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.
Planned Parenthood recommends parents send their gender confused 3 & 4 year olds to an LGBTQ 'positive' counselor.
Someone who will not question the child. Why does that sound familiar? (PP not wanting to be outdone in the depth of depravity by Canadian Sex Ed, also thinks you should have talks about masturbation with your 3-4 year old, but that is a different disgusting pedophilic teaching, which thankfully I have not seen pushed in SD76.)
SD76 – “Policy 622 Procedure: j. work collaboratively with school staff and build capacity to identify and implement evidence-based supports for students;”
SD76 – “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”
Who cares if it is harmful to the child. We will push it on them, and not let ANYONE with a different opinion speak to them. We will lie to them, and lead them to believe they are something they are not. We will ignore science, and push dogma. THAT IS the policy in SD76. This is based on the proof written in the procedure, not the words said in secret. Proof that the policy is endorsing lying, delusion, and abuse. (Make no mistake, it is abuse to push a child into a life of drug use and body mutilation, to achieve something that can never be achieved, all to potentially avoid the possibility of a fleeting moment of hurt feelings.)
Prove to parents that a child can be born in the wrong body. Prove that there are more than 2 genders in the human species. Prove that encouraging the child to take hormone blockers ‘saves’ them from suicide. Prove that keeping this a secret from the child’s parents would help them.
If SD76 stands for the protection of these children. They will PROVE it by WRITTEN policy and procedure. They will PROVE it by allowing parents to be heard. They will PROVE it by publicly writing the education minister on Medicine Hat Parents behalf declaring that they do no agree with the minister.
“So let it be written, so let it be done” – Yul Brynner
If it is not in the districts written policy, it is not the districts position, and it would be madness to think otherwise. Just as one can not write a law, and then not obey it, so to one can not write a policy, and not enforce it. That would be a laughable assertion. But I suppose, 2 years ago, it would have been laughable to suggest a 5 year old was transgender.
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
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.