questions for the Eminent Sire Williamson! Plus some kind of deadline?

With today being the deadline arbitrarily set by the Board for the CPoSD76 to pull together yet more signatures to satisfy the Boards continuously changing goal, we thought the public might want to know what we are doing. As it has been stated before, the CPoSD76 is a very diverse group of parents and electorate that come from every walk of life, and religious persuasion. Our supporters, and those who share are concerns are doctors, lawyers, engineers, laborers, craftsmen, technicians, academics, and politicians. We even have several media experts.

One of those media experts noted the significant positive response to Sire Williamson’s one on one chat with a parent. Given Sire Williamson’s statement that he would not have any further contact with CHAT other than through a lawyer, and given that it is highly unlikely that the public are going to get accurate and balanced coverage of who and what the CPoSD76 and Sire Williamson stand for, that media expert thought it might be a good idea to sit his eminence down one more time, and ask some real questions about what is actually going on with SD76 in Medicine Hat, and how it all relates to Sire Williamson.

Our media expert managed to catch Sire Williamson at his home last night, as he was preparing for today’s so called deadline.

Media Expert: Good evening, your eminence. Thank you for seeing me. I know you are quite busy between your family, your work, and the antics of SD76.

Sire Williamson: That is ok, I’m happy to explain the situation to everyone. I wish to see the best future for the children of Medicine Hat, and if that means letting people know what I am all about, than I am happy to oblige. And thank you for using my pronouns, but feel free to call me Jeremy, it will make this conversation easier.

Media Expert: Certainly Jeremy. I have compiled a list of 10 questions, with possible followups, that I think the public might be wanting to ask you, and I was hoping you might be willing to answer them.

Sire Williamson: Well, it depends on the questions, but I’ll do my best.

Media Expert: Thank you, first Question

(1) Is there anything happening with CHAT’s defamation story?

Sire Williamson: As far as I know, no. No one has contacted me. No one has requested I recant, or even stated to me that they felt I had defamed them. It is a nothing burger as far as I am concerned. The whole thing was completely out of line with the Alberta Defamation Act. My minority victim status may yet be pulled before the LGBT Inquisition. That is yet to be determined.

Media Expert: Do you plan on having someone contact CHAT?

Sire Williamson: Let’s just say, the statute of limitations is not up yet.

(2) Are you going to change the way you write for CPoSD76?

Sire Williamson: No, I don’t think so. I will always speak the truth, and I stand by what I said. Let them prove it isn’t true. Bad policy, combined with head in the sand procedure, and poor leadership throughout Alberta Education will, and in my opinion already has, lead to child abuse. I expect that legislation will soon be tabled to redefine abuse, so as to excuse pushing gender confusion and explicit sexual matters on minors.

Media Expert: You sound upset.

Sire Williamson: That is because I am. You have to be blind or foolish to not see the push to sexually exploit children across our nation. Schools are about math, science, literature, history and language, not about seeing how young you can push sex and sexuality on children. How on earth is teaching a 5 year old about masturbation going help them develop into a productive and caring adult? There are only two reasons to push this on children that can’t even cook their own food; to exploit the children for your own sexual desires, or use it as a way to seize control of children from parents. You are seeing both types working together to achieve both goals.

Media Expert: That is a pretty confrontational and offensive statement. Don’t you think you should tone it down a bit?

Sire Williamson: No. I’m not going to back down from protecting kids from some pervert who wants to groom them, or some disconnected dictatorial bureaucrat, who thinks they have achieved enlightenment on how to raise other people’s kids. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Truth is not relative, and it does not change. Just like it was wrong for people in India to sell their daughters to be temple prostitutes, and Amy Carmichael did everything in her power to stop the practice and rescue the children, so to will I do everything in my power to save Alberta’s children from the likes of people like Christopher Wells, and the gender politics and sexuality people like him push on children.

Media Expert: Wow, I guess I struck a nerve. That leads us into my next question pretty well actually.

