Tag Archive Parental Rights

An open letter, to the Alberta Ombudsman…

To the honourable Marianne Ryan,

I am writing to you today on behalf of parents, grandparents, guardians, concerned families, and adult residents of Alberta.

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you open a public provincial inquiry and/or investigation into:

  • Alberta Education
  • the Office of the Minister of Education
  • the Alberta Teachers Association
  • the Alberta School Boards Association
  • the Edmonton Public School District
  • Calgary Board of Education
  • Medicine Hat Public School District #76
  • Lethbridge School District #51
  • Battle River School Division
  • Sturgeon Public School Division
  • St Paul Education Regional Division No. 1 [Edit: request for investigation of this division is withdrawn]

The purpose of the inquiry/investigation would be to identify the individuals responsible for the pattern of misconduct and abuse of human rights that is affecting the province of Alberta, so that appropriate disciplinary actions or reprimands may be given, and to see appropriate checks and balances implemented to prevent further abuse and/or negligence from continuing to occur within all levels of the Alberta Ministry of Education.

The undersigned understand the scope, and the resources and time undertaking such an investigation would require. As taxpaying residents, we believe that our money would be well spent if it meant protecting our children and our rights from further abuse.

We also hope that you understand the gravity of the abuses which we perceive to be occurring systemically throughout Alberta Education. Not since the time of the residential schools has the government, in the eyes of the public, so blatantly abused the human rights of the governed. In so doing, all trust and respect for Alberta Education has been destroyed in our minds. When so many have lost faith in the institution, the institution becomes incapable of fulfilling its duties, and is rendered ineffectual.

While we understand many issues have not been proven in court, and understand some may turn out to be rumor or conjecture, we do not believe this to be the case for the majority of our concerns. A proper impartial investigation would set these concerns to rest, and would engender rebuilt trust in Alberta Education, the process, and the effectualness of government.

Alberta is at a critical crossroads, nigh also Canada as a nation. Civil unrest is bubbling under the surface. Albertan’s have become disenfranchised with their government, and the refusal by all political parties, government, and civil institutions to look into our concerns has not calmed the situation. It has in fact served to deepen the frustration and tension.

As we go into our reasons for requesting that you open an inquiry and/or investigation, please [bear] in mind that we do not do this flippantly. While each case or concern may or may not have “exhausted all avenues of appeal,” we do believe that proper processes have been reasonably followed. When you have been threatened harassed and abused into silence, you become hopeless in your belief that appealing is even worth the effort and it seems pointless. It appears that no one really cares. This is why we come to you.

Our concerns, and thus our reasoning in making this request can be chiefly categorized into two primary groupings;

  1. The sexual exploitation, grooming, molestation, and interference in the physical, social, moral, and ethical development our children outside the authority and mandate of Alberta Education.
  2. The abuse and erosion of our family, parental, religious, and association rights under the Alberta Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While each concern may appear unique, we believe that there is enough evidence to conclude a pattern of systemic abuse of authority and position that leads back to the office of the Minister of Education and the Alberta Ministry of Education as a whole. This request does not contain details of each concern, but should our request be granted, we are certain that those individuals or groups who brought the concern forward would freely and gratefully cooperate with the investigation to see it come to a swift conclusion.

The following list of concerns is not an exhaustive list. We have filtered it to the most pressing and egregious, and believe that it outlines why we perceive there to be a systemic pattern of abuse. Those concerns  that have been filtered from this list we believe would become apparent during the course of the investigation.

The concerns that we have stem from the following:

