Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak once again with Helen Ward, President of Kids First Parent Association of Canada, about the damaging ramifications of letting institutions raise your children. With all the evidence and common sense pointing toward the parent-child relationship as the healthiest, most positive way to raise a child, why does the government push institutional care – and why do parents buy into it!?
Daily at 7:30 pm Eastern
Monday, November 12, 2012
Drive for Justice 21: Behind the Curtain
Host Ron Gray continues taking us through the initial BC Supreme Court trial of Kari Simpson v. Rafe Mair et al in which Simpson accused Mair of defamation – and pulls back the curtain to reveal that the trial judge herself was on the defence side of her husband’s own defamation case. This obvious conflict of interest should have resulted in the judge recusing herself, but listen to what shenanigans happened instead…
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
RoadKillRadio News: Parenting vs. the Lifelong Negative Consequences of Daycare
Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak once again with Helen Ward, President of Kids First Parent Association of Canada, about the damaging ramifications of letting institutions raise your children. With all the evidence and common sense pointing toward the parent-child relationship as the healthiest, most positive way to raise a child, why does the government push institutional care – and why do parents buy into it!?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Mark Hasiuk Show: The Roles of Media and Daycare in Bullying
Join Mark Hasiuk as he explores bullying / cyber-bullying, and the roles that the media and daycare play in this social crime. Citing Amanda Todd‘s recent tragic suicide, Mark explains why this particular teen suicide garnered so much attention. Turning his focus on the cause of bullying, Mark explores the role of daycare and institutionalized child rearing. Want to stop bullying? Start reconnecting parents with their kids.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Family Freedom Fighters: Who Are the Real Bullies?
Ron Gray takes a step back to look at the bigger picture of bullying. Why does it exist at all? Why does it exist in our culture? And why have we allowed bullies to take our world from us and shape it in their own image? Find out who the real bullies are, and how we allow them to get away with their bad behaviour.
Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak with Helen Ward, President of Kids First Parent Association of Canada, about the assertion by anti-parent activists that government institutions would actually raise your children better than you do. The theory – already debunked by countless studies – is that peers and autocrats have a better influence on a child's upbringing than good old fashioned parental care and guidance. The real shocker: Such theories are being promoted by teachers and their unions!
Mark Hasiuk speaks with Laura Robinson, writer and journalist, who alleges in a Georgia Straight article that former Vancouver Olympic Committee CEO John Furlong physically abused students as a high school basketball coach more than 40 years ago. Mr. Furlong strongly denies the allegations and has threatened a lawsuit, but Ms. Robinson sticks to her story and threatens to counter-sue. Hear some very interesting revelations about Ms. Robinson's development of her story.
October 3, 2012
Re: Bravo, Minister Ambrose!
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
My name is Kari Simpson; I am a civil, informed Canadian. I am the mother of four responsible, accomplished, and now adult children whom I raised as a single parent; the oldest was 12 when their father became ill and passed away. I am also delighted to proclaim that my eighth grandchild is due in March. And yes, as my children were taught, my grandchildren are also being educated about their democratic and civil responsibilities to protect life and liberty. This includes voting.
I am also CEO of WOW Multi-Media corporation; President of a national organization called Culture Guard; host of RoadKill Radio News, an influential current affairs program on RoadKill Radio.com; a commercial pilot; and a feared and respected child and family advocate—among other endeavours. I do not attribute my successes to affirmative action or feminist gains, but rather to having the good fortune of coming from a long line of individuals strongly committed to the family unit, and made up of strong men and women who deal in reality, work hard, live responsibly and respect those who deserve respect.
I would like to add my voice to counter the noise created by the gaggle of feminist squawk-boxers who willingly display their ineptitude and their challenged view of reality by falsely claiming to represent me, my three daughters, and numerous other female members of our extended family, in matters that affect Canadian women.
My family’s work history details the events involving my great-aunts running mines in The Pas, Manitoba; my grandmother working to finance my grandfather’s inventions—some events going back 100 years ago, long before silly women started burning their bras. The women in my family have accomplished these noteworthy successes, like so many others, without assistance from the state, or being given an unfair advantage by government programs crafted to discriminate against men; and they have done so without murdering our unborn children, abdicating our responsibilities as mothers, or requiring others to pay for our career choice expenses — e.g., daycare.
I have watched with growing distain the verbal assaults being hurled at Minister Ambrose by self-absorbed, feeble-brained radical feminists—both male and female — who operate from a platform that seemingly provides blinders and affords only a flat-earth view. The out-dated rhetoric of yesteryear relied upon by these squawking ninnies is about as useful as the shrill shriek of a faulty brake-pad, just before a crash.
Minister Rona Ambrose deserves enormous credit for her willingness to assure Canadians that she and 90 other elected leaders don’t fear seeking a factual, foundational understanding of the scientific realities associated with the genesis of life. She deserves the applause that is growing louder as more and more Canadians become informed about this intelligent, independently-minded stateswoman, who had the integrity to vote in favour of Motion 312—a vote to establish the truth.