(3) You seem to have a strained relationship with most, if not all the media in Medicine Hat, is that true?

Sire Williamson: It may be. I have a pretty strict standard that I apply to Media, and that is because of the power they wield to influence people. I’ve also been burned on more than one occasion by sloppy or deliberately slanted reporting. The whole defamation accusation isn’t the first time reporters have taken something I have said and chopped it up, miss-quoted, and ripped out of context. Some things have been out right fabricated, taking two statements I made on two different topics, and spliced them together to say I said something I didn’t. And it is not just the media doing this. I will say that there has been better reporting from Medicine Hat News lately though. If you are not going to get it straight from the CPoSD76, than they are probably the most balanced place to go.

Media Expert: But didn’t you just recently have a bit of a spat with MHN?

Sire Williamson: Yes, and there is an explanation to that. My default position, because of past experience, is to be very critical of all media, and I’m also a bit jaded. Again from past experience. There were some misunderstandings on my part, and also some miss-reads on motivations. There were also some misunderstanding of what I was saying to the reporter. I have reached out to Tim, to see if we can clear the air. I hope to hear back from him.

Media Expert: Well I hope the two of you can work things out. Shifting gears a bit.

(4) What is the Deadline Tomorrow?

Sire Williamson: To be honest, I don’t know. To quote SD76’s legal council from March 10th, when speaking to the justice about an amendment, she stated “there is no deadline.” The Board seems fixated on declaring the ‘discussion’ over. Just like other topics in Canadian culture, like capital punishment, abortion, and gay marriage, when they can’t win the argument, they declare the discussion over, and say they have won, and it is time to move on.

(5) What do you plan on doing Tomorrow?

Sire Williamson: We will have a media release, and we a submitting more information, and around 80 more signatures as an act of good faith, however, the amendment was already in line with paragraph 18 of the Justice Tilleman’s judgement. We expect the board to honour their agreement put forward in court.

(6) What are the main concerns the CPoSD76 have?

Sire Williamson: That is a looooong discussion. But to summarize, the protection of parental authority, and the protection of ALL children from predatory adults. An environment where everyone feels safe. Not the current one of threats, intimidation and group think. The CPoSD76 have other important concerns, especially to do with the proper education of their children, but the petition is focused on those two.

(7) Some have said that you are dictating the direction of the CPoSD76, and that the concerns voiced are really just yours. Is that true?

Sire Williamson: Not in the slightest. We do things by majority consensus, and we encourage the public to participate. I would think that would be quite evident through the votes conducted on this site, and the many meetings we have had to discuss our direction.

(8) Others have said that the CPoSD76 are a anti LGBTQIA2S+ hate group. How would you respond to those accusations?

Sire Williamson: That is ridiculous. Several of the signatories are LGBTQIA2S+, including myself. Might as well call C.A.I.R. an Islamaphobic group. I can’t speak for everyone in the CPoSD76 on this, but what I can say is that I don’t like individuals throwing themselves under the LGBTQIA2S+ label, and saying they speak for all of us, when in fact they don’t even speak for a fraction of us. What I don’t like is those same people claiming they are doing things to stop hatred by attacking others that they see as failing to agree with them. If you ask me, the LGBTQIA2S+’s self proclaimed ‘activists’ and ‘spokes’ people display a lot more hatred and disdain than any of the parents or electorate I’ve met in and around Medicine Hat. They keep poking the bear, and crying foul when they get mauled.

(9) Since it doesn’t look like the CPoSD76 and the Board of SD76 seem to have any give on either side, what do you hope to accomplish?

