Governments and media suffer from a delusion generated by short-sighted and extremely shallow thinking, as well as a dearth of knowledge and wisdom
Tasmania’s lower house passes the nation’s most sweeping transgender rights laws
Labor justice spokeswoman Ella Haddad. Picture: Mathew Farrell
MATTHEW DENHOLM
TASMANIA CORRESPONDENT
Tasmania’s lower house last night passed the nation’s most sweeping transgender rights laws, including requiring parents to “opt in” to have their newborn’s sex recorded on a birth certificate.
The changes, put forward by Labor and the Greens and passed with the casting vote of turncoat Liberal Speaker Sue Hickey, also allow people as young as 16 to change their official gender simply by filing a statutory declaration.
As well, the House of Assembly passed a broadening of Tasmania’s anti-discrimination laws to extend hate speech to cover “gender expression”, including correct use of transgender people’s changed honorifics and names.
While the amendments still need to pass the state’s independent-dominated upper house, the parliamentary coup is a major win for transgender rights nationally. It is also a significant blow for the Hodgman Liberal government and its claim to stable government, given Ms Hickey used her casting vote against her party on all key amendments.
Veteran LGBTI campaigner Rodney Croome last night hailed the outcome, which will embolden activists seeking similar changes across the country.
“It’s appropriate that, on the first anniversary of the postal survey, the principle of equality that Tasmanians voted for so emphatically is being put into practice for our transgender and gender-diverse fellow citizens,” Mr Croome said.
Transforming Tasmania spokesperson Roen Meijers said the changes provided “greater equity, dignity and hope for transgender, gender-diverse and intersex Tasmanians”.
“We will now turn our attention to the upper house which we will brief on Thursday,” Mr Meijers said.
A broad range of interests, from radical feminists to conservative Christians, attacked the reforms as effectively abolishing gender and threatening the safety of female-only services, from domestic violence shelters to the Girl Guides.
Ms Hickey sided with the opposition parties despite Liberal Attorney-General Elise Archer warning that the amendments — to a government bill removing the need for people to divorce in order to change gender — were confusing, untested, poorly drafted and liable to lead to unintended consequences.
“The government prefers to refer this to the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute … because there are significant drafting flaws and legal consequences — things that need to be considered,” Ms Archer told parliament.
Labor legal affairs spokeswoman Ella Haddad said changes requiring parents to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages if they wanted their child’s sex recorded on a birth certificate were not radical.
Ms Haddad said a form would simply ask parents of newborns “Do you wish to have gender printed on the birth certificate”. “It creates an opt-in approach,” Ms Haddad said.
Ms Archer and the government refused to back any of the amendments.
Canada cracks down on parental rights, flagrantly violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Canada, Kathleen Wynne, Parental Rights, Sex Education, Transgenderism
November 6, 2018 (Everyday For Life Canada) – There is plenty of evidence that parents in Canada no longer have the right to direct their children's education and their lives. In this post, we bring to the attention of parents some disturbing examples of parental rights violated and overruled.
Example 1: The first is the case of the Christian father from Hamilton who fought for his parental rights for nearly eight years. He was legally attacked by the school board, the province of Ontario and the elementary teachers' union. The only thing that this parent wanted was to protect his children from the LGTBQ beliefs implemented by the Wynne Liberal government. The policy is known as the Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy. It later become part of the controversial 2015 Health and Physical and Education curriculum for all public schools, including the Catholic schools.
Last year, the Ontario Superior Court ruled against Dr. Steve Tourloukis. The court reasoned that there was lack of evidence; in other words, he needed to prove that his children were actually harmed. The decision is a blow to parental rights in Ontario and the rest of Canada. Why? Because Tourloukis represented every parent who wants to have a say about the kind of education their children receive.
One of the three judges, Peter Lauwers, did state the dangers of violating parental rights. He wrote, "In my view there are limits imposed by the Charter on a province's power to use publicly funded education to inculcate children in beliefs that educational authorities have determined are necessary." He added, there is the "right of parents to care for their children and make decisions for their well-being, including decisions about education, is primary, and the state's authority is secondary to that parental right." So, why not rule in favour of Tourloukis? That would have been the just ruling.
(Win or lose, we have a lot of respect and admiration for what Tourloukis has done. In the interest of full disclosure, we're the chair of The Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund. We worked to raise private funds to help pay for the court costs. The Ontario government, the school board and the teachers' union probably spent well over 500,000 dollars to fight Tourloukis, and by attacking him they attacked all parents in Canada. But they had unlimited taxpayer money to fight against parental rights. The average citizens doesn't. What a shame!)
