The recent National Post article by Rex Murphy is really light on facts and leads me to believe communism is out in Russia and perhaps is planting it’s tentacles in our western media. To compare the sexual anarchists who comprise Pussy Riot to the brave man who stood down a tank in Tianamin Square is really offensive, not the least to the real martyr, who suffered for real freedom in China, not the ones who were spreading hate and sexual anarchy on someone else’s (the Orthodox Church’s) private property.
Given that Rex Murphy has chosen to jump on the Pussy Riot bandwagon, I am sure he is aware of some facts that he has neglected to share with his readers. These women did not stage a peaceful protest on a city street, they stormed a church alter shouting blasphemies and were singing sexually vulgar lyrics. Doing this in Canada actually could bring about a criminal conviction. Unfortunately Rex probably is right, storming church alters and swearing in the middle of a service might not get much of a sentence, as Canadian courts may think such a violation of believer’s rights is no big deal nowadays. However, I would like to remind Rex in addition to freedom of speech there is another freedom that should be protected and that is freedom of worship, a freedom these girls clearly trampled on for the dozens who were in the Moscow church that day to listen to their priest, not the anti-Christian punk rock group who wanted to swear and blaspheme. Had the girls chosen to blaspheme on the sidewalk outside the church and sing their sexually lewd lyrics, they probably would have been ridiculed but not arrested in Putin’s Russia. Anti-Putin protests have certainly happened in Russia with thousands in attendance and with no arrests, but our media seems to neglect to consider this when championing Pussy Riot.
Our media is aware, but they seem not to be reporting on it much these days, these girls also got a two year sentence because they are not first time offenders. Some of the stunts they have pulled off are burning a police car, French kissing on duty police officers in the Moscow Subway, and engaging in public sexual intercourse in supermarkets. The fact our media is championing the cause of this sort of trash, and are ignoring two peaceful pro-life women (Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner) who have been in prison in Canada for longer than the Pussy Riot girls speaks to the Marxist depravity prevalent in our media.
Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have never copulated in a supermarket, nor have they torched a cop car, nor have they ever denied socialists the right to their freedom of belief by storming an NDP convention, jumping on a stage and blaspheming Jack Layton while singing Bible verses. If Linda and Mary did the above and went to jail, I would have no problem with their incarceration and I would not call Canada a sick democracy. What Linda and Mary did is more akin to what Rex Murphy would have you believe Pussy Riot is all about. These two girls have violated an injunction imposed by the NDP in the 1990s in Ontario, prohibiting all peaceful protest around abortion clinics. These girls stand on public sidewalks with signs condemning abortion and the police show up and arrest them. These Canadian girls are never accused of violence or disrespect. Their actions typically net them sentences in the one to two year range. To date Linda has been in prison for more than a decade.
For the media to champion Pussy Riot, sanitize Pussy Riot in order to garner sympathy the punk rock group does not deserve, and ignore these to pro-life Canadian girls languishing in jail for real peaceful protest tells me the communists and tyrants are no longer in the Kremlin, they are spreading their poison and deception here in the west and their cheerleaders seem to be infesting the western media.
Mark Hasiuk speaks with the inimitable Alex G. Tsakumis, the renowned "Rebel With a Clause" political commentator. Mr. Tsakumis weighs in on Christy Clark and her Liberal Party's abysmal record, her politicizing of Amanda Todd's tragic suicide and bullying in general, and her pandering to special interest groups. Plus, hear of Vancouver Mayor Gregor Roberton's plan to charge taxpayers for the Pride Parade! And then there's the case of Darryl Plecas, the undemocratically appointed Liberal replacement candidate in Abbotsford, BC, who is a self-admitted “Antichrist of politics”. Tune in and watch out!
What are the issues behind Bill C-279, the NDP’s “Bathroom Bill”?
Left-winger, anti-spank, sex activist Libby Davies, NDP member for Vancouver East, cites two reasons for supporting the bill:
• There is at present no specific protection for the rights of transsexuals; and
• Canada is already a signatory to the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
According to the “Summary” that appears on the government’s website, Bill C-279 states:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
It also amends the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318 and as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration under section 718.2 at the time of sentencing.
