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.)
On July 21, the CPoSD76 submitted additional information to the Secretary of SD76 at his request. Our previous submission on July 7th was in compliance with the proceedings of the court appeal on March 10th, 2017.
Our submission on July 21st was an attempt to work with the Board to have it meet new requirements set out by the Secretary, that were not in fact discussed during the appeal proceedings.
In regards to the response by the Secretary for our July 21 Submission:
Despite chairman Massini’s assertions that the matter is closed, and that we must “start over,” the CPoSD76 do not hold that same position. During the March 10th appeal Justice Tilleman invited the petitioners to return to his court room, should the district reject the petition a second time. The CPoSD76 are considering all options.
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,
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.
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.
Last Wednesday, the 21st of June, 2017, Tim Kalinowski of Medicine Hat News(MHN) wrote an article about the CPoSD76 submitting an amendment after the June 2017 Board meeting, to their petition that was presented to the Board on September 19th 2016. There were two key problems with this article, one of which being a serious instance of journalistic malpractice, and the other being of a derogatory and disrespectful nature.
The two issues are intertwined both being the cause of, and symptom of each other. I’m going to try and make that statement make sense, but it is going to involve a bit of the history of who I am, and what has happened with the Board of SD76 since February of 2016.
Back in Feb, 2016 I attended my first ever Board Meeting, as my daughter had just started attending Kindergarten at a School within SD76s authority. Like thousands of other parents across Alberta, I was alarmed at the crass way in which Minister Eggen was bullying his agenda onto all the boards in Alberta. From the tone and tenor of the February meeting, I immediately knew I had to give a presentation to the Board, and be active in the fight to protect all children from the dangerous and reckless policies that were being brought in under the guise of ‘safe and caring’.
During the March 2016 regular Board Meeting, I gave a presentation on some of the concerns I had with Board Policy 621, and 622. Keep in mind, at the time, I did not know the final wording of the policy, nor did I know the procedures that would be implemented the following school year. My concerns have only expanded since then.
If you watch the presentation, you will note that I publicly came out as intersex. (Peggy Revell of MHN was there for the presentations, and reported on them.) Before I prepared my presentation, only 5 people (that I am aware of) in my life knew about my defect. My parents, my spouse, the doctor who delivered me, and one friend in my entire life that I felt comfortable enough with to share that personal detail about myself.
In the days leading up to my presentation I struggled with weather I should out myself like that. I wondered at the harm it might bring to my family, what it might do to my social life. Would I be subject to the ridicule that the LGBTQIA2S+(LGBT) were saying was happening at epidemic levels. The harassment and discrimination that was sure to follow, as I understood it, was going to drive me to thoughts of suicide.
In the days leading up to my presentation, I shared my ‘family secret’ with a couple more people in order to test the waters, and see what they thought about me ‘going public’. Those people supported me in my decision to go public. They believed that no better candidate existed to raise the alarm about the policies, than someone who the policies were purported to protect.
After I came out, I did not receive the discrimination that the LGBT led me to believe would follow. No religious zealots screaming about how I was an abomination. I didn’t lose my job, or get calls from my mortgage provider. Yes there were a few very awkward conversations afterwards, more because of human curiosity, than because of aversion to who I was.
No, the discrimination that I have gotten, has been of a more sinister nature. It has been a concerted effort to demean, discredit, and erase and rewrite who and what I am, and the values I represent. This brings me to the first issue with Tim Kalinowski’s article.
During the interview about the petition amendment, Mr. Kalinowski specifically asked me about the “Christian Evangelical” values of the CPoSD76, and what mutual agreement the group could hope to achieve with the board. I made a clear distinction to Mr. Kalinowski between what my values may be, and what the values of the group may be. Despite this clear fact, and the fact that the article was not an opinion piece, Mr. Kalinowski decide to inject his opinion into the article in the midst of quoting me. He stated that “our particular (Christian) values” were what we were trying to convey. Despite me clearly stating that I was talking about the group values and not my own, he misconstrued what values the CPoSD76 represent.
The values that the CPoSD76 hold have been clearly evident for months, and can be easily found. Our values cross religious and political boundaries. Our values are shared by over 30 different community organizations across Medicine Hat. Those values are Family values. They are community values. They are values that unite, rather than divide and isolate into ‘victim’ groups. They are values that joined groups together that have not worked together for over 100 years. They are values shared by Theists and Atheists. By many who identify as LGBT. Despite what the likes of David Eggen and Christopher Wells would have you believe.
As I’ve stated, the fact that the values of the CPoSD76 are shared by so many has been readily apparent for months. It was stated on the Petition Submission in September 2016. It has been stated multiple times in media releases. It has been stated on this website since it’s launch over 2 months ago, and it has been stated in our facebook group. In fact, it has even been shown on MHN’s own website. On the same day that Mr. Kalinowski published his article, MHN conducted a poll, asking if people agreed with the CPoSD76. The results of which was that 54% agreed, and 34% did not. (12% were unsure.)