You can appreciate how intellectually pathetic those 203 members are who voted against seeking to explore the scientific facts about human life. There has been no moment in the history of Parliament that so fully demonstrates the sad state of the factually-challenged cowards who wimpily kow-tow to the squawk-box bullies and shrieking ninnies. I find it ridiculous—and concerning—that elected officials would publicly demonstrate their willingness to embrace ignorance on such an important issue, clearly acquiescing to the unjustified fear generated by the natter of a few cultural terrorists.
You are right, Mr. Prime Minister: we don’t need a debate; we need a solution to an obvious problem—a problem that allows innocent children to be slaughtered. Canadians deserve to be factually informed. This violent crime against our nation’s innocent, unborn sons and daughters, Canada’s most vulnerable citizens, must end.
Please extend my deep appreciation to Minister Ambrose for establishing a credible and respectable standard in political leadership—for both women and men. Minister Ambrose, by courageously standing in support of Motion 312, spoke for me, my daughters, and my granddaughters—and on behalf of the overwhelming majority of informed women (and men) who abide in truth, act responsibility and deal in reality—something her ill-informed critics, parroting the retro-rhetoric-of-yesteryear, fear.
Yours truly,
Kari Simpson
Host, RoadKill Radio News
RoadKillRadio.com
Email: karisimpson@telus.net
Tel: (604) 514-1614
Fax: (604) 514-1669
To:
Minister Rona Ambrose
The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Fax 613-941-6900
e-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
Copied to:
Rona Ambrose
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
e-mail: rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca
The Canadian Medical Association has issued a statement—political, not medical—saying that a baby does not become a human being until after it is born.
Let’s parse that carefully. We’ll start with the organization making the statement: The Canadian Medical Association. Who are they?
Well, they’re actually an imitative branch-plant of the American Medical Association. It’s an example of the “Ooooh! They’ve got one! Let’s us have one, too!” syndrome.
But where did the AMA come from?
From the Rockefeller Foundation’s largesse. Here’s how:
In 1913, when a cabal of American Robber Barons drafted legislation for a graduated income tax—a policy espoused by Karl Marx, interestingly—they included a provision for tax-exempt charitable foundations. By keeping control of the shares they put into the foundations, they were able to exert influence on the stock market without appearing to violate the anti-trust laws. But the shares they retained would benefit from their advance knowledge of what they were going to do with their Foundation shares.
John D. Rockefeller wanted to split the income earned by the Rockefeller Foundation shares between rural education and medicine. Education was no problem: he just gave the money to rural school boards. He hired a guy to disburse the medical funds—but the guy he hired knew nothing about medicine. So he went to Leipzig, in Germany to find out what state-of-the-art medicine was doing there; as it turned out, Leipzig doctors were big on pharmaceuticals and surgery—two topics being taught at only one school in the USA: Johns-Hopkins. So Johns-Hopkins got the Rockefeller cash.
But it didn’t take long for the other universities to discover how to get on the gravy train: their curricula soon included pharmaceuticals and surgery. And that became the model for medical education in the USA.
Ironically, John D’s own personal physician was a homeopath—but homeopathy, like chiropractic, was excluded from the gravy train.
The graduates of the new allopathic medicine schools funded by Rockefeller became the founders of the AMA… and their pattern and policies were copied by the CMA.
So that’s the origin of the organization that now tells us a pre-born baby isn’t human.
I have a question for the CMA: if the parents are both human, the progeny is certainly not a rabbit. If the parents are both human, what IS the baby, if not human?
Am I putting down doctors? Not at all. They’re healers, and their training and compassion are important to us. But I am pointing out that their real expertise is confined to just one part of the healing arts. And within that part, there is a tiny—and, happily, a shrinking—number of doctors who are willing to be killers, instead of healers.
Thus the absurd CMA statement that pre-born babies aren’t human beings is merely a professional group’s attempt to protect a grisly billion-dollar-a year industry that enriches those few.
Parliament will soon decide whether to reconsider the 400-year-old criterion that undergirds that grisly industry. To many politicians, an organization like the CMA represents a convenient clumping together of potential votes; and when the opinion of such a group is falsely presented to them as being all on one side, it may seem to them to have weight… and that needs a counter-weight: your opinion.
This is an urgent time for you to act: visit, call or write your Member of Parliament and urge them to support Motion 312, by MP Stephen Woodworth, on September 21.
Woodworth wants Parliament to create a committee to review Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which says a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.
Woodworth, quite correctly, argues: “If a child, five minutes before birth, can be defined as ‘not a human being’, then the question is: ‘Who’s next?’”
Don’t put this off: contact your Member of Parliament right away to make sure your opinion is heard. Best is to make an appointment to visit them at their constituency office; next-best is to phone them, and leave a message for them to call you back—then tell them this issue is important to you, and could influence your vote at the next election; If nothing else, write a letter (no postage needed), or send an e-mail. But make sure your MP knows your opinion.
Canadian-born comedian Mort Sahl used to quip, in the ’50s, that “The AMA is opposed to faith healing—or any other cure that is quick and inexpensive.” Don’t let the voice of a lobby group like that influence your Member of Parliament.
Remember: your voice matters.
Greetings Dr. Phil!
I need help! I am not sure if I need an intervention or just some help on how to manage my obsession for truth and fact, maybe both!!
You see, I work as a successful public advocate on issues that affect parental rights, education, children’s rights and other crucial issues that affect civil citizens.