This isn’t the first time “gender expression” has hit the parliamentary pavement. Previous versions of virtually the same bill have been grinding away according to Ms. Davies since 2005 and again in 2006 and then again in 2008 by NDP MP Bill Siksay, who managed to have it passed by the House of Commons, only to have it die on the Order Paper in the Senate when the last election was called.
Dean Allison, Conservative member for Niagara West—Glanbrook in Ontario, points out that existing protections under “sex” in the Canadian Human Rights Act can be interpreted by the courts to protect transsexuals.
But, he says, creating a legal right to gender identity and gender expression could result in men gaining access to girls’ bathrooms and showers in public places, such as schools, public pools or gymnasiums. The bill would give such special rights to those who simply consider themselves transgendered, giving sexual predators access to women’s facilities. “Imagine the trauma a young girl would face, going into a washroom, or a change room at a public pool, and finding a man there,” he says.
“The Canadian Human Rights Act does not require total blindness to the distinction between men and women, but already requires intervention when people experience discrimination on the grounds of sex.”
Nor, he says, should tribunals and courts be asked to reconstruct and re-interpret gender “norms”.
Of course our neighbours to the south are already grappling with this reality. A recent story in Lifesite News hit the public’s headlights when a community college gave the go ahead to a man named “Colleen” who took seriously his right to “express” (and expose) his gender in the women’s change room, a change room used often by children as young as 6 who participate in community activities.
There is good news and bad. The bad news is that this bill has passed 2nd reading. The current status of Bill C-279, according to the government’s website, is that “the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.” This link will take you to the record of the vote so you can see how YOUR MP voted.
The good news is that one MP is actively standing-up for common-sense. Rob Anders, Conservative MP for Calgary West, has drafted a petition that demands Parliament act in protecting the best interests of children by defeating Bill C-279. You can download a copy of the petition here, get you friends and family to sign it and make your voice count!
It’s time for Parliament to stop hiding behind the courts, and have the courage to stand up for and defend public norms based on civil decency and privacy concerns.
Ron Gray delivers his own brief eulogy to Jack Layton, refreshingly honest and insightful. While Canada displayed unusual – and unwarranted – hero status to the late minority leader and frequent also-ran, questions still remain about Mr. Layton's actual effectiveness in improving Canada's culture, economic stability, and endurance. How does a man whose politics so closely resembled those of former failed world leaders deserve the accolades that are still now heaped upon Jack Layton?
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.
Flash Drive with Ron Gray: The Sham “Ethics” of Campaign Finance
Watching the hearings by the Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is a bizarre sort of entertainment—almost as much fun as a root canal. The partisan jousting between the MPs makes a mockery of the idea that this is any sort of objective “enquiry”.
A example: NDP MP Pat Martin misquoted witness David Marler (a Conservative candidate) as having said the Tory “in-and-out” funding of television advertising “didn’t pass the smell test.”
“That’s not what I said,” retorted Marler, who then explained that he said he refused to sign because, as a first-time candidate, he didn’t understand what was being proposed—and as a lawyer, he refuses to sign anything he doesn’t understand. “If my Mom proposed it, I wouldn’t—well, maybe I’d sign it for my Mom, because I respect her,” he added. “But not even for a brother would I sign something I didn’t understand.”
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro then skewered Martin nicely by pointing out that a shared national media purchase, partly reported as a local advertising expense, was exactly what the NDP had done for Olivia Chow in Toronto’s Trinity/Spadina riding.
What makes this “ethics” investigation so painful is that no one questions the ethics of the four parties in Parliament voting themselves $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money, while strangling the fund-raising of other parties.
Clearly, those already in the House want to pull up the drawbridge behind them, to block new parties and new ideas. The formula for funding the four parties in Parliament—tied to the number of votes they gained in the last election—is a formula for preserving the status quo: those who got the most votes get more money to campaign for reelection.
But left out in the cold by this equation is the indefeasible right of voters to have access to adequate information about all the options available to them.
The honorable Members sitting around the table seem only to care about holding onto their sinecures by bolstering their parties’ partisan advantages.
The CHP has several times proposed a plan by which each taxpayer—from whom the lion’s share of the money for election campaigns now comes, after all—should have the right to designate which party gets their money.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 200 years ago: “It is tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which he does not agree.” For example, like most pro-Life Canadians, I disagree strongly with the anti-life policies of the four parties that dominate the House of Commons. Why, then, should I be compelled to finance their immoral policies?
