Concerned Parents will be updating shortly with an election guide. If you would like to see a Parent focused all candidates forum we need YOUR help. Please Contact Us.
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.
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: email@example.com
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.
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.
Two quick updates, since I know many of you are eagerly waiting to hear about them.
Over the last 15 months the CPoSD76 been involved in a cultural battle to protect the children of Medicine Hat from a teaching and practice that demoralizes the family, and puts children at risk. Policies have been put into place that restructures the very foundation of known proven biology, and undermines the concept of Male and Female as plainly evident in the world around us.
Though that in itself is a serious issue, those policies have also been used as door by which to pass in other concerning teaching and policy that undermine the authority of parents. Policy has been put in place that gives the ‘state’ an unnatural position of Authority, overriding that of parents. The clear goal of the policies being to reconstruct the family, and replace it with the state. A key pillar of Marxist ideology.
In partner with other residents, Churches, and community organizations in Medicine Hat, recognizing that the agenda to usurp parental authority and suppress family rights pervades in all levels of government, we have organized a Conference on the Family, on June 10th. The purpose of the conference being to prepare and inform families of the issues that threaten them in our society today, how they can fight them, and to know what their rights are.
We have arranged key note speakers with expert knowledge on the Educational and Legal Systems of Alberta and Canada, and we invite you to attend the conference. This is a free conference. Complete details on the location, speakers, and workshops can be found by going to conferenceonthefamily.com
We hope to see you there, and if you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.
Last week I gave a report on a meeting with members of the Board of SD76.
This week, a decision needs to be made on how we should proceed post petition appeal. If option (1.) is chosen, the date of the Meeting would be Saturday, May 27th. The end of the school year is approaching, and this matter needs to be cleared up before the summer break.
Below is a very quick form that would provide us with concrete information on how parents feel we should continue. This is your opportunity. The names and e-mail of those that provide feedback will never be shared publicly. We know first hand the kind of blow back you can get from having an opinion that is not in agreement with the mainstream, and we will do our utmost to protect you from any such blow back.
(See bottom for brief summary)
Another morning at the Court of Queen’s Bench, although cold and windy, at least this time it wasn’t a snow storm. For the 40-50 people who showed in the court room at 9am, it was brief event. Justice Tilleman brought the court to order, introductions were made, and the Justice informed us that his written decision was to be handed out. He dismissed the appeal, and the court was adjourned.
There was a flurry of activity afterwards, as many had questions as to why it was so short. Even some of the reporters noted how brief the proceedings were. I know all of you are eager to here the details, and I apologize that I could not have written this sooner, but I too had to get back to work.
The main arguments that were addressed were:
Justice Tilleman began with a brief statement of background on the appeal, and discussed the nature of the appeal. In paragraph  he states that we were seeking clarification on the procedures for a petition. In  he notes some of the allegations regarding the behaviour of the board leading up to the submitting of the petition, but explains that they are outside the scope of the appeal, and mentions that although outside the scope, it does not mean that relief can not be sought via another avenue. (referencing argument 4)
In the final paragraph of the nature of the appeal , the Justice makes note of the fact that the petition that was submitted to the Board of SD76 can be amended to correct the deficiencies that were outlined by the Secretary. This means that we do not have to start again from scratch. Paragraph  is what allows us to collect 110 new signatures, and correct the 259. Since March 10th, we have collected 194 new signatures, and corrected 75 of those containing only a postal code. That means we only need to correct another 100 postal code signatures, or collect 100 new. I say we shoot for at least 144 to be on the safe side. If we can get 12 people to volunteer to collect 1 sheet each, we will have our goal. If they collect 2 sheets (24 signatures per person), we will be well within a safe buffer. You can download the petition sheets here.
In part IV. the Justice goes on to explain the standard of review. Both parties agreed on the standard of review, and so in this summary, I will skip over that part. The full text of Justice Tilleman’s decision can be found here.
In part V. the Justice analyzes the 3 remaining arguments. The first being the 25% condition. In paragraph  he explains that it would offend basic notions of fairness to expect the secretary to assist the petitioner in identifying the schools to which the signatories belonged. To do so would overlap the duties of the petitioner and the neutral decision maker. This is a fair point to be made. The Justice then explains in  that a second petition submitted (by Sheldon Johnston) 2 days later, had clearly outlined school and parent information. Mr. Johnston had informed me that he received the formatting for his petition from the Secretary. That petition was also rejected.
The second contention that Justice Tilleman’s deals with is the signatures with only a postal code. It was dealt with in paragraphs [37-48]. In which, the Justice states that it is a reasonable interpretation that postal codes are all that is need to identify if a signatory is an elector in Medicine Hat, and that it is relevant that the Lethbridge School Board allowed it. It was his judgment though that it could not be applied to all districts, and one School Board is not subject to the decision of another. He also noted, that although the intent of the law was to establish if a signatory was an elector, the wording of the law required a “postal address,” and the Secretary is bound to follow the wording. He therefor made the judgment that it was reasonable to exclude the 259 signatures.
The Final argument Justice Tilleman addressed was the 110. He noted that (we) the applicant did not contest this, only that the Secretary would not provide us with details in a timely fashion. (paragraph [13 & 14])
Based on these determinations, Justice Tilleman dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded, or discussed.
This was not an unexpected ruling. Although the appeal was dismissed, sufficient avenues were provided that allows us to complete the petition and have our committee, in a reasonable time frame. (And no costs were awarded.)
Here is the complete text of the press release that was sent to CHAT Radio, CJCY, and Praise FM.