Despite the numerous sources of information that could have been drawn upon to find out what the values are of the CPoSD76, Mr. Kalinowski decided it was better to re-frame them as Christian values. Why is that? Well, the reason is because my being an intersex person does not fit the narrative of the “LGBT” trade mark, which is a whole separate ‘group’ than the average LGBT person you would meet on the street, or for instance, the type that would sign our petition. Lets call this group the LGBT™ for the sake of clarity.
The LGBT™ are a political group. They are a group that wants power, and wants all barriers and norms around sexuality completely abolished. They hate traditional family, and they hate religion. They hate the natural, common values of over 90% of the population, that have been held for millennia, and as explained in my “Trans-Hippo” post, they believe themselves to have transcended human understanding of ‘identity’ and ‘gender.’ As a result the LGBT™ believe themselves to be better than you or I. After all, they have a more divine understanding than you or I.
Naturally, since the LGBT™ wants power, they gravitated towards those of a totalitarian nature, in order that they might pass the laws that grant them such power and protections. This is why we have Bill 10, the Guidelines to Best Practices, PRISM, C-16, Bill 89. These all grant the LGBT™ the power to force the destruction of the long held family values, and by threat of imprisonment or the loss of your Children, force the acceptance of only the LGBT™‘s errant view. Even if a contrary view is coming from an LGBTQIA2S+ person. But like Icarus in his hubris flying to close to the sun, so has the hubris of the LGBT™ risen.
This whole hysteria started around a study from UBC that said Trans people were suicidal, and had ‘perceived’ to have been ‘bullied’ at some point in their youth. The study didn’t go into detail about who they might have been bullied by, or what that ‘bullying’ even looked like. I’ve written at length about this, but suffice to say, the case study wasn’t even random, which is standard practice in reputable studies.
The LGBT™ then latched onto this study and ran like wild fire with it. Completely ignoring decade old data that showed that ‘approving’ of the Trans life style, and societal acceptance of it made negligible (google “post opp trans still suicidal”) difference in the suicide rate of Trans people. Multiple sources, some of which I cited in my e-mails to the board before my presentation, were ignored in favour of pushing the LGBT™ agenda. Worse still, even post-op trans people have nearly the same suicide rate as pre-op.
Team LGBT™ knowing these facts to be true, knew of the flaw in their logic. Que team LGBTi™. The argument then went like this. “You know, some people are born with the wrong sex organs. Some even have both. These intersex people have had the wrong identity forced upon them by doctors and parents, therefor they should get to choose. Gender Fluidity, it’s a thing.”
LGBTi™ said they were just speaking up for those intersex people that were to afraid to identify with their ‘true’ gender. But then I spoke up, and roundly denounced their proposed policies, proving that the LGBTi™ were not in fact speaking for intersex people. So back to LGBT™, and now it was about the GSA’s. Then the Gay porn links were discovered. (Which I warned would happen only a week before, because it happened in the UK.) Then it was about outing the gays. Except that GSAs have gay and straight attending, and keeping extracurricular activities secret from parents is illegal. The wax was beginning to drip from the LGBT™’s wings.
Elsewhere, on a different front another battle was raging. You will remember I said, the LGBT™ knew of their flawed logic? While the battle Raged in Alberta, Parliament was lobbied by the LGBT™ to pass C-16. C-16 is “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code” to compel people to use the preferred pronouns of a persons self identified gender. On June 15th, 2017, C-16 became law. Each person in conversation, if told of the preferred pronouns of the other person, must use their preferred pronouns, or will be found to have violated their human rights, and may now be found to have committed a hate crime against the person who identified their pronouns.
This finally brings us to the second problem with Mr. Kalinowski’s article. That of the fact that he willfully refused to use my preferred pronouns. C-16 specifically protects my gender identity. At the very beginning of the interview, Mr. Kalinowski asked me to state my name into his recorder. I did so, and specifically stated my preferred pronouns, to which he chuckled.
Thinking that this may have simply happened because Mr. Kalinowski was unaware of the passing of C-16, I e-mail him and MHN on June 21, asking that he show me the respect I am legally due, and to correct the inaccurate statement of the Christian values of the CPoSD76. I asked that these simple corrections be done within 24hrs. As of today, the 25, I have seen no such correction, and received no response to my e-mail.
This is not the first time inconvenient facets of the the LGBT™ narrative have been ignored in order to silence, and oppress those that have not capitulated to it. In the 16 months that this safe and caring agenda has been pushed, I have been directly insulted by administration, accused of altering recordings to make the Board look bad, of violating FOIP laws, threatened with legal action beyond simply court costs, and I’m intersex.
If those are the lengths they go to silence and discredit an intersex person, what do you think they are doing and will do to people who have no claim to minority protections? Just how safe and caring do you think your ‘cis’ children are going to be from bullying and oppression by the LGBT™. When policies are written specifically to reject to even HEAR an opposing view, no matter the scientific evidence, as 622 is. What lengths do you think they will go to to impose their own form of bigotry? That is what it is after all, pure unadulterated bigotry. If you have a better word for an intolerance of any opinion other than your own being represented or even allowed, an intolerance of any other type or form of education, I would be happy to hear it.
1 : obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot overcoming his own bigotry