Canadians should write to their MPs and demand a change in the election financing formula. If taxpayers’ funds are to be doled out to politicians, let each taxpayer decide who gets their $2. Doesn’t that make more sense?
Media backgrounder on the Gay activists’ political abuse
of public education and the
deliberate violation of parental rights
The BC Teachers’ Federation’s Code of Ethics states: “The teacher recognizes that a privileged relationship with students exists and refrains from exploiting that relationship for material, ideological or other advantage.”
The past 15 years in BC public education reveals a gay activist political agenda that breaches the lawful rights of parents and students, and violates the BCTF’s own Code of Ethics. This ideological abuse of children and families will no longer be tolerated.
The abusive and toxic rhetoric of militant gay activists, echoed by complicit members of the media, has poisoned rational discourse and facilitated imposition of a political agenda onto impressionable children.
A review of how we have arrived at this point will be helpful to the public and responsible members of the media.
Timeline
April, 1996 – NDP candidate Tim Stevenson’s campaign ad in XtraWest claimed “the NDP government has… changed the education curriculum to incorporate mandatory coverage of sexual orientation free from negative stereotypes.” Parents were never consulted; NDP Education Minister Paul Ramsay said a year later that parents’ rights were protected. Someone was lying.
1997 – Gay And Lesbian Educators of BC began their media campaign to inundate BC’s public education with gay propaganda; including “resources” such as Counselling Lesbian and Gay Youth, and other activist publications.
Feb. 1997 – Coquitlam parents demanded that their school board respect their control over their children’s education. The School Board, respecting the reasoned opposition of parents, voted against the proposed homophobia policy.
March, 1997 – Concerned parents and teachers approached Kari Simpson, then Executive Director of the Citizens’ Research Institute, asking her to assist in exposing a Leftist agenda of politicizing the education of children. Much outrage ensued.
March, 1997 – BCTF & NDP passed resolutions that colluded to impose a pro-gay agenda in the public education system: “This plan involves the necessary curricular changes to promote the education of issues surrounding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth.” CRI responded by creating the Declaration of Family Rights, to protect parents’ rights and prohibit teachers from exploiting children in the classroom.
March, 1997 – At Seacove Secondary School in North Vancouver, a PFLAG activist asked students in the auditorium: “If you’ve never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer that? Isn’t it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?” He also asked, “What do you think caused your heterosexuality? When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual? Isn’t it possible that heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?” He also presented false statistics about HIV. (Note: This is just one of many examples transpiring without parental knowledge.)
June 1997 – Gay activists including Deb Sutherland (a proponent in Burnaby’s current controversy) alleging that the Declaration of Family Rights “discriminates against gay, lesbian and bisexual, and transgendered students, educators, and parents”, filed a human rights complaint with the Commission led by homosexual activist Mary Woo Simms.
Shortly after that complaint, Peter Cook and Murray Warren (who later changed their surnames to ‘Corren’) initiated human rights complaints against provincial government, alleging that the school curriculum was not satisfactorily ‘gay-friendly’.
Fall, 2000 – The Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint against CRI: some complainants who refused to appear(!) had to be subpoenaed—by CRI!
October, 2000 – James Chamberlain was the first witness against CRI; his testimony confirmed legitimate concerns of parents, and even expanded them! Chamberlain testified under oath that:
• When teaching Kindergarten/Grade One in Surrey, he required 5- and 6-year-olds to check their religious beliefs at the classroom door.
• He instructed other activist teachers how to circumvent Ministry policy requiring the notification of parents in matters involving homosexuality.
• He had lied on national television about what he was teaching in his classes.
• He believes he is an equal authority to parents in the education of their children.
• He had his students study “Joe Average”, a gay activist artist dying of AIDS, then sign their art, using his last name—thus manipulating students into “joining” an ideological “family”—in clear violation of the BCTF Code of Ethics and parental trust.
Chamberlain further undermined his own cause by lying on several occasions during the human rights hearing: He testified that at a “Facts on Homosexuality” conference “there was so much hatred…” that he was forced to leave, he was so upset that he could not even talk to the media! Sadly, for Chamberlain, the defence team for CRI had video of him sitting through the whole meeting, and waiting in line afterwards to ask a question. (oops!)