Sire Williamson: Mostly, just officially lodged complaints. To ignore those complaints, whether board or MLA, is to ignore their electorate at their own electoral peril. We would hope that the board would recognize that not all of what the minister has commanded is legal, nor are all of the items in the policy necessary, or prudent. The Board of Trustees are the avenue by which parents are supposed to file grievances with government. The province does not make a single choice once every 4 years. Boards and MLAs work for us, not us for them. How is government supposed to be representing the people if the government will not listen to the people? They might as well dissolve all the boards if they are just supposed to be government yes men. What job does the board even do if they will not answer to the people? Administration can handle all the duties of the board. This is why it is so crucial to select and elect accountable trustees. They have to follow the law, but their first duty is to the parents of their district, not to be the Education minister’s enforcers.

Media Expert: You say the boards have to follow the law. Are they not following the law with 621 and 622?

Sire Williamson: In some ways yes, but there are many aspects of the policies, that are not based on the law, and if they were, the specific statute could be cited to show parents where the bases is. I on the other hand have repeatedly quoted statutes that say the opposite of the policy, or show why the policy can and should not be enforced.

(10) The last one is a question I’m sure is on everyone’s mind, not just CPosd76 supporters. Are you planning on running for Trustee in October?

Sire Williamson: It is funny you should ask that, as no joke, I have had nearly a hundred people ask me that. There certainly seems to be a lot of people that want me to, but it is a decision I could not take lightly. It would be a significant increase in responsibilities, and I would have to weigh it against my family life, work, and other commitments. It definitely isn’t a position designed for people with full time jobs and young children to manage. That is something I think should change. I think Trustees should have a stake in the game. Where their actions will directly affect their family.

Media Expert: So is that a yes or a no?

Sire Williamson: To quote my Dad when he didn’t want to make an impromptu decision. “Ask Mom”

Tags, , , , , ,

Press release regarding amended petition deadline.

Media Release

2017 July 21

Concerned Parents of SD76

Re: Amended Petition


We have resubmitted the Amended Petition which now meets the extra conditions requested by SD76.


We have gone the extra mile as requested by the School Board.  The Amended Petition submitted June met all the criteria outlined by the judge in our appeal, but the Board requested we reformat a few things to technically fit their interpretation.  We have now done that.


They testified in court that 30 names on the original were valid, but subsequently went back to challenge them.  Although we don’t believe we were required to do so, we have collected 75 replacement names as an act of good faith.


As directed by the judge, we have submitted additional information to complete the addresses on 118 of the original submissions that only had a postal code.  The School Board requested that rather than submit that information as a summary list, that we add it directly to the original lines of the petition, which we have now done.


The amended petition is now complete.  The petition meets all the criteria established by the School Act as clarified by the Judge in our prior appeal.  We look forward to working with the Board to complete this petition process and to be able to provide them with our concerns on policies 621 and 622.


Since the petition, we have done a lot of work with the Board, and have forged a lot of common understanding, but the Board is in a tough place.  The Minister has given them direction on these issues, and they feel bound to follow that direction.  As parents however, we disagree with the direction the Minister is heading.  The petition, as established by the School Act, is the means to officially voice opposition to what the Board decided.  This then allows them to convey that official opposition to the Minister.


We believe that further rejection of a legitimate petition by the Secretary or the Board can only be seen as defiance of the Judges ruling and obstructionist behaviour to avoid listening to Concerned Parents.



Tags, , , ,

Update! Update! Update!

Thanks to the threats against me recently, last night the CPoSD76 website crossed over 100,000 hits after only 3 months of operation. Several thousands since the news broke. Based on projections, 100,000 was a feat I wasn’t expecting the site to achieve for another week and a half. Over the last couple of days I and the CPoSD76 have received numerous e-mails and phone calls of support, and asking me to keep up the good fight. In fact, all of them, who had never signed the petition, asked where they could sign. This was a problem, as it became time consuming to write back each person asking.

So thanks to the generosity of local churches, this Sunday is going to be a petition Signing day.