  • Alberta Education,
    1. Alberta Education’s attempt to shut down Wisdom Home Schooling without respect to process, and without consideration to the impact upon the students who were/are under its authority.
    2. Alberta Education’s connection to Dr. Kristopher Wells, The Institute for Sexual Minority Studies & Services (ISMSS), and the GSA Network
    3. Alberta Education’s failure to screen links posted to the Alberta GSA Network website for inappropriate material.
    4. Alberta Education’s failure to implement processes and safeguards against inappropriate material be available through government funded resources.
    5. Alberta Education’s failure to punish or reprimand those responsible for the failures of the Alberta GSA Network.
    6. Alberta Education’s ongoing plan to rewrite curriculum without public understanding of who contributed to its creation or detailed explanations of what the stated goals are or why those goals were set.
  • the Office of the Minister of Education,
    1. The public insinuation that Catholic education did and does not teach spousal consent, and the implication that Catholic schools endorsed rape.
    2. The statement from the minister implying that those that did not agree with Alberta Education’s policies and actions were incapable of critical thought.
    3. The Minister’s attempt to threaten removal of and violate the religious rights of the Independent Baptist Christian Education Society.
    4. The minister’s refusal to reveal who contributed to Alberta Education’s planned rewrite of school curriculum.
    5. The minister’s refusal to hear debate on Bill-24 “An act to Support Gay Straight Alliances”, the minister’s refusal to consider the ramifications of the Bill, the minister’s refusal to set age restrictions or to consider appropriateness, and allegations that the minister deceived the public as to its contents, intent, purpose and implementation.
    6. The Minister’s refusal to respond to questions regarding how school policies that are religious in nature violate Bill-24.
  • the Alberta Teachers Association,
    1. The ATA’s association, promotion, and support of Dr. Kristopher Wells, what work exactly he does for Alberta Education, and what role he plays in the education of Alberta’s children.
    2. The ATA’s resolution to attempt to undermine the Alberta Constitution, and its establishment of a public and separate education system.
    3. The ATA’s resolution to strip parents of their right to be informed when sensitive topics are brought forward in class, and their lobbying of the government to violate the human rights of Families.
    4. The ATA’s support of efforts to strip funding from independent schools, and deny Albertans their right to fund separate schools.
    5. Allegations of the ATA’s harassment and intimidation of some of its members based on their associations and personal or religious beliefs.
  • the Alberta School Boards Association,
    1. The ASBA’s support of efforts to strip funding from independent schools, and deny Albertans of their right to fund separate schools.
    2. Allegations of attempts to impose authority on Home Schooling Boards and the rights of home schooled children.
  • the Edmonton Public School District,
    1. Allegations that children have been taken off of school property by private individuals without the consent of parents, and exposed to pornographic material, sexual interference, and  child sexual grooming.
  • Calgary Board of Education (CBE),
    1. Allegations of improper process, unfair evaluation, and dismissal of a petition against the planned implementation of policy directed by the Minister of Education and the “Guidelines to Best Practices” (GTBP) document.
    2. Allegations of sexual interference/grooming within GSAs under CBE authority
    3. Allegations of violations of parental human rights and child endangerment within GSAs under CBE authority.
    4. Allegations of threats against parents, staff, and students who would reveal the internal workings of GSAs under CBE authority.
    5. The relationship between the CBE, GSAs, and the Calgary Sexual Health Center.
  • Medicine Hat Public School District #76 (MHP),
    1. Allegations of deception of the public by Board Members and Administration.
    2. Allegations of threats, intimidation, and harassment of parents, staff, and students by Administration and Board Members.
    3. Allegations that schools within the district were encouraging and engaged in cross dressing activities with students.
    4. Allegations of disregard for instructions given by the Court of Queens Bench with respect to an appeal of a petition submitted to the MHP Board similar to the petition submitted to the CBE.
  • Lethbridge School District #51 (LSD51),
    1. Allegations of mismanagement of a petition submitted by the public, with similar intent as the petition rejected by the CBE.
    2. Allegations of residents from outside LSD51 participating and voting in process that came as a result of the aforementioned petition.
  • Battle River School Division (BRSD),
    1. Attempts by the BRSD to discriminate against Cornerstone Christian Academy for their religious beliefs.
    2. Attempts by BRSD to label portions of the Bible as hate speech.
  • Sturgeon Public School Division
    1. Allegations of threats, intimidation, and harassment of both students and parents of Sturgeon Country High School, by both board members and administrative staff in an attempt to silence debate and opposition by the majority against the changes to bathroom policy imposed by the Board, under the direction of Alberta Education and the Office of the Minister of Education.
  • St Paul Education Regional Division No. 1 (SPERD1)
    1. [EDIT: It has come to our attention that some of the details in this section were inaccurate or based on conjecture. Namely that this was not the correct school division. SPERD1 has no allegations against it. This concern is withdrawn. More accurate information may be provided if or when available.]