NOTE: At no time did the “mainstream” media report on these events transpiring before the Human Rights Tribunal; so British Columbians were deprived of significant information on an important matter of public interest.
After this damning evidence, the homosexual activists withdrew their complaint. CRI sought compensation for costs—which the Human Rights Tribunal (predictably) denied.
In 2000, Stan Persky, interviewed on CKNW by Rafe Mair, admitted that homosexuality “is a choice for some.” XtraWest editor Gareth Kirkby said the same in an editorial, “No Need To Lie.” Persky’s column “Recruit, recruit, recruit”, in both XtraWest and the Vancouver Sun, called the statement “Homosexuals don’t reproduce, they recruit” a “brilliant insight into the evil international homosexual agenda.” Persky, an admitted homosexual, was a philosophy instructor at Capilano College at that time. He also wrote: “The official gay leadership insisted that gays were born gay, and that no one who wasn’t gay could be turned into a homo, not even for ten minutes… Of course, they were lying through their teeth.”
About Gay-Straight Clubs, Persky wrote: “angry mobs in the ’burbs are against… encouraging the formation of straight-gay ‘support’ clubs in the schools.” He also stated: “If homosexuality is legitimated through talk, it’s as likely as sunrise that some young people are going to try out a perfectly natural, legitimate sexual preference that promises to be fun, and meaningful.” He goes on to say, “Since we [homosexuals] and the homophobes both know this, why don’t we just admit it?”
2001 – The NDP were obliterated and fell to only two seats in the May election; their abuses of public education and blatant disregard for parental rights signed their political death warrant.
2003 – The new complaint to the BCHRC by perpetual activists Peter & Murray Corren was moving forward, Citizens’ Research Institute applied for intervenor status in the Correns’ human rights complaint against the provincial government. The pro-gay Tribunal (predictably) dismissed CRI’s application, losing the benefit of scientific, and balanced information.
2006 – present – A secret “deal” with the Correns was signed by the Minister of Education and Attorney General without ratification by the Legislature—utterly ignoring 6,000 pages of letters and petitions. The Ministry has never defined “sexual orientation”.
The Corren Agreement gave the two gay men unprecedented privileges as consultants in curriculum development and public policy. They were never required to prove that their propagandist ideology has any foundation in fact. And the Agreement grants secrecy of all communications between the Correns and the Government —an intolerable perversion of curriculum and policy development.
The Corren Agreement remains controversial; it has caused much of the growing exodus of students from public education. In a recent legal skirmish before the BCHRT, the Tribunal chair said of the Corren Agreement:
“The Course [Social Justice 12, created under the Corren Agreement] involves mature and challenging subject matter. It deals generally with complex issues of social justice, including concepts ranging from hegemony and economic liberalization to speciesism. Sexual orientation and gender identity are among the issues that may be considered within the Course in relation to social justice. The Course involves students examining and challenging their own beliefs, and classroom activities may include discussion and debate of a variety of potentially contentious subjects. …”
If the BC Human Rights Tribunal sees the Agreement this way, just think how bad it really is!
Note – This is not an exhaustive account of events that have transpired in BC. This pamphlet is designed as a quick overview to facilitate parents, the media and other stakeholders with some background information relevant to the Burnaby School District controversy.
Militant gay activist, James Chamberlain, has received a promotion. The BCTF apparently rewards teachers who lie and violate their Code of Ethics and parental trust. Chamberlain is now the Social Justice Coordinator for the Teachers’ Union and travels throughout BC coordinating the distribution of leftist propaganda.
* We hope that some member of the media ask the BCTF and/or Chamberlain if he is going to sue for these statements! They won’t, he can’t. Truth is a full defense and they know it.
GALE (gay and lesbian educators) had to reinvent themselves, they are now called Pride Education Network. Same group, same politics, same propaganda, same tactics.
Summary:
This political agenda thrives on gullibility and emotion to achieve goals. Fluid, ill-defined buzz words—“anti-homophobia”, “heterosexism”, “transphobia”, “sexual orientation”—are relied upon, despite their illogic. These words are linked to the emotional issues of “teen suicide”, “name-calling”, etc.; then typically bolstered by unreliable statistics—numbers that fail to support their objectives when a proper review is conducted.