If you:

  • Are a Canadian Citizen over 18
  • Live within the boundaries of School District #76
  • Have not declared support for the Catholic School Board
  • And have not signed the petition before

Sunday July 16th

From 11:00 to 11:30 AM at
Victory Lutheran Church 2793 Southview Drive SE, Medicine Hat, AB T1B 2H1
T: 403-527-5617 E: contact@victorylutheran.ca


From 11:00am – 12:00pm at
Medicine Hat Christian Reformed Church, 300 Primrose Drive SE, Medicine Hat, AB  T1B 3S9
403 529 5650
If you are unable to make the petition signing events, you can contact us, and will be do our best to have a volunteers arrange a meet up to sign the petition.
We got 1500 signatures in a weekend before. Based on the support throughout the community, 138 should be a cake walk.
With 138 signatures, parents will finally be heard by their elected representatives.

Tags, , , ,

A response to the accusations of defamation against the Eminent Sire Williamson

As many across Medicine Hat are well aware, Chat News broke a story last evening, the 11 of July, 2017 that insinuated that Jeremy Williamson may have defamed someone in his writing. This came as a shock to the CPoSD76 as no one had ever contacted the CPoSD76 with a concern over the comments in the article. The first hint that anyone had issue with the article was in an e-mail the CPoSD76 received on the 11th at 9am, which stated:
“Good morning,

We’re looking to get hold of Jeremy Williamson for a comment on a story we’re working on for tonight.
Our deadline is 3:30 P.M. today, and it would be an on-camera interview we’re looking for.
The interview is in regards to some concerns raised by the school board about some of the content being posted on the CPOSD76 blog.
Please send me an email or give me a call so we can set something up for today (Tuesday July 11th.)

Thank you,
Leah Murray”

The message was of course passed on to Sire Williamson.

After the story broke, and it was revealed in the article, that no statement had been taken from Sire Williamson, we were curious as to why he had not responded to the Chat request, and we wanted to know his take on the article and what his response was.

A concerned parent had a conversation with Sire Williamson, and the following is a transcript of that conversation. Given the history of malicious and vindictive attacks upon concerned parents in the past, the name of that concerned parent has been replaced with that of our coalition’s name.

CPoSD76: Thank you Jeremy for taking the time to sit down and discuss this. I’m sure things have been quite hectic since the story broke.

Sire Williamson: No problem. It was a little crazy there for a while.

CPoSD76: Considering the post you made recently, I have to ask, what are your preferred pronouns, and what was that all about?

Sire Williamson: Yes, well that is to be expected. My preferred pronouns are sire or eminent/eminence. Those may sound ridiculous, but sire is simply another way of saying I have fathered children, and eminent simply means one of prominence, fame or infamy. I think you understand why that last one applies. Especially now. Both have well established history in the English language, which is more than I can say for some other people’s preferred pronouns. As for what is all about, well it is about equality. One of the criteria for a law to be just, is that it must be applied equally to all, without regard to race, creed, or gender identity. I’m paraphrasing there a bit, but C-16 amended the charter of rights to include identity. Those rights can not apply to only the LGBTQIA2+ that agree with the lobby groups, but to all LGBTQIA2+. I am a provably intersex person, and the law only requires self identification.

CPoSD76: So would you prefer I use those pronouns going forward?

Sire Williamson: No, for the purposes of this conversation that is not necessary, but I would ask that in anything published you use them appropriately.

CPoSD76: Thank you for clearing that up. The burning question now is, why didn’t you respond to CHAT’s request to do an interview?

Sire Williamson: Quite simply, I don’t work for them. I have a life, a family, and a job, and I don’t answer to their beck and call, nor am I accountable to them. They have my contact information from previous conversations, and despite their claim that they e-mailed me personally, I have received (as of the time of the conversation) no such e-mail. Frankly, they went about it in a totally unprofessional manner. Contacting anyone who has ever sneezed in my direction, from my Pastor, to my friends, to concerned parents who had nothing to do with the story. They told no one what the story was about, and wanted me to call THEM. The whole thing smelt of an ambush to me, and I guess I was right. The message that was sent to the concerned parents was the only one that even hinted at what the topic might be, and I was not about to drop everything and run to CHAT to help them in a hit piece. The fact that they used an employee whom I am friends with on facebook to get me to give them my personal e-mail again strikes me as particularly appalling. I will state it again, still got no e-mail on my personal address. Am I really to believe that they could contact all these other people, and try to get them to violate privacy law, but they could not send an e-mail to me?