Example 2: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled in June of this year that Law Societies have the right to deny accreditation to Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed law school. Trinity Western University is a private Christian evangelical institution that requires its students to agree to a covenant permitting sexual relationships just between a man and a woman and only after marriage. The high court decided that Law Societies in both Ontario and British Columbia have the right to make sure (discriminate) that there is equal access to diversity and stop any harm to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students. However, that same equality of access and harm doesn't apply to Christian students.
Why did the SCC not ask for proof of harm as the judges did in the Tourloukis case? In this case, no evidence of harm was necessary. The mere covenant itself to remain chaste was in itself proof of harm to others. Why can't Canadian parents and students have the freedom to choose the education of their choice? Why not encourage more young men and women to study charity law? But the SCC wasn't interested. There is a double standard of justice here. A Christian father needs to legally provide proof of harm before the court agrees to his Charter of Rights of religious freedom and equality, but the same rule doesn't apply to those who claim to hold LGTBQ values. There is something terribly wrong in this. TWU has every right, in a democratic nation, to have a law school founded on Christian principles. The SCC made a horrible and biased decision.
Example 3: This comes from Alberta. We have a family with three children and two of them are autistic. One of the autistic children, a girl, who is twelve years old, joined the school's gay/straight alliance club. There she was soon convinced the she was a "boy" and not a girl. The school began the transitioning process with hormones, surgery, change of name and allowing the girl to use the boys' washroom.
Were the parents informed of what was happening to this very vulnerable child? Of course not. It wasn't until the daughter became depressed and suicidal that the parents were told. This child could have taken her life because the school did not tell the parents. After the parents went to court with the help of lawyer John Carpay from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, the situation got worse.
In court, Justice Johnna Kubik dismissed all the expert evidence presented that GSAs can too easily be used to promote an ideological progressive sexuality and gender fluidity. Why allow public schools to let just about anyone have access to GSA clubs without parental permission? Why is it acceptable to undermine the traditional view on sexuality, the person and marriage? We must remember that we're talking about children changing sex, in this case an autistic child, and attending elementary school. The child's brain has hardly formed the capacity to make such a serious choice. Instead, is this not a case of government child abuse?
The judge dismissed expert testimony because she has the legislative support of the Alberta government that believes GSAs are good for students. Kubik sided with Bill 24 which makes it illegal in Alberta to notify a parent if the child joins a GSA and/or decides to transition. The ruling is currently being challenged in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Kubik's biased decision needs to be overturned. But for now, parental rights can be violated in the name of gender fluidity and sexual expressions of every kind. It must not matter to Justice Kubik that children in the meantime can be harmed for life.
Example 4: This is a continuation for the last point. Too many anti-parental rights laws have been passed by governments. We have seen how Bill 24: An Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta can be used against parents. The legislation protects teachers and school administrators from telling parents that their children have joined a gay/straight alliance at school. In Ontario, we have Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017 that permits the school and/or government officials to remove children from their families if parents don't accept a child's decision to change sex. Don't let the nice-sounding name of the law fool you. The Ontario government knows best when it comes to changing a child's sex.
In addition, Bill 28, All Families Are Equal Act (Parentage and Related Registrations Statute Law Amendment), 2016 is actually anti-family because it permits the removal of the words "mother" and "father" on birth certificates. How can a mother and a father have rights when you can choose not to recognize that biological reality and be forced to accept another one merely based on feelings? And then there's Bill 77, Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act, 2015 that legislates against any other therapy counter to changing sex is legally acceptable. Most provinces now have similar legislation. This provincial legislation is all backed by Canada's Bill C-16, a law passed in 2016. It's called An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Canadians can be charged with a crime now should they question gender fluidity or with hate speech if they speak against it.
We conclude by quoting from Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sections 2 and 3 state: "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." And "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." In Canada, both laws at the federal and provincial levels are breaking this declaration. It's parents who have the right to have the final say in what children learn and the groups they join, not the school or the government. By violating parental rights and not fully respecting parents, Canada's future is bleak. There is a huge price we pay as a society when we weaken parental rights and refuse to legislatively protect, not just alternative structures, but the traditional family too. The health and strength of the family is the health and strength of a nation. If we keep on this sick path, parental rights in Canada will become extinct. For some parents, it has already sadly happened.