While these propagandist marketing techniques have found some favour with those who are easily duped, leveraged in some by good intentions, there is a growing backlash among those who will no longer tolerate the abuse of public education and our children. This backlash will no longer allow faulty statistics, special rights and the political hijacking of our schools and courts to go unchallenged.
• Burnaby already has an appropriate Code of Conduct that protects sexual orientation equally with other protected groups (i.e., religion, ancestry, race, etc.).
• The way to eliminate bullying is not to promote “celebration” of any lifestyle, or to award special rights, but to promote civility towards all people.
• If any problem exists to the degree purported by activists, the issue is enforcement; and the solution lies with adults charged with school administration, staff and teachers to appropriately supervise—and if need be, enforce—Civil Conduct.
Speculation that Gilles Duceppe wants to leave Ottawa politics for Quebec City has been scotched by the news that the Parti Quebecois under Pauline Marois has solid control of the separatiste vote in Quebec, said pollster Glenn Robbins.
“She has 93 percent voter approval,” Robbins told RKR.
In a free-wheeling analysis of the federal election on Tuesday night’s RoadKill Radio broadcast, Robbins and co-hosts Kari Simpson and Ron Gray agreed that the NDP surge owed more to the Tories’ and Liberals’ heavy reliance on attack ads than to any rise in popularity of NDP policies, which most Canadians still recognize as economically ruinous.
Ekos Research has forecast 100 seats for the NDP; Robbins’ estimate is less than half that. Apart from Thomas Mulcair in Outremont, Robbins said, the NDP lacks the organization on the ground to capitalize on their surge in the polls.
“There’s a change in the air,” said Kari Simpson. “I think people are taking their duty as citizens more seriously. Government has become so intrusive… I think there’s going to be a good turnout at the polls.”
Kari Simpson’s forecast: “Harper’s going to get a squeaker of a majority. The people are going to give everyone a political spanking… that we had to have another election. The Layton rise is fun…”
Ron Gray’s forecast: “Conservatives 128 seats; Liberals 120; NDP 50; BQ 30—another Tory minority, and more of the same.”
Shock…gasp! Actually no surprise here; it is amazing what happens when parents find out what is really going on in their schools and informed media (RKR & LifeSite News) start to ask questions!
RoadKill Radio first talked about this issue on our March 15, 2011 broadcast when we first became aware of the Burnaby School District’s proposed ‘homophobia/heterosexism’ policy. Since that time community associations and parents have united their efforts to put a stop to this absurd and dangerous policy.
In a recent correspondence declining our invitation to appear on RKR and explain the District’s reasoning behind this policy, the Burnaby School District states:
Hello Kari:
Thank you for the invitation to be interviewed on RoadKill Radio however we respectfully decline.
As I mentioned on the phone, the Homophobia/Hetrosexism Policy (#5.45) is currently in the policy development process. The Policy Committee of the Board is currently compiling input on the draft policy received to date and will be meeting in late April or early May to review all input and to finalize a recommendation to the board. The draft policy will return to the board for consideration of adoption in late spring. Should the Board adopt the policy; the superintendent’s office will then distribute policy statements, regulations and procedures to schools.
Thank you for your interest,
Gilian Dusting
Acting Communications Manager
Burnaby School District 41
RKR co-host Kari Simpson believes this is a “regressive and dangerous policy, driven by left-wing political activists.” Simpson recalls in 1997 the NDP adopted a similar resolution when they were government. “The NDP were obliterated in the next election, being left with only 2 seats, this is something the elected officials sitting as school trustees for Burnaby should give serious and sober thought to,” says Simpson.
Click here to read the full story in LifeSite News
Brian Rushfeldt was close to apoplectic when he was interviewed March 1 on RoadKill Radio. But the Executive Director of Canadian Family Action was still articulate, clear and very common-sensical about the outrageous testimony given by “expert” witnesses to a Senate Committee hearing on Bill C-54, legislation to require minimum mandatory sentences for pedophiles.
“They offered no evidence, only their own opinion,” said Rushfeldt.