CPOSD76: Did you have any idea that this accusation was coming?

Sire Williamson: Not in the slightest. Sure the School Board has expressed some dislike for some of the things I have said before, but never have they suggested I defamed them. They have accused me of disrespecting them, but that isn’t a crime. I have never received any letters or requests from their legal council on anything I have said. Well, besides what was presented during the petition appeal. Lets not forget that just last year when the board shut down recording of public meetings, they publicly accused me of tampering with video to make them look bad, and used that as an excuse to implement their ban policy. An accusation that I have recorded on tape, and I can easily prove to be false. I even tried to work things out with the board on that, but they didn’t want to talk about it.

CPoSD76: What are you saying? That the Board defamed you?

Sire Williamson: Well, yes and no. Yes I may have ground to accuse the board of defamation, but I don’t want to, and that is not my point. My point is, this whole thing is petty. What kind of a society do we live in, where anyone who criticizes a policy needs to be punished by the powerful? That is the kind of behaviour you would have expected to see in East Germany, or North Korea. This whole situation shows the sad state of affairs our province is in, and only proves my point that I have repeatedly stated, that Alberta Ed is operating under a culture of fear and threat. They can’t prove there methods empirically, so they have to oppress any dissidence. Besides all this, I think CHAT and NDP shock troops have more to do with this than the Board does.

CPoSD76: What do you mean CHAT and shock troops had more to do with this?

Sire Williamson:  Well, if you recall, James Wood at CHAT wrote a piece about Mrs. Prince to create ‘controversy’ out of two near identical tweets from NDP front groups. A similar thing happened just hours prior to the release of CHAT’s story. The CPoSD76 facebook group was inundated with new requests to join, but several people were clearly tied to ‘diversity’ groups and the NDP. Even had a request come in from the Communications Director for Southern Alberta Health Services. What he has to do with this is unknown to me. The fact that the board told me nothing of their ‘concerns’ over the post prior to the CHAT story, indicates to me that CHAT wanted to stir the pot again, and was encouraging the board to send the post up to Edmonton. Plus, it was James Wood who called my Pastor.

CPoSD76: Are you suggesting that CHAT is another of these NDP front groups?

Sire Williamson: I can’t make that statement definitively, but there are a lot of interesting coincidences. I can say that CHAT seems to have issues with getting the whole story, and portraying the facts accurately. It appears to me at least, that they don’t just engage in reporting the news, but also manufacturing it. It also appears to me that the NDP will do anything to silence those that disagree with them. Even if it means making something up. Doesn’t come off as very tolerant, and looks a lot like bullying.

CPoSD76: What are you going to do next? Do you plan on responding to CHAT?

Sire Williamson: As far as CHAT goes, that bridge is thoroughly burnt. Only communication I will have with them going forward is through a lawyer. As for the article and the accusation, I’m consulting with legal council on the matter. My focus right now is on holding the board accountable to the agreement that was made in court, and seeing the petition accepted. I’ll be posting more on that myself soon.

CPoSD76: Well, thank you Jeremy for sharing with us. Hope things work out.

Sire Williamson: Your welcome. Any time.

Tags, , , , ,

More Journalistic failure, and the petition amendment.

tl;dr – Why did the amendment fail? The Secretary changed the understood expectations for the 111 amended postal code signatures, and decided that there were more signatures in the original that didn’t qualify. Parents now know they are playing Calvinball.