As previously stated, this is not an exhaustive list, but it is extensive, and considering that none of these concerns have been fully addressed, and put to rest, it gives the public the perception of systemic problems of sexual misconduct and rights abuses within Alberta Education.

As an advocate for the governed to those that govern, we believe that it is both within your authority and mandate to open an investigation to get to the truth of these matters. Some of the undersigned have had direct involvement in the process in several of the concerns listed and have come away feeling rejected, disrespected, ignored, and condescended to.

Because of the rejection by all levels of the Alberta Ministry of Education, and even some courts, we believe that this is our last resort and hope of seeing these concerns resolved, and we fear that should an investigation not be opened by some level of government or law enforcement, all trust in Alberta Education will be permanently damaged beyond hope of repair. Throwing this province we call home into crises.

It is with reconciliation and hope of restored trust that we make this request of you.

Respectfully,
The Undersigned:



Tags, , , , , , , ,

The Eminent Sire’s Pontifications Episode 3 – A walk-through of judgement.

As promised, here is my breakdown of the policy changes in SD76 that came as a direct result of Bill-24.

Highlighted, annotated Board Policy Changes

And in Part 2, I walk through in detail the complete judgement on the Bill-24 Injunction.

Highlighted, annotated Bill-24 Court Injunction Judgement

As a bonus, have a listen to John Carpay and what he thinks of the judgement. Suffice to say, they WILL be appealing.

Danielle Smith & Carpay on the Injunction being dismissed.

“One of the most shallow judgements I’ve ever seen” – Carpay

 

 

Tags, , , , , , ,

The Alberta K-4 draft curriculum, dangerous people, and the new caste system.

I’ve decided the best way to convey my concerns with the curriculum rewrite is through video, and for those that just want the highlights, I’ve included the outline I used to make the video. Not as much is conveyed, but you get the basic idea of where I am going with the video.


Curriculum meeting opened with a first nations land acknowledgment.

Host spoke of a process to nominate ‘experts’ who helped write the curriculum. No details on who or how were given.

The draft was divided into 5 sections. Math, arts, science, health, and social(ism).

Each section was essentially set up to show goals of concepts conveyed, what vague general items they were trying to convey for those goals, and what the students were supposed to take away from those conveyed concepts.

Arts and Social(ism) were clearly the focus, and Math and Science appeared to be the smallest. (I may be wrong on Math, but it was a small section of the wall, and I didn’t have time to go over it.)

The entire process seemed to indicate to me that they were not really interested in changing anything substantial, just that they wanted to gauge how well it would be received, and change some of the wording to be “more positive” and acceptable when they come out with the next draft.

The intent of the new curriculum seems to be focused on 3 main points:

  1. Changing from the Ministry of Education, to the ministry of parenting.
  2. Infusing identity politics, ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’ and native spiritual and cultural traditions into everything.
  3. Rewriting society and throwing out all standards of civilization for the establishment of a single world wide socialist state. Your children are the revolutionary agents of change to be the foundation of fodder for the new society.

The meetings were not set up for you to have any sort of reasonable amount of time to give proper feedback. I went to both sessions, and was only able to cover a “Cole’s Notes” overview of about half of it. Each 1.5 hour session had .5 hours of introduction (,including the first nations spiel,) and explanation of what it was they were allowing us to see.

Here is what I got from the individual groups:

1. Math

Didn’t have time to cover it. Appeared to be small, and given what I know of the “new math,” did wish to waste what little time I had on it.

2. Arts.

Clearly their main focus. Massive section. Outpaced all the other groups by several pages of objectives. What better section to incorporate culture and traditions than in the arts. Didn’t go over it.

3. Science

I had the least issue with Science, and the answer I got to questions were direct and refreshing. No attempts to deflect or imply that I was reading into it things that were not there. The main issue I had was a section on energy, and interconnections between all living things, and a deliberate injection of first nations traditions in the ‘science’.