He pointed out that one of the “expert” witnesses, Professor Hubert Van Gijseghem of the University of Montreal, who said that pedophilia is “just another sexual orientation”, had given similar ungrounded testimony before parliamentary committees before—always with a slant that supported the contention of pro-‘gay’ activists that in sexual matters, “anything goes.”
Rushfeldt pointed out that if pedophilia is “just another sexual orientation”, it cannot remain in the Criminal Code, since previous Supreme Court rulings and parliamentary inertia have allowed “sexual orientation” to become a protected category under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1981, when the Charter was being drafted, an MP named Jean Chétien—who would later be Prime Minister of a Liberal government that legalized same-sex “marriage” and allowed the protection of “sexual orientation” to become a protected category—said in a committee hearing, “That phrase (“sexual orientation”) doesn’t belong in any law, because nobody knows what it means!”
The term remains undefined in Canadian law.
If it is now re-defined to mean any activity involving anyone’s genitalia, pedophilia – one of the most odious offenses against innocent children – would be swept under the deformed Charter’s protection.
The change to the Charter, as listeners to RoadKill Radio have previously learned, was in fact unconstitutional: it was a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that changed the Charter; but since the Charter is entrenched in Canada’s Constitution, that means the SCOC was amending the Constitution from the bench. The Constitution, however, includes a carefully-written formula for its amendment—and the Supreme Court is nowhere mentioned.
The Constitution, in short, does not give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did. The court was acting ultra vires – beyond its powers.
Perhaps one day Canada will elect a Parliament that includes MPs with the courage to restrain the Supreme Court, and command it to get back into its limited constitutional role.
RKR co-host Terry O’Neill commented: “There was a time… when it was seen that there was one, common-sense, natural way of having sexual relations—and everything else was seen as deviant behaviour. We’ve now got an ‘expert’ talking about a society that would, in effect, ban heterosexual behaviour… he’s saying that pedophilia is just a sexual orientation.”
Brian Rushfeldt’s response: “The guy is an absolute nut-case!
“If anyone paid any attention to the foolishness of these professors—neither presented anything besides their opinions… somewhere that’s going to be argued in court: ‘It’s my sexual orientation, you cannot jail me for that!’
“It’s frightening to think we have professors in our universities who put forward these ideas… I challenged committee to require these people to bring forward some evidence; because they cannot.”
Said co-host Kari Simpson: “We’re ’way beyond half-way down the slippery slope. We saw that with the transgender bill: the NDP claims that sexual orientation is a fluid state, but they also claim it cannot be changed… The NDP is at it again: they’ve put forward a bill to legalize anal sex at 16.
Yet we’ve also had ‘gay’ activists wanting more money because of the medical consequences of homosexual ‘sex’. It’s utter nonsense!”
Rushfeldt said Bill C-54, which has passed through committee unchanged and will now come before the House of Commons for third reading, is “less than what we need, but better than what we’ve got.”
If it passes third reading in the House, Bill C-54 will go to the Senate; if there is an election before C-54 gets through the Senate, the bill will die on the Order Paper.
RKR staffers suggest that everyone write, phone, or e-mail your MP and ask them to support passage of this bill; then write, phone or e-mail the Senators from your province and require their support. Next phone, email or tell your family members and friends that they need to get involved in their democracy, protect children and the values of a civil society!
click here for RKR archived show
Click here for the Justice Committee transcripts
Click here for info on Joe Comartin’s Bill C-628, lowering age of consent for minors to practice sodomy
Download Show #90 Part 2
March 1, 2011 – 8:10 – 8:45 pm: NATHAN COOPERRRRRRR! Yes, RKR’s favourite correspondent will bring us the news from Ottawa. It is official! As all of us right-think people knew, “sexual orientation” now includes “pedophilia” – according to relied-upon experts appearing before the Justice committee on the Child Porn bill. Are we here at RKR shocked? Nopers! But wait! There’s more sex to talk about: NDP Joe Comartin has once again resurrected his, “teens should be allowed to have anal sex” bill. (Click here for the Justice Committee transcripts, Joe Comartin’s Bill C-628)
1. BC Hydro bill! (Quick, get a second job!) & – Did American Environmentalist(s) buy the Liberal Leadership vote?
2. Child Porn Bill – ‘Experts’ say pedophilia just another “sexual orientation”!?! – & NDP MP Joe Comartin wants teens to be able to engage legally in anal sex- again!