Last October, a large number of concerned residents of Medicine Hat
submitted a petition to have a committee formed that would give
non-binding recommendation on the implementation of SD76’s Policy 621 & 622.
That petition was rejected, without being evaluated for all criteria
outlined in the School Act, and a number of signatures were deemed
disqualified by the Secretary of the Board.
Details were requested on the disqualified signatures and the Secretary
refused to provide them. Jeremy Williamson, who had submitted the
petition, then filed for appeal, on behalf of the signatories, with the
Court of Queens bench, asking that the Secretary’s decision be
overturned, as is the process outlined in the School Act.
Justice Tilleman heard the Appeal and Arguments on March 10th of this
year, and made note of the unprecedented crowd size in the court room.
The signatories of the petition consisted of more than 30 different
congregations and community groups in Medicine Hat, and spanned every
social, religious, and age of majority demographic including those who
identify as LGBTI.
On Thursday April 13, at 9am Justice Tilleman will be rendering his
verdict on the matter.
Mr. Williamson and the Concerned Parents of School District 76 invite
the public to attend and hear the Justice’s decision.
SD76 has asked that the case be dismissed and court fees be levied
against Mr. Williamson on the grounds that the appeal on behalf of 2034
concerned citizens is “frivolous and vexatious.”
Well, Friday and Saturday the CPoSD76 held a yard sale, to raise funds for court costs, and help us with future endeavures. We asked families to drop off their gently used items, and boy, did they ever. Just look at how much stuff concerned families dropped off!
For the 2 hours we were open on Friday, and all day on Saturday plus over time, there was a constant stream of people to see what we had for sale. Many more residents of Medicine Hat became aware of just what was happening with their local School District 76. Awareness is the chief struggle we have.
Parents for instance are just not aware that SD76 has set procedures under policy 621 & 622 that create new ‘problem’ children within the district through vague definitions on various ‘phobias’. That the district has established that they can impress their idea of morality and ethics upon the children in the schools, beyond that of the law, and in some cases, against that which the parents wish to instill.
Most concerning is that the district has established in those same procedures that a child can be monitored while not at school, and if an infraction of school policy/ethics/morals occurs outside school hours, no matter the location, that the child can be disciplined for that infraction. Worse still, they have written into procedures for administration and teachers, that if they see such an infraction, they must report it, or be subject to disciplinary action themselves.
Still though, besides making residents aware of what some of the concerns of the CPoSD76 are, the yard sale also brought awareness about this Thursday’s court decision on the petition that they brought to the Board of SD76. The CPoSD76 have been struggling for over a year to have their concerns heard by the Board, but have been met with continual road blocks. So much so, that they had to appeal the rejection of their petition. The first appeal of it’s kind in Canadian History. Justice Tilleman will in fact on Thursday be setting precedence for any future case like ours.
The Justice will also be giving clarifications on a numbers of aspects of the School Act. One clarification that the Justice gave on March 10th was that the petition can be amended with the requisite number of signatures needed to meet the criteria of the School Act, contrary to the assertion of the Secretary of the Board who stated we must resubmit a new petition (Ie. Recollect all 2000 signatures).
This was a relief to us, as the original collection was a significant amount of work, and consisted of more than 40 volunteers collecting. So, with the statements from the Justice, we set out to collect the 110 shortfall, and to correct the addresses of the 269 that only had postal codes.
We have volunteers tirelessly looking up the addresses as best they can, as they do not have access to postal information, electoral role calls, or school registration lists. The Yard Sale alone provided 78 new signatures, and with several other volunteers yet to hand in there collections, (the numbers are good,) we expect to far exceed the 110 required. Who knows, we may have enough, that we don’t even need to bother with fixing the addresses of the 269!
Beyond the signatures, the yard sale was ultimately about raising funds for court costs. Although the appeal was self represented, there were a number of costs associated with the case. Including the initial filing, sworn affidavits, and consulting fees.
Although not exuberant, they are a concern for a working father with a family to raise. Throughout this process several individuals indicated that they wanted to help, and some already had, but we wanted to give the broader community the opportunity to be engaged, and show that there are many in the community who are concerned with what is happening in our school district, province, and country. (As if 2034 signatures on a petition wasn’t enough of an indication.)
In fact, the district has not gotten this fact, as not only does a father of two have to worry about his own court costs, but the School Board has asked the Justice to make him pay for their court costs.
In the words of the Secretary, the precedent setting appeal on behalf of 2034 signatories is “frivolous and vexatious,” and the appellant should pay for daring to question the Board, and making them work to evaluate the petition. But that is OK, because our children are worth any cost, and parents will never back down from protecting their own from dangerous and oppressive policy.
And you know what? With only one week’s notice, residents of Medicine Hat showed this to be true, as the massive amount of donations in items for the yard sale, the purchase by others at the yard sale, and with the financial donations towards our efforts. In fact, between sales and donations, a total of $1721.90 was raised for court costs. Not bad for one weekend. Innumerable thanks to all those that bought from our yard sale, and donated to costs. You have no idea how encouraging this is to us. A special thanks to Crossroads Church for letting us use their facility for the yard sale. Could not have hoped for a better location!
So what of all the items that didn’t sell? The majority of the clothing items have already been donated to refugees via the Dream Center, and the remaining items are slated to be dropped of at the local Salvation Army thrift store later this week, to benefit the local community. There was just so much given by generous families, we didn’t have time to sell it all, nor would we have needed to. This was an incredible showing of the generosity of the residents of Medicine Hat, their concern for their children, for those people new to Canada, and those that are struggling in these difficult economic times.