4. Health

Health is where you really see their focus on becoming parents. I was surprised a potty training session wasn’t on the list. Issues of consent are in every grade. Implicitly in K and explicitly in 1-4. There is also crazy ideas of personal space, and parents needing to get permission from kids. (Even for hugging.) Lot of focus on identity, and mental health. (The kids knowing mental health, not the adults.) And there was something about Digital Citizenship responsibilities in grade 1. Not a fan of the sex ed/puberty talks in grade 4 either. Ya, that was in the old curriculum, (or so I’m told,) but just because it was before doesn’t mean it should be there now.

5. Social(ism) Studies

Global citizenship was a goal in every section, every grade. It was the one thing they wanted kids to believe. They also encouraged kids to be activists, and to set their value based on their identity group. Social Studies had zero history, and the only group that wasn’t included was white people. Social Studies was clearly written by the dangerous people peterson is talking about in the below video.


Other links referenced in the video:

California University Encourages Parents To Let Kids Watch Porn

5-Year-Old Boys In Skirts: UK Introduces ‘Gender Neutral,’ Trans-Sensitive School Uniform Codes

Skirts are cool, boys are told: School bans shorts in summer in favour of ‘gender neutral’ uniform policy

WALSH: We Could Reclaim The Culture If We Had Even A Tiny Bit Of Courage

Tags, , , , , , ,

Why policies like 621 and 622, C-16, M-103 are dangerous.

The truth is, concepts affirming gender confusion are far more dangerous and abusive than providing counseling to a child to act and behave as what they are. Unless a child has an intersex defect, (and even then you better have a pretty strong argument to present,) there is no justification for trying to convince the child they are the opposite gender. Saying transgender children are 40-80% (that is just how widely the stat varies) more likely to contemplate suicide, and then pushing them to become transgender and ‘affirm’ it as a means of mitigating risk is utterly idiotic.

People who don’t wear seat belts are substantially more likely to die in a serious car accident than than those that do. When someone says they don’t like to wear a seat belt, because they are uncomfortable, we don’t affirm that belief and tell them not to wear one. We don’t force everyone else to take the belt of their children if they even so much as hint at it being uncomfortable. That would be neglect. That would be abuse, and it most certainly isn’t the solution to reducing serious car accident deaths.

Radical Sex Education Program Normalizes Gender Fluidity for Canadian Children

So, when parents see a program like SOGI, and the clear signs of child abuse, (some might say child sexual abuse, but that depends on how you define sexual abuse,)  and that it is being not only endorsed via policies like 622 by their schools, but enforced under law and threat of penalty, they are rightly and justly outraged.

Parents saw the clearly abusive, secretive, and subversive program being injected into schools, and saw the deliberate lies by self proclaimed ‘experts’ telling them that what was plainly in front of them is the exact opposite of what they see. “This is about protecting the kids, and your a bigot,” was the only answer they got. One can see why parents have so vehemently fought the ‘education’ system, and will continue to fight. Children are not guinea pigs for social experiments. One would do will to prepare for things to heat up again soon. Not even -38c will stand in their way.

 

An interesting note on forced political correctness, and it’s link to radicalization on all sides.

Here is a fact that’s gonna sound ragingly controversial but is not, and that is that capitalist societies are better than communist ones. If you doubt it, then just ask yourself the question, would I rather live in South Korea or North Korea. Would I rather live in West Germany in the 1970s or East Germany or in the 1960s? I submit that this is actually not a controversial statement, but in university campuses, it would be considered flamingly radical.

Here’s another one. Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexuality, in their tastes and interests. This is not controversial to anyone who has even glanced at the data. The kind of vocational interest tests of the kind that your high school guidance counselor gave you were given to millions of people, and men and women give different answers as to what they wanna do for a living and how much time they wanna allocate to family versus career and so on. But you can’t say it. A very famous person on this campus did say it, and we all know what happened to him. He’s no longer, well, he is on this campus, but no longer in the same office.

Here’s a third fact that is just not controversial, although it sounds controversial, and that is that different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates. You can go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Look it up on their website. The homicide rate among African Americans is about seven or eight times higher than it is among European Americans. And terrorism, go to the Global Terrorist Database, and you find that worldwide the overwhelming majority of suicide terrorist acts are committed by Islamist extremist groups.