3. Movies & Culture: How’s it all working for us?
Show #90 Part 1
Download Show #90 Part 1
7:30 – 8:10 pm: CHRIS DELANEY is fast becoming the voice of the people. As spokesman and one of the founding members of The BC First Party Chris warned our RoadKill Radio audience about the BC HYDRO scandal lo-o-o-ong before the downstream media caught on. Chris exposes the political chicanery and tells why British Columbians are being shafted, gouged, sold-old and made fools of. Chris will also update us on the American manipulation of the Liberal leadership vote and the governing of BC. Tune in for Subversion 101 – How to buy a Province cheaply! (Click for BC First info, CBC Report American Influence, Hydro info) Show #90 Part 2 Download Show #90 Part 2
8:10 – 8:45 pm: BRIAN Rushfeldt, president Canada Family Action will bring us the news from Ottawa. It is official! As all of us right-think people knew, “sexual orientation” now includes “pedophilia” – according to relied-upon experts appearing before the Justice committee on the Child Porn bill. Are we here at RKR shocked? Nopers! But wait! There’s more sex to talk about: NDP Joe Comartin has once again resurrected his, “teens should be allowed to have anal sex” bill. (Click here for the Justice Committee transcripts, Joe Comartin’s Bill C-628) Show #90 Part 3 Download Show #90 Part 3
8:45 – 9:30 pm: PETER CHATTAWAY, film critic, journalist, blogger and an all around in-the-know kind of guy, talks about movies and their influence on our Canadian culture. (Click for Peter’s Blog)
1. BC Hydro bill! (Quick, get a second job!) & – Did American Environmentalist(s) buy the Liberal Leadership vote?
2. Child Porn Bill – ‘Experts’ say pedophilia just another “sexual orientation”!?! – & NDP MP Joe Comartin wants teens to be able to engage legally in anal sex – again!
3. Movies & Culture: How’s it all working for us?
Big Night with Terry O’Neill and Kari Simpson!
7:30 – 8:10 pm: CHRIS DELANEY is fast becoming the voice of the people. As spokesman and one of the founding members of The BC First Party Chris warned our RoadKill Radio audience about the BC HYDRO scandal lo-o-o-ong before the downstream media caught on. Chris exposes the political chicanery and tells why British Columbians are being shafted, gouged, sold-old and made fools of. Chris will also update us on the American manipulation of the Liberal leadership vote and the governing of BC. Tune in for Subversion 101 – How to buy a Province cheaply! (Click for BC First info, CBC Report American Influence, Hydro info)
8:10 – 8:45 pm: BRIAN Rushfeldt, president Canada Family Action will bring us the news from Ottawa. It is official! As all of us right-think people knew, “sexual orientation” now includes “pedophilia” – according to relied-upon experts appearing before the Justice committee on the Child Porn bill. Are we here at RKR shocked? Nopers! But wait! There’s more sex to talk about: NDP Joe Comartin has once again resurrected his, “teens should be allowed to have anal sex” bill. (Click here for the Justice Committee transcripts, Joe Comartin’s Bill C-628)
8:45 – 9:30 pm: PETER CHATTAWAY, film critic, journalist, blogger and an all around in-the-know kind of guy, talks about movies and their influence on our Canadian culture. (Click for Peter’s Blog) We will be taking your calls and emails! CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167
WHERE: Listen live – http://www.roadkillradio.com
EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca
Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage is welcome!
Feb. 9, NDP MP Bill Siksay’s Private Member’s Bill C-389 passed third reading in the House of Commons 143 to 135.
While Prime Minister Harper and most of the Conservative caucus voted against the bill, six Conservatives stood to support it, including House Leader John Baird, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon and Heritage Minister James Moore. The NDP and Bloc supported the bill unanimously, but seven Liberals opposed it. The bill adds “gender expression” and “gender identity” to the Criminal Code’s “hate crimes” Section 318(4).
Critics have called Siksay’s legislation “the bathroom bill” because it would allow people to choose their gender—and gain access to bathrooms and locker-rooms of whichever gender they choose.
NDP MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj has another private member’s bill in the works that would include “sex” in Section 318, and Bloc MP Nicole Demers’ Bill C-531 would do the same.