Accurate Report on the Petition Amendment Rejection:

On June 20th, the CPoSD76 amended their petition. I received notice that a decision of the sufficiency of the petition had been made on or about 3:30pm Thursday July 6th. It was requested that I come and meet with the superintendent at 8:30AM July 7th. Despite the short notice, I informed the superintendent’s office that I would make the meeting.

I was informed that they had decided that the amendment was insufficient because they had rejected all 111 amended postal code signatures on the grounds that they we not re-signed each in their entirety, even though that was not a requirement discussed during the March 10, 2017 appeal. Even though the Justice said that even a photocopy would have been good enough, as the point of their rejection was that the secretary would have had to have exerted extra effort to ascertain the electoral status of the signature.

In addition to the 111 corrected postal signatures, I submitted 286 new signatures with the amendment. The secretary claims that 3 of those signatures have addresses outside the boundaries, and 1 was missing a character on the postal code. He further claims that 19 of the signatures are duplicates of signatures on the original petition. A claim that is currently being verified. Put simply,

Original Petition:

  • 1629 signatures were determined to be acceptable and uncontested through the proceedings by Court of Queen’s Bench.
  • 2000 are required to have a petition accepted.
  • 371 was the shortfall.

The Amendment:

  • 397 Total
  • 4 allegedly erroneous signatures
  • 19 claimed to be duplicates
  • 374 Remaining.
  • 374 > 371.

The Secretary claims to have done not the first, or the second, but the THIRD review of the Original petition, AFTER it was stated to the Justice that 1629 signatures on the original were not contested. In his third exemplary review of the original petition he claims to have found 30 duplicated signatures that had previously not been noticed by himself, his staff, or his legal council. 374 – 30 = 344.  344 < 371.

  • 111 – again rejected postal code signatures
  • 27 – Needed new signatures
  • 138 – What the board is asking us to get by July 21 (Which is the deadline for appealing to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, not entirely the boards deadline.)

The Grossly inadequate Articles in both Medicine Hat News & CHATNews:

I will not go into details on all of the errors in the two articles at this time, however I will state that neither of the news agencies attempted contact myself or the CPoSD76 prior to publishing their articles. An e-mail from MHN was sent to my personal account at 1:19PM, AFTER they published their article, and stating that they were “looking for a short, written comment to use”, to have it to them “before 4 p.m,” and criteria given by which the CPoSD76 comment must be framed. I did not know of the e-mail until 8pm. Both articles portrayed the numbers of the amendment inaccurately, and in a negative light.

Questions for your consideration:

Why didn’t they want to get a comment before publishing?

Why didn’t they ask the board why they needed to review the petition so many times if they had already done a thorough evaluation in Oct, 2016?

Why didn’t they ask the board why they would lead parents and the Justice to believe that all they needed to do to correct the postal code signatures was get the addresses, if that is not what they wanted/required?

Why didn’t they ask ANY questions of the CPoSD76, but simply want a statement?

Why  didn’t they report that board and admin question the legality of Justice Tilleman’s decision to allow an amendment, but choose not to pursue a challenge of it?

A reporter wanting to get the truth, and facts would have asked questions. None were asked.

Tags, , , , ,

Petition Status Report

It has been 2 weeks since the CPoSD76 submitted their amendment to the Petition. Considering that an amendment to a petition had not been done before, upon giving the amendment package to the Secretary, I requested a timeline on it’s evaluation. Witnessed by the Chairman of the Board, and other concerned parents, I inquired whether we could expect the timeline outlined in the School Act. Both the Secretary and the Chairman stated that we could.

Section 269 of the School Act States – “269(1) When a board of a district situated wholly or partly within the boundaries of a city receives a petition calling for a public meeting that is signed
(a) by 25% of the parents, who are also electors, of the students in a school, or
(b) by the lesser of
(i) 2000 electors, and
(ii) 25% of the electors,
the board shall within 21 days from the date that it receives the
petition (in this case, the amendment) publish notice of the public meeting to be held under this
section in accordance with section 270.”