If you’ve never heard these facts before and you stumble across them or someone mentions them, it is possible to come to some extreme conclusions, such as that women are inferior, that African Americans are naturally violent, that we all ought to be Anarcho-capitalists and do away with all regulation and social safety nets, that most terrorism in this country is the fault of Muslims. These are unwarranted conclusions because for each one of these facts there are very powerful counterarguments for why they don’t license racism and sexism and Anarcho-capitalism and so on…

Now let’s say that you have never even heard anyone mention these facts. The first time you hear them, you’re apt to say, number one, the truth has been withheld from me by universities, by mainstream media, and, moreover, you will be vindicated when people who voice these truths are suppressed, shouted down, assaulted, all the more reason to believe that the Left, that the mainstream media, that universities can’t handle the truth. So, you get vindicated over and over again, but, worst of all, you’re never exposed to the ways of putting these facts into context so that they don’t lead to racism and sexism and extreme forms of Anarcho-Libertarianism. So, the politically correct Left is doing itself an enormous disservice when it renders certain topics undiscussable, especially when the facts are clearly behind them because they leave people defenseless the first time they hear them against the most extreme and indefensible conclusions possible. If they were exposed, then the rationale for putting them into proper political and moral context could also be articulated, and I don’t think you would have quite the extreme backlash.”

– Steven Pinker

Tags, , , , , ,

I don’t want to say I told you so….but

I did. When speaking to James Wood from CHAT News on September 29th, 2017.

“[Eggen] seems to be on an agenda to exclude parents from knowing what their kids are doing at school,” said Williamson.
“That’s a violation of the U.N Charter of Human Rights. Parents have a prior right to choose the education for their children. Canada is a signatory on that charter, so to go back, independently as Alberta, and say parents no longer have a prior right to know, I think it will probably get challenged. He might pass laws, but it wouldn’t be very long before they got challenged in court.”

RELEASE: Parents and schools to launch court challenge to constitutionality of Alberta’s Bill 24

Link to full copy of Bill-24

Tags, , , , , ,

This can happen to your child in SD76

6-Year-Old ‘Disciplined’ For ‘Misgendering’ A Transgender Classmate

Procedures for SD76’s policy 621 states that if your child is NOT at school, and violates school policy, then that child can be punished for violating school policy. Procedures for policy 622 states every child must be AFFIRMED in their gender confusion, and that it is an offense to present contrary evidence.
THUS any child who shows ‘transphobia’ at home or at the mall, will be punished at school.
Ross Glen Elementary recently published in a school newsletter that ‘adults were taught wrong’ and that a child as young as 3 could be transgender.

You have THE RIGHT to teach your child your own values, and as long as those values are within the law.

SD76 DOES NOT have the right NOR the AUTHORITY to punish your children for any action taken off of school property.

SD76 DOES NOT have the right NOR the AUTHORITY to impose a moral an ethical standard beyond the law upon you or your children.

SD76 IS SUBJECT TO the Family Law Act, and YOUR PRIOR RIGHTS as parents.

YOU have the right to bring charges against any staff member or employee of SD76, should they violate any part of the family law act, or your rights as a parent.

Tags, , , ,

Interphobia, Journalistic Malpractice, & The Smear Campaign Against CPoSD76


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.

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.

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.

…they believe themselves to have transcended human understanding of ‘identity’ and ‘gender.’

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.

The wax was beginning to drip from the LGBT™’s wings.

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.


 

Definition of bigotry

plural

bigotries

  1. 1 :  obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices :  the state of mind of a bigot overcoming his own bigotry

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, , , , , , , , , ,

An open letter to the board of trustees for SD76

June 7, 2017
Rick Massini
Board Chair
Medicine Hat School District 76
601 1 Ave. S.W.
Medicine Hat, AB T1A 4Y7

An open letter to the Board of Trustees of Medicine Hat School District #76

Dear Rick Massini,

For the past 15 months the Concerned Parents of SD76 have indicated to the Board our concerns over the wording and procedures for SD76’s policy 621 and 622. In February 2016, when more than 20 people showed up for the February Board meeting, Trustees made note of the unusually large crowd. In the months that followed, that crowd size only increased, and that gave significant indication to the Board that those parents had growing concerns, that were not resolved.