I admit that I don’t mince words, raising four great kids as a single mom in a busy household that included a demanding work schedule required a “cut to the chase, here’s the real deal” approach. It worked. You’ll be happy to know that all four kids have turned out to be responsible and hard-working… none live at home! Zero drug, alcohol or behaviour issues and most importantly they, as adults, understand their essential role and responsibilities to their spouses, their children and the community.
This “tell it like it is” approach has not only served my family well but a growing community of common-sense civil Americans and Canadians that are fed-up with the blather, statistical nonsense and costs – both culturally and monetarily – associated with the professional squawk boxers. You know those special interest groups that rely on manufactured stories of twisted reality to bully and dupe politicians, courts, media and public schools into compliance of their world view and have us tax- payers pay for it.
Now here’s my problem: I detest liars and bullies. I admit I have had this problem since I was a kid going to school. I always rallied to the defence of those who were being bullied or picked on. That is not to say some kids deserved to be told-off, but the ones who found salvation in my friendship were those who were targeted for reasons other than being annoying idiots.
In my adult life the manifestation of my problem has escalated. Here are some examples –
– A few years back I became aware that social workers were abusing their authority in British Columbia and destroying families and harming children with their bully tactics and lies. I exposed this fact, it created a huge hullabaloo! I was threatened, called all kinds of names but felt compelled to inform the public about the truth of what was happening. My obsession with telling the truth finally resulted in the Government challenging me to a Public Inquiry. The findings of that Inquiry came down boldly aligned my position. Too many apprehensions, families were being destroyed, children harmed, changes needed. The government Minister responsible apologized to me and admitted there were problems with in our social services.
– Another manifestation of my problem happened when parents were being lied to about the true objectives of a program being fraudulently marketed to them as a sex abuse prevention program for 5 year-olds. Teachers jumped on the band-wagon of “save the child” and failed to objectively critique the program and the confusion that would obviously ensue as a result of little impressionable minds being told over and over again that the people most likely to harm them were their fathers and grandfathers. To make matters worse the children were told that this form of abuse included being touched anywhere a one piece bathing suit covered and included pictures like the one of a grandfather scooping his granddaughter up into his arms and equating a loving pat on the backside to abuse.
These confused little kids were then encouraged – by their teachers – to report this kind of “bad touching.” Teachers of course were portrayed in the program as the children’s saviour. Needless to say there was a rash of false reports of “sexual abuse.”
I received calls about this program from concerned parents who were being bullied into having their children participate in it. Teachers were told that if a parent objected the program it was because they were abusing their child. Well as you know I don’t like bullies or liars and I don’t like teachers undermining healthy family relationships, so I exposed the program and its faults. I was threatened and called all kinds of names but succeeded in eliminating the program from the schools and was thanked by hundreds of parents.
– Then there was the war on behalf of the good teachers, who were getting fed up with the homosexual sex activist teachers within their union. They asked for my help. To add to the crisis at the time there was an anti-family government in power. The problematic government supported this agenda but was publicly lying about what they were doing within the education ministry. Further, the sex activist teachers were lying, and bullying parents.
Well as you know, my problem demanded action. I was compelled to ensure that the truth about what was transpiring was told and that the bullies were going to have to deal with someone who wasn’t afraid to put them in their place.
I exposed the antics of the bullies and the lies being told by the government. As a result of my problem, I was labelled by a respected publication as being the most Dangerous Woman in BC – at least dangerous to those who dared to lie, undermine the rights of parents or snub the sensibilities of civil-mined citizens.
My obsession with truth and the need to battle on behalf of those who are being bullied resulted in the decimation of that problematic government. The NDP as they are called went from being a majority government to being left with only 2 seats out of 75. I was thanked by tens of thousands of British Columbians.
– My problem of being truthful about what is politically transpiring can be a dangerous one and often puts me in publicly-threatening situations, but when my compulsions for truthful, factual dialogue involve children and the agenda of the sex activists – especially homosexual sex activists – well the threats escalate to include threats against my life and those of my kids.
Now I realize most politicians, courts, journalists and professionals are cowardly and sensibly acquiesce to the sex activists’ twisted facts and rhetoric for fear of reprisal. My obsession for truth compels me to do otherwise. Dr. Phil is there something wrong with me?
Here is a recent disturbing example of my problem.
– A 25 year-old homosexual activist, convicted for sexual assault against a minor, wrote a letter back in 2007 detailing activities taking place during meetings for homosexual youth in the state of Maine, activities that included sexual interference between adults and minors, and described events including his own plans to murder another attendee and commit suicide. This young man, Mr. Flanders, distributed the letter himself and it was received by the local police, government health agencies, pro-family groups, and the local news media.
Mr. Flanders has a website and has dedicated a large portion of his public blog to reiterate these events, as well as subsequent events involving his stabbing of two people – those two people being his “minor boyfriend” and his father – after violating a restraining order by breaking into their home. Mr. Flanders has since become very public about his perceived “victimization” by the individuals and the agencies involved in prosecuting and convicting him of several crimes of violence. The “victimizers” include: the District Attorney, certain judges, lawyers, police and individuals like me. Mr. Flanders has filed numerous formal complaints against them resulting in a huge cost to tax-payers and the consumption of valuable time and money for the targeted individuals.