At this point, we have only to wait. Since the Legal Council for the District informed the Justice during the appeal that the district was not contesting any other aspect of the petition, other than what was addressed in the amendment, we need have only to wait for the evaluation. With only 400 signatures to evaluate, I expect we should hear from the Secretary soon.

A post will be made as soon as a response from the District has been received. Thank you for your patience.

Tags, , , ,

Policy 622 endorses child abuse.

(Image of Cari Stella, a de-transitioned person.)

A response to Chairman Rick Massini’s response.

Procedure K from policy 622 makes it an offense for any staff to share the information in the above articles with any child that is struggling with gender identity, or comes to them expressing trans identity. An offense that could cost that staff member their livelihood, and the enforcing of could cost the child their life.
“Policy 622 Procedure: k. ensure staff will not refer students to programs or services that attempt to change or repair a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and”

Procedure J encourages gender confusion, and pushes children to accept transitioning from known biological gender to the detriment of their health and continued will being, as the only ‘evidence’ based supports that will be provided to the child must be in the affirmative. Discouraging critical thinking, a fundamental tenant of educational development.

Policy 622 Procedure: j. work collaboratively with school staff and build capacity to identify and implement evidence-based supports for students;

Procedure L is a direct and flagrant violation of the law (Family Law Act) and grants rights and privileges to both staff and students, to which they are not entitled. No law or act of parliament grants this privilege. The procedure grants wholly inappropriate levels of relationship between staff and students, removes checks and balances that have been in place for decades to protect children from sexual abuse, strips parents of their rights, and creates destructive rifts in the parent child relationship.

Policy 622 Procedure: l. ensure all staff recognize the confidentiality of the sexual orientation and gender identity of all students and protect them from unwanted disclosure of such information.

Policy 622, the Guidelines to Best Practices, and Alberta Education under the direction of Minister David Eggen endorse, support, and attempt to enforce the abuse of children through negligent practice, policy, and procedure. For 16 months the Board of Medicine Hat School District #76 have refused to provide evidence or justification for their actions in implementing the Policies as written. No organization or scientific entity has provided the public with hard data on the measurable benefit gender identity politics have for the education or development of children.

By contrast, month over month medical professionals, psychologists, and parents have been able to gather and collect data, and warn this board and Alberta Education of the harms and ill effects that gender identity have on children and society. Real measurable examples of individuals irreparably harmed by the push to make ‘trans’ acceptable. Real examples of abuse of the policies to push explicit material at children.

As elected representatives of the people of Medicine Hat it is the duty of the Board of Trustees to represent the interests of their electorate first and foremost, and not that of any particular ideology or political party. Their first duty is to Medicine Hat. It is their duty to protect the children with whom parents have granted them temporary guardianship. It is not the Duty of the board to instill any particular ideology, ethics, or morality in those children.

Over the last 16 months, parents have been frustrated by the actions of the Board to belittle their concerns as fringe and ‘offensive.’ It is no small thing that this issue is the first time in SD76’s history that parents have rallied together to protect their children from vile and abusive policy. Make no mistake, parents see the practical ‘procedural’ implementation of these policies as vile. Setting aside the duty as a Trustee, it is the duty of every parent, grand parent and citizen to stall or prevent any group or ideology that seeks to use and abuse society’s children. There is no mistaking the fact that these policies were enforced outside the district for the purposes of using or abusing children for political or sexual ends.

Parents are not, and will never be satisfied by the answer that the Board was “following orders.” Following orders has not been adequate justification for committing any crime against another human being since at least the Nuremberg Trials. It is the fact that the Board has continued to refuse to answer the public that have led to this situation. Parents and the public are calling the Board to account to justify their actions over the past 16 months. It is for this reason that we are submitting the amendment to our petition today.