The delusion that motivates the movement
toward gender fluidity acceptance
Sexual-orientation and gender-identity battle grips schools
*Update: The names and photos in this story have been changed
or removed at the father's request
This is an extremely difficult issue and we sincerely hope
we have not caused any suffering
When Brandon* sent his eldest child to Grade 9 in a community in BC's Lower Mainland (see map below), two years ago, he was afraid that Kevin* would be misunderstood and excluded: "This was always about just having our son attend school, where he was accepted for who he is, so he could have a normal school year, the same as everyone else."
Kevin is transgender. And after Brandon spoke with the principal, the school brought in a speaker for staff and students, helping educators foster a more inclusive environment for Kevin.
Today, parents such as Brandon and their kids have an easier time navigating the school system. Last fall, the government required every school district in British Columbia to include sexual orientation and gender identity in anti-bullying policies. Teachers are equipped with resources to support children, including LGBTQ students, and a redesigned curriculum means educators can focus on diversity and respecting differences.
As someone who has been writing blogs on child sex abuse for more than 5 years, I get frustrated with far-left liberal governments fixation on gender-fluidity and bullying while almost completely ignoring the massive problems of child sex abuse.
Yes, I empathize with gender dysphoric kids, and, no, no kid should ever be bullied for any reason. But liberal governments and school boards are treating the symptoms, not the problem. The problem is bullying! Bullying of any kind is intolerable and that should be the focus. Bullies will always find victims, if not transgenders, then someone else. We must deal with the bullies rather than trying to make everyone acceptable to those bullies.
The fixation on trans kids as opposed to sexually abused kids is particularly disturbing because, in the USA only 0.7% of the population is transgender. Meanwhile, about 10% of boys, and as many as 30% of girls are sexually abused as children. Why focus on the less than 1% and ignore more than 20% of the kids suffering? Why?
Yet, Brandon faces a new challenge. Late last month, Brandon, holding a sign that read "Love Wins," rallied, along with dozens of other parents, outside the district school board. They were squaring off against a conservative group of parents and activists who feel threatened by the very policies that are meant to protect Kevin.
Brandon has been trying to help support a program called SOGI 123, a set of resources for B.C. teachers to help them address issues around gender identity and help school districts support LGBTQ students.
JIMMY JEONG/THE GLOBE AND MAIL
BC's Lower Mainland has become a battleground between supporters of an inclusive school environment that directly names and addresses homo- and transphobia, and those who oppose introducing topics such as gender identity and sexual orientation to students. The small, but vocal group of counterprotesters label an LGBTQ-friendly curriculum and policies as a "sex activists agenda" that "abuses" children.
"Why would anyone be against such a thing that actually creates an environment that is safe and secure for students?" said Brandon. "How could anybody be against that?"
And there-in lies the question, the answer to which is the delusion referred to in the title above. Nobody is against that which makes for a safe and secure environment for children. Nobody. But SOGI123 actually creates an extremely dangerous environment for children. How's that? By teaching children that they are gender-fluid and not necessarily the sex that would appear obvious from their anatomy.
SOGI123 teaches them that it is healthy to question your sexuality and there is no harm in switching your sexual identity to that which is opposite to what your anatomy dictates. This is so wrong and so utterly insane that it is hard to refrain from using hyperbole.
More than 40% of transgenders attempt suicide! And, it is not because of bullying. In fact, you would be very hard-pressed to find a single case of a transgender who attempted suicide because of bullying. What you will find, if you look hard enough, is that they attempt suicide because of profound unhappiness with themselves. Much of it, I'm sure, coming from regret for the path they have chosen and their inability to face the possibility of going back.
There is one more point I need to make here. A recent alarming report, again, out of the UK, reveals that an unusual number of students, 17, in a single school are currently attempting to transition. The agency that actually assists with the transitioning sounded the alarm for 1 - the sheer number; and 2 - the fact that most of those students are somewhere on the autistic spectrum. In fact, a large number of transgenders are autistic.
What does that tell us? Are transgender kids targeting vulnerable kids to increase their numbers? Gender dysphoria is listed as a mental illness. Mental illnesses often tend to cluster in that many people have more than one mental illness. Does the vulnerability of autistic kids reinforce the fact that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?
The World Health Organization (WHO) currently lists transgender identity as a mental health disorder
Does the extremely high attempted suicide rate of transgenders reinforce the fact that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?
Should we, as a society, be encouraging the practice of mental illness as a norm? Shouldn't those kids be getting help instead of getting encouraged?