Anyway, a respected organization in Massachusetts dedicated to informing the public on issues related to sex activists posted the letter in 2007 on their website. In Nov. of 2011, Mr. Flanders took issue with this and convinced a judge in the state of Maine that the spokesman for this organization was “stalking” him and obtained a Personal Protection Order against Brian Camenker. Mr. Flanders then sued Mr. Camenker for 1 million dollars, $500,000.00 of which is because Mr. Flanders is homosexual and thinks he deserves additional damages due to his sexual preference.
Well, I don’t like these kinds of litigious bully tactics, so I interviewed Mr. Camenker about the situation on my Internet talk show called RoadKill Radio.com.
I also had my producer invite Mr. Flanders on. The next thing you know, Mr. Flanders is threatening me! He contacted our video streaming company, lied to them and almost succeeded in pulling us off the Internet – he has done this to numerous others.
But you know I couldn’t help myself, I don’t like liars or bullies so I retained a respected lawyer who quickly resolved the problem. Then Mr. Flanders threatened my lawyer, demanding that he lie about his representation of RoadKill Radio.com and that he cease acting on our behalf!
I have since learned that Mr. Flanders is now suing a respected judge in Maine, a university, and a police department as well as Mr. Camenker. I am beginning to wonder; Is this a case of vexatious litigation due to querulous paranoia? Or is it my problem?
Dr. Phil, why do I perceive Mr. Flanders as a bully? Why am I compelled to stop this bully? Can you help me and all the others who are trying to counter the lies and bully tactics of this man and others like him?
Please Dr. Phil, please tell me why can’t I be like so many others and just accept that whatever a homosexual sex activist says is to be deemed as truth – even when it is a lie? Why do I care more about the best interests of children and truth than offending a political sex activist or in this case a registered sex offender?
You know Dr. Phil the other victories I have won on these fronts…too many to mention here – against sex activists bullies – leads me to believe my problem, albeit rare, just might be a really good one!
Eek! See how deluded I am!
Quick! Please help me!
I’m Kari Simpson and you can contact me by email at CultureGuard@gmail.com
|
Hi Everyone – I’m Kari Simpson.
Having survived the raising of my 4 children during some of the most societal challenging of times I get asked often for parenting tips. One of the questions that is frequently asked involves “word crimes”, otherwise known as swearing or cussing. Well, you see, this coin eating machine is sometimes prominently displayed in our home. You can imagine that having a busy household of family, friends business associates and acquaintances that there might be the rare occasion where an individual or two might be inclined to use words that are illegal in our household. Now note I didn’t say forbidden. You see, swearing and cussing was never a big problem with my kids growing up. I am not that often inclined to swear and they weren’t. Sure, they tried to it on when they were younger. It didn’t fit. It wasn’t until recent years with the expanding family of relatives and their relatives and friends (mostly adults) that I found a need to have a tool of cussing dissuasion at my disposal. Thus I embraced the powerful tool of assigning financial penalty to those who committed word crimes. It has worked brilliantly. It goes like this, there are certain people in my life and that of our 7 grandchildren, that I love to bits but are inclined to occasionally use terms of expression that are deemed to be unacceptable. Most of the time the use is not intentional but nevertheless it happens. On these occasions when such words are spoken, and witnessed by the young impressionable minds and ears that are often about – well there has to be a consequence. Now don’t get me wrong. I am sure the public record demonstrates my complicity in this regard, and for that I have contributed a fair share of financial penance for the word crimes I have committed. Be assured though, that my usage is usually contextually acceptable. How can that be, you ask? Well sometimes you just have to damn well tell it like it is even if it is captured by my own house rules. Yes I committed a word crime! As for all those who visit and contribute to my grandchildren’s post secondary education, we thank you! |
Well, it’s that time of year. Most parents are eager for September to roll around. The back to school shopping signals the hope of routine, and for some the possibility of enjoying a quiet house for a few hours of the day.
As a mom to four – now healthy happy well-adjusted adults – the weeks leading up to the launching of a new school year, though years ago, are still emblazoned in my brain. The long lists of who needed what – and the whats changed every year depending on the grade.
Yep, back to school check lists were typically long and expensive and kept evolving. Today’s checklist reflects the technological changes and can now demand laptops, memory sticks and other wired toys and tools that go along with those lead free pencils and environmentally considered paper products. Special clothing, lunch boxes and earthquake survival kits are a must for some school checklists.
But the most important educational tool that every successful student will require and must be included in everyone’s checklist is you, the parent, and I mean acting like a parent and not just a name on a birth certificate.
If you love your children – and take your parenting responsibilities seriously – then you have a duty to be involved and informed. The public education system is fraught with ideological dangers that will adversely affect your children and family if they are left vulnerable. You are their protection. You are their shield.
Here’s the deal, and yes I am going to dump on the public education system and rightly so. Sure, there are a lot of good teachers in the system; they know who they are and they will applaud this message. There are also a lot of well-intentioned teachers who are easily manipulated. Then there’s those okay teachers who know the system is facilitating the propagation of junk science, outright lies about human sexuality, and anti-family cultural Marxist ideals, but place their jobs ahead of your child’s best interest and engage in rationalizing their silence and acquiescence by falsely believing that your child’s brief interaction with them will counteract all the bull shit that is being delivered into the classrooms of Canada.