However, those bills, sitting far down on the order paper, are unlikely to be heard. “I’ve tried that three times, and every time it’s been knocked down by the Conservative caucus,” Wrzesnewskyj says.
Still, he adds, “sex” will almost certainly be subsequently “read into” the law by the Supreme Court now that Siskay’s Bill C-398 has passed.
The high court has consistently read “sexual orientation” into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even though such a change to the Charter—which is part of Canada’s Constitution—has never been ratified by Parliament. The legal process for amending the Constitution, which is specified right in the Constitution, doesn’t seem to matter to our Supreme Court.
Vancouver lawyer barbara findlay (who insists on lower-case spelling of her name) specializes in what she calls “queer and feminist issues”; she says, “It’s a conceptual confusion to suggest that if people are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression, that somehow gives trans women ‘more rights’ than non-trans women.
“Among other things, it protects lesbian women who look ‘too butch,’ and it would protect gay men who are ‘too femme’,” findlay says.
Critics say it would also allow predatory men to claim “trans” status and use women’s facilities for voyeurism—or worse.
Many observers expect Siksay’s ‘bathroom bill’ to be squelched in the Tory-dominated Senate, although the Conservative Leader in the Upper House, Senator Marjorie LeBreton, says it will be a free vote. “I’m ambivalent about the bill,” she said. If an election is called before the bill is ready for Royal Assent, it would die on the order paper.
“It’s the worst-written bill I’ve ever read,” CFAC’s Nathan Cooper told RKR. “It’s about two terms—‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’—that have no definition.”
Feb 10, 2011 — Bill C-474, a Private Member’s Bill introduced in November 2009 by Alex Atamenenko, NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for BC Southern Interior, called for an amendment to the federal Seeds Regulations Act to require “an analysis of potential harm to export markets” before federal permission for sale of any new GM (genetically modified) seed.
February 9, Atamenenko’s bill was voted down 178-98. All Conservative MPs voted against it, as did 40 of the 58 Liberals who voted.
In a Canadian Biotechnology Action Network press release, Maureen Bostock, who speaks for the National Farmers Union, stated, “It’s outrageous that instead of being at the vote in Ottawa, most Agriculture Committee members are actually in Guelph listening to the President of Monsanto Canada.”
Biotech industry tried to prevent debate
C-474 had gone further than any other Bill on genetic engineering, but last December the biotech industry attempted to prevent debate in the House of Commons; however, by an obscure parliamentary tactic the NDP secured a 5-hour debate that took place February 8. Such a debate on genetic engineering had never happened in the House of Commons before. Every MP who had concerns of their own or from their constituents presented them to the House.
Implications of C-474 defeat
Hamilton East MP Wayne Marston (NDP) asserted, “GM seeds will lead to economic disaster for our farmers.”
Jean Crowder, NDP MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan, said, “GE will destroy our export market” because our export markets do not want crops grown from GM seeds, which are considered “contaminated.” Canada’s flax exports collapsed because of GM flax seeds.
Peter Julian, NDP MP for Burnaby-New Westminster stated that “the purity of our seeds is fundamentally important.” He called C-474 a “simple piece of legislation” and was disappointed that “not a single Conservative member has responded to their constituents … they are only listening to the biotechnology industry.”
MPs who spoke shared concerns that if C-474 did not pass, Canada’s wheat and alfalfa exports will collapse just like flax.
Terry Wilson, founder of the Canadian Awareness Network, wrote in his blog, “We are seeing how Canadian politics work very clearly here. The multi-national corporations getting their way, and the Canadian people getting shafted.”
GM seeds burned
Kevin Proteau, founder of Locals Supporting Locals stated in a telephone interview with the blog Suite101, “Many Canadians are aware of the dangers of GM seeds and recognize that countries worldwide want nothing to do with crops grown from these seeds.”
Natural News reported on July 19, 2010, six months after the devastating earthquake, that 10,000 Haitian farmers marched in protest against Monsanto and burned hybrid corn seed. “A 200,000-member national coalition is encouraging Haiti farmers to burn all Monsanto seeds already distributed, and has called on the government to reject additional shipments.”
Click here to listen to RKR’s archived show on this topic