The issue began in summer of 2016, when the BC Human Rights Code was amended to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
In response, the government last fall directed all school districts to include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in their anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct. The Ministry of Education, along with the teachers' union, the Vancouver-based ARC Foundation and others, collaborated on SOGI 123, an initiative that shares resources on how to support students and create more inclusive schools.
Teachers in the classroom, under a revised curriculum currently being rolled out in schools, may explore the various components of the human rights code, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Lessons on family diversity, for example, may include mentions of same-sex families and LGBTQ rights.
That doesn't sit well with a conservative group called Culture Guard. Its spokeswoman, Kari Simpson, has described SOGI curriculum and policies as a "dangerous agenda."
On its website, the group said it works to protect the "natural family, parental rights, [and] the sanctity of life." It claimed that there is an agenda in schools to "undermine societal values and to sexualize your children."
Ms. Simpson's group has held so-called information meetings on SOGI, the most recent one earlier this month at a retirement home in Abbotsford.
"It is a political agenda that abuses children and violates the role and purpose of public education," Ms. Simpson said in an e-mail. "The consequences of this political indoctrination will be destructive to children, our culture and our nation."
Education Minister Rob Fleming said he was "disappointed" that some parents are opposed to SOGI-inclusive schools. "It is crucial that we help to ensure all students feel welcome in B.C.'s schools, regardless of who they identify as," he said in a statement.
Brandon's school district sent a letter home to parents in March outlining the curriculum changes and the district's stand on inclusion.
The letter stated that the district's schools would ensure gender-neutral washroom facilities exist for students, and that provincial curriculum expectations included the "integration of inclusive education, including gender orientation and expression beginning in kindergarten."
In kindergarten? Are you serious? Tell me again this is not indoctrination!
This prompted criticism from some parents at a June school board meeting, where they voiced their concerns to trustees around what they called a SOGI education and how it was being presented to students, board spokesman Ken Hoff said.
Mr. Hoff said an individual had applied to address trustees again at the most recent, Sept. 26, board meeting but withdrew the request a week before the meeting.
But as word leaked that an anti-SOGI activist was appearing, local parents organized a loosely-formed group to lobby for inclusivity. About 100 of them, including Brandon and his sons, Kevin and his younger brother, rallied outside the school board office in support of SOGI education and policies.
BC's Lower Mainland has become a battleground between supporters of an inclusive school environment and a small, but vocal group of counterprotesters who label an LGBTQ-friendly curriculum and policies as a “sex activists agenda” that “abuses” children.
The battle started in summer of 2016, when the BC Human Rights Code was amended to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
"The fear-mongering and hate needs to stop," said Brandon of why he attended the rally.
And yet, while there may be very good reason for fear-mongering, or, at least concern, there is never a reason for hate.
This is not the first time in Canada that changes in education that involve sexuality or LGBTQ rights have been a flashpoint. In 2010, former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty gave in to pressure from religious fundamentalists and cancelled an update to the health and physical education curriculum that would have included teaching on same-sex relationships and sexuality. The Ontario sex-ed curriculum was released two years ago, under current Premier Kathleen Wynne. The education minister at the time, Liz Sandals, vowed not to cave to pressure from fringe religious groups. Some parents pulled their children out of public schools, but many have since returned.
The reporter here neglects to mention that Ontario's sex-ed curriculum was, almost certainly, authored by a convicted pedophile, Ben Levin. While the Liberals deny it vehemently, it makes no sense that he would not have been deeply involved in its development as easily one of the most qualified and capable people in Canada, until his convictions.
Benjamin "Ben" Levin (born 1952) is a convicted child pornographer and registered Sex offender in Canada. He previously was the Canada Research Chair in Education Leadership and Policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto. As a civil servant he served for three years in the Ontario provincial government as Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education after having held a similar post in Manitoba. He was also a former advisor to then-premier Kathleen Wynne. On March 3, 2015, Levin pleaded guilty to three charges relating to making and distributing child pornography. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. - Wikipedia
By the way, Kathleen Wynne is a lesbian. But, I'm sure there is no attempt to indoctrinate here.
The good news is her government collapsed spectacularly last spring. Alberta's far-left government is set to be replaced by a more conservative party next year, but British Columbia's extreme-left government, though tenuous at best, may hang around for years.
BC's Lower Mainland
Abbotsford, Langley and Chilliwack are British Columbia's Bible Belt