They are wrong in that belief. Then there are the clearly bad teachers, so-called professionals that purposefully abuse their roll as a teacher to indoctrinate your child – your son or daughter – with a political agenda, misinformation and societal views that are contrary to the beliefs and ideals of most civil hard-working Canadians and the realities around us.
As a parent you are your child’s protector. Act like it. Parents, do not be regulated to a status of irrelevancy. You are your child’s most important educator. Yes, a good teacher can facilitate a portion of your son’s or daughter’s education but their roll is NOT a partnership. You as a parent delegate your authority for only a small portion of your child’s learning and as “delegator” you should oversee the job of the individual and judge if they are doing a good job or not.
Shame on you if you have organized your life in a fashion that makes your schedule too busy to be involved in the education of your child. I got news for you: that’s not organization! Double shame if you don’t want to offend the teacher by requiring them to be accountable.
The good news here is that more and more parents are becoming informed and involved. I see from the recent released stats from the BC Ministry of Education that enrolment in the public schools is down by a significant 68,000 students from 2001. Yep, more and more parents are opting out of the public indoctrination system. Most parents I speak to would enrol their children in a private school in a heartbeat if they had the money to do so. So for those whose children are forced to brave the “system”, here are a few more items to add to that back to school checklist:
1. Make yourself known to your children’s teachers and administration. You know, the “Hi, I want to introduce myself. I’m Katherine’s mom…”
2. Call the principal or send them an email. Make contact!
3. Let the teaching and administration staff know that if there is ever a problem involving your child – good or bad – that you welcome their call.
4. Make you presence and your values known in the school.
5. Ask questions. Does this school respect parental rights and invite parental involvement?
6. Ask the teacher how he or she will inform you about guests speaking to the kids. Programs like “Roots of Empathy” bring social workers into the schools and ask prying questions about your families.
7. Ask what kind of sex abuse prevention programs the teacher is going to be relying upon. I raise this as an important lesson. The schools sometime adopt programs of convenience to meet requirements, and severe damage has resulted to some families as a result.
8. Engage your children in conversations. Ask them about what is happening in
their classroom.
9. Government-proof your kids – Teach your children about what is acceptable information to talk with outsiders and the difference between private family matters and general information.
10. Give your children the tools to not speak to social workers. “I don’t have to talk to you. Talk to my mom or dad.”
11. Teach your children about what is an appropriate discussion topic in the classroom vs. what isn’t. Give your children praise when they identify discussions that are anti-family or contrary to your family’s values.
12. Tell your children that not all teachers will respect their rights, that some teachers can be bullies and that you as your child’s parent will deal with them if they have a problem.
13. Equip your kids with wisdom. They will be confronted with having to make decisions about a lot of things in their schools – including being recruited to participate in vaccination programs for sexually transmitted diseases. They will be told they don’t need your permission. Give them the tools to say NO and to let you know when this takes place.
14. Don’t let issues at the school slide by. Take a proactive stance. Find out if in your school your son or daughter will be exposed to pro-homosexual and other sex activist propaganda. Advise the school administration that you won’t allow a political agenda to be used in the school. If a teacher is sporting the political rainbow flag or colours, say no. Same thing for the “day of Silence”.
15. Be resourceful. There are a number of excellent parenting groups and resources available to you on the Internet or by phone, including us here at Culture Guard.
16) I will end this by saying the most import item on this checklist is the knowledge that as parents You are the most important and influential people in your child’s life and the ones who are ultimately responsible for your child’s well being. Become informed and stay aware, but most importantly love your kids enough to show them that you are a savvy and courageous parent that loves them enough to be involved in their lives and to do battle on their behalf if necessary.
Enjoy the day… see you next time.
Rafe Mair and Kari Simpson worked together for more than a decade to let the public know how government bureaucrats were sometimes abusing families in BC, and indeed, often actually putting children at risk by their abuses of the government’s enormous power.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin acknowleged, in a speech she made in January of this year, the important role media play in our justice system, quoting 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who said, “Where there is no publicity, there is no justice.”
The media, in short, are the public’s watchdog: if the media are covering the courts, they are the public’s eyes and ears.
And in those years, broadcasters like Rafe Mair were sustaining that role; he was a worthy successor to my old boss, the late, great Jack Webster.
But sometimes, when the members of the judicial club get too close, the watchdog can turn into a lap-dog.
You know, I’ve long contended that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so beloved by our Left-Liberal media, is wrongly constructed, on two counts:
First, it should be a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities; we all have an obligation to protect the freedoms our ancestors won for us. As someone has said, “Freedom is not free; it must be won and defended anew in every generation.”
Second, the primary purpose of such a Charter should be to defend citizens from the abuse of power by their government. The criminal law protects us from each other; but an old Latin proverb asks, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies”—“who will keep watch over the watchers themselves?”
For more than ten years, and in cases that numbered into the thousands, Rafe and Kari let the public know that abuses were taking place. Rafe had the Number One radio talk show in the Lower Mainland of BC, and Kari had organized the Citizens Research Institute to give citizens a place to air their grievances. Together, they were a real-life “dynamic duo”. And the public really responded: Kari’s work was a ratings-booster for Rafe.