We, the electorate of Medicine Hat, have been left with no other option. Continued and repeated opportunities have been given to the board to appropriately address parental concerns. If an elected body is not representative of those that elected them, than that elected body serves no representative purpose, and appropriate actions must be taken to correct the situation.


For the Board’s Consideration:

Tags, , , , , , , , ,

Vote Results!

I have tabulated the vote results.

68.2% in Favour of Amending

13.6% in Favour of Compiling Concerns

18.2% Spoiled Votes

Due to an unknown circumstance the voting got locked out late Thursday evening, and I was unaware of the problem until 9pm Friday. This led to a number of corrupt votes. However, even if all the votes that had been corrupt had been in favour of Compiling Concerns, the “Amend” Votes would still be the lead. The e-mail addresses of those votes DID come through, so I will attempt to ascertain how they voted, for clarity of record. If there was anyone else who attempted to vote, but got an error message, please ‘contact us.’

With the information as it stands now, I will be submitting the amended petition to the Secretary of the Board ASAP. Details on that will be posted later.

On a separate note, the final public school board meeting for the 2016/2017 year will be held at 6pm tomorrow the 20th of June at the central board office. I’ve gone over the agenda, and there are no policy changes on the agenda. Highlights include ASBA Zone 6 meeting overview, PSBA General Assembly Overview, and a discussion on the “Classroom Improvement Fund” (CIF)

Tags, , , , , ,

The Chairman of the Board has responded

[Update: Please, everyone that is able, vote. The higher the number of votes I get, the better reading I have on what the public will is, and the more credibility there is in the option chosen moving forward. I intend on closing the vote on Friday the 16, and if option 1 is in the clear majority, I will formally amend the petition ASAP.]

Last week the Concerned Parents of SD76 presented an open letter to the Board of SD76, asking how they would like to proceed. The Board was presented in the letter with 2 options. Amend the petition and have it proceed as outlined in the school act, or work together to set up a public meeting that would be satisfactory to both sides. Given that parents want an opportunity to have bidirectional dialogue with the Board, and to put the concerns of parents to rest.

On Sunday June 11, 2017, the Chairman, Rick Massini, gave a response to one of the CPoSD76. He stated that he had spoken with the board, and that they had decided to just have us submit a written summary of our concerns, and that they would accept it for information at their next Board Meeting. (Presumably the June 20th meeting.) The Board would then give a written response to those concerns.

He further stated that there was to much on the agenda for the next meeting, and too many things going on into the summer to make time for the options presented in the open letter. It was clarified to Mr. Massini by the CPoSD76, that if parents went with the amendment of the petition, the school act requires that they make the time. It was also stated that the school act timeline would be more aggressive than if a mutually satisfactory meeting were worked out with parents.

Compiling and submitting parent concerns by Friday the 16 is an impossible timeline, (Friday is when all documents for the June 20th board meeting will be available on the sd76.ab.ca website,) so that means if parents wish to submit them, they would not be responded too until after the September Board meeting. Which would be the last board meeting before the Municipal Trustee Elections. It would also mean that trustees would not be a part of that process, like it would be as outlined in the School Act.

As I am only one of the CPoSD76, and up to this point I have not acted on my own, but with the input of and endorsement of other concerned parents, I am presenting parents with one last vote on this matter.

Tags, , , , ,

A conference wake up call. Parents are losing to the state…

What a weekend! The Southern Alberta Conference on the Family was a smashing success! Hardly an empty seat in the room. Theresa Ng, Donna Trimble, and John Carpay all gave articulate well researched presentations, with a clear warning to Parents, that their rights are being stripped, and the family is under direct attack. It is clear that fundamental changes are being implemented in Alberta Education that put children at risk, and shake the very foundations of a free and prosperous society. The situation is dire throughout Canada, not just in Alberta. We can not express enough, the gratitude we have for the guest speakers who were willing to come together and equip parents with the resources they need to prepare for the attacks that are coming, and have already been implemented.



Tags, , , , , , , , , ,