In March 2016, through the presentations of four different delegations, parents made clear the broad nature of their concerns. Parents continued to share yet more concerns with the board after the March 2016 Special meeting to pass 621 & 622. Throughout that meeting no one engaged in bullying or harassment. Parents simply had questions and concerns that they did not feel had been answered in the policies. Parents were then promised a Town Hall, where by they could express those concerns, and ask their questions.

Both parents and electorate were deeply disappointed when it was revealed to them in May of 2016 that they would not have a Town Hall, but instead a meeting restricted to small group discussions with other parents. Discussions where no questions could be asked of the Trustees, and no answers would be provided. Parents were in fact given the questions that they were to answer.

Parents and electorate, then feeling snubbed and condescended to, understood that they had no other recourse but to utilize Section 269 of the School act, to submit a petition calling for a public meeting. Section 269 of the Alberta School Act had never been utilized before in SD76, and had rarely been drawn on in other districts of Alberta. A section specifically designed to allow parents and electorate to force a Board to be held to account by the public, when they feel they have no other recourse.

Parents didn’t just want to drop cards into a suggestion box. They wanted to have answers to clear inconsistencies with the policies and the recommended guidelines coming from Alberta Education. When the Secretary rejected the petition in September 2016 and refused to give clarifications, stating that he was not going to “spend any more time on this,” it was clear that the matter had to go to the courts; in order to get a fair hearing.

The only way for the signatories to get the clarification that they were refused, was to appeal as was their right under the School Act. By following the process under the law, parents and electorate were able to obtain 4 key clarifications, that otherwise would have been unobtainable: the Secretary was forced to provide the clarifications he had previously refused to give; the matter of the signatures that only had postal codes was firmly resolved, with the Justice stating that the parents had a “reasonable interpretation” to expect them to be accepted, despite ultimately being told they needed to be completed/corrected; precedence was established to state that if a petition seeks to be evaluated for the “25% of the parents in a school” clause, then school information needs to be given by the signatories; most importantly the districts lawyer informed the Justice that our petition could be amended to correct deficiencies and that there was no time limit, with the Justice even referencing those statements in paragraph 18 of his ruling. Justice Tilleman also made it clear during the appeal that the petition was the property of the submitter, and that it should be returned to them upon request.

In the weeks following Justice Tilleman’s decision, parents in SD76 have diligently set about to correct the deficiencies outlined by the Justice. In doing so, 300 new signatures have been obtained thus far, and a substantial number of the ‘postal code’ signatures have been corrected. There is an expectation that an amended petition would meet the requirements under the School Act; to call a public meeting as outlined on the petition. Parents and electorate of SD76 are at a junction, and we are offering to let the Board choose the path taken.

Since the Board decided to pursue a Bill of Costs from Mr. Williamson, the Parents decided that they would not seek to have the board attend a Concerned Parents of SD76 group meeting. The Parents do not believe that a concern by the chair of the Board over “setting a precedent” was sufficient justification to pursue costs. The now 2300+ tax paying electorate who have signed the petition do not think it was a waste of their tax dollars to call a public meeting, nor do they feel it was a waste of their time to force the clarifications via appeal that had been refused by the Secretary. The entire process could have been avoided had the Board simply been willing to have official interactive dialogue with concerned parents.

At this point, considering the position that SD76 has taken, there are only two possible paths forward: Amend the petition and have the process proceed under the School Act, with all the formal procedures that accompany that; or, work with the Board to see an agreeable formal interactive meeting between concerned parents and the Board.

The Parents understand that the Board have some concerns with security and conduct at such a meeting. Parents do not wish to see such a meeting hijacked by activists, lobby groups, or media frenzy any more than the Board does. The Parents are willing to work out a format with the board that would see both parties concerns mitigated, as long as such a meeting would see both the policy concerns of the parents and the responses of the Board to those concerns recorded into the public record.

We respectfully request that the Board provide an answer as to how they would like to proceed by June 12th, 2017.

Sincerely,

The Concerned Parents of Medicine Hat School District #76

Tags, , , , , ,

Conference on the Family Reminder

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.

Tags, , ,

Daily Tidbit

No quote today