At one point, Kari was nominated for an award as British Columbia’s “Woman of Distinction”, and Rafe wrote fulsome praise: his only objection to the proposed award, he said, was that it was too limiting—“When one considers what she has accomplished—and forced, by dint of her commitment and dedication, others to accomplish—she is a distinguished British Columbian and Canadian, who has truly been an inspiration to all she has come in contact with.”
In a later broadcast—we have it on tape—he actually proposed that Kari Simpson should be awarded the once-prestigious Order of Canada.
Together, the Dynamic Duo tackled more than the government bureaucracy; they also brought to light some weaknesses in the closed club of the professions, challenging the Law Society of BC and the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. Self-regulating professions, they said, because they are empowered by law to sit in judgement of themselves, have an obligation to operate openly, so that the public can see that they discipline their own professions properly. Such openness is the sine qua non of public trust. Rafe Mair, as a former lawyer, knew that very well; and he was sometimes very hard on the members of the legal brotherhood. In general, however, he was usually circumspect about the judiciary; in those days, judges kept their personal opinions to themselves, and the media respected their privacy because of the importance of the independence of the judiciary.
Those days, alas, have passed into history; and today, many judges, all the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, make public speeches about political matters, even declaring—as Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin did in New Zealand in December 2005 and again earlier this year—that judges ought to be even more aggressive in inserting their own “core values” into the legal system—regardless of what the law or the constitution might say.
Here on the table before me are hours and hours of audio tape of broadcasts done by Rafe Mair and Kari Simpson, and some of the many memoes, letters and lunch date appointments that their work together involved.
At one point, another radio host wanted to get Kari Simpson of his talk show; but Rafe insisted that Kari was his broadcast property. She was, after all, a very, very valuable asset to the ratings of his program, where she appeared each week.
Those were the good years; next week, we’ll all watch as things unravel.
Kari Simpson, a middle child, was born in Southern California to Canadian parents who were then living and doing business in USA. She says her mother reminded her often about her earlier-than-normal talents for talking, walking—and determination. Kari’s family lived in the exclusive upper-middle-class community of Rolling Hills, she spent her childhood days playing in the ocean and riding horses. Her parents, like so many other trendy Californians, divorced when she was seven.
Her mother remarried, and the family grew by two more kids—an older step-brother and sister—and her life’s adventures grew as well, to now include winter fun skiing at Mammoth, and week-ends sailing to Catalina.
At around age 10 her mother decided to sell the family home and move into a house still owned by her stepfather. It was quite a departure from the life she had grown up with thus far. Gone were the open spaces of the sprawling canyon playground that was her backyard, gone was the security of a community where law and order prevailed, gone were the lively parties.
“We moved to Carson, CA,” she recalls, “I was enrolled in Annalee Elementary, where we were three among only about ten white kids. I had never seen a metal detector at school, until we went there.” In Grade 5, she recalls her friend, Sam, packing a gun for protection while she rode on the handlebars of his bicycle. “It wasn’t boring; I learned a lot.”
This experiment ended soon after step-father’s new Cadillac was stolen from their garage. The family moved close to previous their location, to the coastal community of Palos Verdes.
In the summer of 1974 they returned to Canada on a holiday to Vancouver Island; her Mom, deciding to “get back to nature”, bought a small farm near Qualicum Beach. Kari and her siblings were soon milking goats, keeping chickens and learning all the other aspects of a pretty primitive farm lifestyle.
Because she was ahead of the other students in her grade at school, Kari was placed on half-days, and spent the rest of her time working on earning her private pilot’s license; a quick study, she completed that program at age 15, but had to wait another year to obtain her license. In the meantime, she completed her multi-engine and IFR certifications.
She qualified for her commercial license, but once again had to wait until she was 18 to get the papers. At that point, she became one of the youngest commercial pilots in Canada.
Engaged and living with her fiancé Sean, an aircraft maintenance engineer, she continued to fly commercially until she became pregnant. Her doctor recommended an abortion to protect her career; Kari tells me she just about decked the doc!
It was also a pivotal moment for Kari in the politics of life, one that would grow into Kari becoming a formidable and fierce defender of life and protecting the rights of the unborn.
Now happily pregnant, Kari and Sean did what trendy parents do: they planned their careers to now include a nanny. Kari says, laughing, “It made perfect sense, stay home with baby for three months, and then get a nanny so I could carry on with MY self-focused life. That plan only lasted until a beautiful miracle named Katherine was placed in my arms, it took less than instant to realize that nobody else was going to raise our baby!”
Life progressed, and soon there were four happy children in the busy Simpson household. One morning, while they were living in Richmond, BC, in 1987, Kari got a frantic phone call from a friend. Her husband was being investigated and social workers wanted to apprehend their children. The father had been accused of touching his daughter in the area covered by her bathing suit, a disclosure reported by a teacher.
Kari began checking the “child protection program” (called CARE), offered at her friend’s school; she was given details by a psychologist at the University of Alberta; she was also informed that school principal Allan Garneau knew about the program.
Looking for more information, Kari also called CKNW and talked to Rafe Mair’s producer; she asked “Have you had anyone on your broadcast to talk about this school program?” The producer said, “No; what do you know about it?” The producer’s own daughter had been through the program, Kari learned, and grew so afraid of her father that she slept with a baseball bat.
“Will you come do the show?” asked Mair’s producer.
“The principal would be better,” said Kari.
“We’ll get him too; but we’d like a parent,” said Rafe’s producer.
“If the principal will do it, I will, too.”
Allan Garneau had done research on the “child protection program”, and refused to have it in his school.
The day before they were both to appear on the Rafe Mair broadcast, Allan Garneau called to say that he’d been told that if he did the show there would be “consequences.” He subsequently left the public system and started a successful private school.
Kari did the show, and began to get phone calls from people whose children had been apprehended. Kari phoned the school of social work and asked, “What are you teaching in this program?”
CKNW kept getting calls, and asked Kari to come back and do another show… and another, then another. Soon she was a regular weekly guest on the Rafe Mair program. Other program hosts also wanted Kari as a guest, but Rafe insisted she was his “property”.
As a result of the programs Kari did with Rafe Mair, the Social Credit government of the day became rather upset. Finally, Social Services Minister Norm Jacobson challenged Kari to a public inquiry. Ombudsman Stephen Owen conducted the inquiry, and in 1991 his Public Report #24 showed there was, indeed, a serious problem.
Jacobson apologized to Kari, and set in motion better laws to protect families from government abuse. Regrettably, the Social Credit government was defeated by the anti-family, pro big union, pro big government NDP
In 1993 the new NDP government brought in the Infants Act, which ignored parental rights, overstepped boundaries and in effect made parents irrelevant.
“The Infants Act was amended to treat all minors the same way,” claimed Health Minister Elizabeth Cull. “Under the old law, people between the ages of 16 and 18 needed parental consent before getting medical treatment. For those under 16, Common Law applied, which meant doctors could treat them without consulting parents or guardians.”
“That was not true,” says Kari. “Obviously, the government was hell-bent on violating the rights of parents, so we took them to court. In March of 1993, we petitioned the court for a declaration that Sec 16 violates Sec 2 (a) & (b) and Sec 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But a radical, pro-choice judge and the Attorney-General’s lawyer (an NDP hack who is now a provincial judge) ruled that a doctor can decide, as long as child agrees and the doctor believes that the proposed treatment is “in the best interest of child”.
Parents became irrelevant.
A key point at issue in the case was whether adolescent girls could get abortions without their parents’ consent—or even informing the parents. The NDP and court officials sympathetic to the Left let it happen. Rafe Mair and Kari did many shows on the Infants Act.
In March, 1993, Rafe Mair endorsed Kari’s nomination for ‘Woman of Distinction Award’, saying he was “110% behind her.”
In the mid 1990’s, as a result of the respect Kari had earned for her work protecting children and families, she was appointed to serve in a quasi judicial capacity on the BC Child and Family Review Board. During this time Kari got a call from an Aboriginal woman whose five children had been apprehended, after which the baby died. Child Protection Services wouldn’t tell her what happened. Kari, as a member of Child and Family Review Board, demanded review—and finally, after much political outrage, the Minister ordered it.
Late in 1996, Kari began to get numerous calls from teachers who were concerned about a BCTF convention resolution to promote, through curricular changes, favorable recognition of homosexuality.
When she responded to the concerns of those teachers, Rafe Mair suddenly turned on her; she was dropped from his broadcasts, and instead he began a series of radio and print editorials—more than 40—in which he maligned her by comparing her to Nazis, skinheads, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Kari wanted Rafe charged with criminal defamation and hatred (under Section 318 of the Criminal Code); but Crown refused to charge Rafe.
So Kari sued Mair and CKNW for defamation in civil court. And this is where our story starts to unfold—a story that exposes judicial corruption, the denying of rights, a multitude of lies, and great mischief! A story that will enable you to better understand one determined individual’s drive for justice.
There are so many more good works Kari has done on behalf of you and me, and the protection of our families. In my opinion, Kari Simpson is a warrior, defending families, and parents’ and children’s rights. But don’t just take my word for it; listen to what a prominent BC lawyer wrote in support of her nomination for ‘Woman of Distinction’ in 1993:
I cannot start an appraisal of Kari Simpson as a person without saying immediately that she is one if the people in this world I admire most. I say this for several reasons, which I will outline below.
I first met Kari Simpson several years ago when she began expressing concern about how misuse of power in alleged child abuse cases was sideswiping innocent families. This was a most unfashionable thing to be concerned about, since the “political correctness” of the day (which largely continues” held that there was no such thing as innocence in such matters. It was, largely, an unpopular cause which Kari took up, and together we used my radio show to attract attention to injustice. It was my radio show—but the issue and the energy belonged to Kari. It was she who formed the Citizens Research Institute, and enormous undertaking. It was she who bore the financial and emotional burdens of being “den mother”, counsel to and advocate for the unpopular, yet badly oppressed minority.
Kari is an activist in the very best sense of the word. It was because of her that the Ombudsman was instructed by the then minister if Social Services to investigate her concerns and it was as a direct result o that, that a task force was set u, and that legislative changes have been proposed and made; from a courageous stand on an unpopular side of an emotional issue, Kari’s efforts brought about real change.
When you think about it, it is remarkable that one person has gained such huge credibility with such a large audience as I am fortunate to possess. After all, Kari has been up against the establishment on the “wrong” side of a highly emotional issu. That she has obviously touched a nerve is clear from the response she gets.
In my vocation, I meet all manner of activists. Most of them have a political agenda of some sort of other. Kari’s inspiration comes instead from a deep commitment to the principles of democracy, fair play, and the worth of the family. My only hesitation in supporting Kari’s nomination as “Woman of Distinction” is that this is too limiting. When one considers what she has accomplished—and forced, by dint of her commitment and dedication, others to accomplish—she is a distinguished British Columbian and Canadian, who has truly been an inspiration to all she has come in contact with.
What was the name of the lawyer who painted this glowing picture of Kari Simpson?
Hold onto your hats: it was Rafe Mair! And you’ll learn more about him—much more—next week.
Jim Lawter and his constant calico companion take in some reading about child-rearing.
Attention Vancouver Police Chief Constable Jim Chu: This 3-part series is dedicated to you in the hope that you will learn how wasteful and ineffective your officers can be when they don’t take notes.
Ron Gray interviews Culture Guard President Kari Simpson about the better-late-than-never Freedom of Information package from the Vancouver Police Department regarding the alleged investigation of a complaint that she allegedly filed with them. Lo and behold, the facts are finally emerging!
In the first of three parts (stay tuned on March 17 and 20 for Parts 2 and 3, respectively), we finally hear the wild fabrication that VPD Constable Eric Lott filed from his shaky memory more than a week after meeting with Kari – and refusing to take her complaint. Having taken no notes, and having virtually no training or experience in taking a complaint of fraud and child luring, Constable Lott admits to relying on Google for much of his report.
Here’s an important question: if teachers are willing to lie to the taxpayers who employ them, are they also willing to lie to the students?
A recent ad by the BC Teachers’ Federation—the teachers’ radical, pro-gay Leftist union—features a purported teacher pleading: “What we’re asking for is what students need.”
Really? Let’s have a look at some of the things they’re asking for:
• “Compassionate leave” for teachers when a friend dies. How does that benefit students? Cost to taxpayers: $80 million.
• A 22% pay raise at a time when governments are fighting deficits and debts that the students will have to repay in higher taxes when they graduate—if they can find a job in the socialist-crippled economy they’ll inherit. Benefit to teachers: a top pay rate that jumps from $74,353 to $90,944 a year . Cost: $618 million.
• Up to 26 weeks of fully paid leave per year to provide direct or indirect compassionate care to any person. Cost to taxpayers: $49 million a year.
• Eight days off a year whenever a teacher wants. $122 million a year.
• Topping up parental and maternity leave to allow up to 5 years of leave per child. Cost to taxpayers: $41 million a year.
• Five more days off for professional development, at teacher’s discretion: $80 million.
• Up to five days off a year to care for their child—or any other person: $80 million.
• Unlimited leave for union business. Who knows what that will cost?
• Benefit upgrades—taxpayers will pick up the full tab for MSP, extended health and dental, applying to all teachers: $82 million.
• taxpayer pays all professional fees: about $5 million a year.
• Improvements to On Call pay, including $2,200 per month whether they work or not. Cost to taxpayers: $60 million.
• Retirement bonus of 5% a year to any teacher with 10 years or more service at age 55. Total cost to taxpayers: $445 million.
The $2.184 billion price tag is actually only part of what BCTF demands would cost. Many other provincial government bargaining agreements have a “me-too” clause: if BC breaks its net-zero wage mandate, every other union will be able to use that “whipsaw” to renegotiate their contract to try for more.
And don’t buy the argument that BC teachers are underpaid compared to other provinces. Look at the facts:
The BCTF claim of “tumbling from third place to eighth” is inaccurate and misleading, because those place rankings were arrived at using two differing methods.
An accurate description of BC teachers’ salaries from 2006 to 2011, according to the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation:
• By one set of criteria, BC teachers ranked 3rd in Canada in 2006, and now rank 4th;
• By the other set of criteria, in 2006, BC teachers’ salaries ranked 6th in Canada, and in 2011 were 7th.
“But it’s for the children,” pleads the BCTF ad.
I think it’s a crock…
Rhonda Bailey is a Salmon Arm, BC, social worker for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. She has fabricated “evidence” and controlled professional access in order to abduct two infants from this loving couple. How many times she has done this, we do not know. Her superiors aid her in this aberrant behaviour because, frankly, the Ministry’s primary source of income is billing the government $90,000 per year per child that they take into custody. She’s a great soldier for the Ministry, but a lousy public servant.
What can we do about the Rhonda Baileys of the world? Please write to your local MLA. If nobody complains, it’s our own fault this continues.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
by Terry O’Neill
FACE TO FACE: Does court-ordered ‘socialization’ in Quebec case go too far?
Of the countless buzzwords that flutter around the practice of child rearing, none currently surpasses “socialization” in its pervasiveness.
We are informed that infants should begin to experience the joys of early socialization in daycare; that toddlers should go to playschool to better socialize with their peers; that pre-schoolers must attend kindergarten in the name of socialization; and that children should enrol in school in the name of several goals, among which socialization is in the first rank…
Click here to read the full Tri-City News editorial, or
Click here to view / download a PDF file of the entire text.
Click here to watch Terry O’Neill deliver this commentary during a RoadKill Radio webcast.