This Week On RoadKill Radio! (April 9 – 14, 2012)

 Comments Off on This Week On RoadKill Radio! (April 9 – 14, 2012)
Apr 102012
 

This Week On RoadKill Radio! (April 9 – 14, 2012)

Human Rights, Euthanasia, 21st Century Minutemen, Philosophers,

and the End of Days!!!

Monday, April 9, 2012

Flash Drive with Ron Gray: Hierarchy of Rights

Family Freedom Fighter host Ron Gray spells out the natural hierarchy of human rights, which have been recognized as far back as Aristotle’s time. Why has Canada strayed from this irrefutable hierarchy?

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

RoadKill Radio News: Alex Shadenberg on Canada’s Latest Push to Legalize Euthanasia

Will a provincial judge go rogue and rule against the Supreme Court’s decision that euthanasia is illegal? He may, if he changes the definition of euthanasia to a medical treatment! Team RKR says this issue is crucial, get informed – it is a matter of life and death!

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Flash Drive with The National Absurder: End of Days

RoadKill Radio’s National Absurder, Jim Lawter, tries to make sense of all of today’s signs of a coming Apocalypse. Gird your loins, my friends, gird your loins! RKR team can hardly wait to see this one!

Thursday, April 12, 2012

The Mark Hasiuk Show: The 21st Century Minutemen

Join Mark Hasiuk as he speaks to Hal Washburn, former Vetting Director for the Minutemen, a civilian organization that helped guard the north and south U.S. Borders against drug smuggles, illegal immigrants, and potential terrorists.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Flash Drive with Ron Gray: Canada’s Best Philosopher!

Ron Gray announces his nomination for Canada’s best philosopher, based on his unwavering eloquence, logic, honesty, and patriotism. Log on to find out who it is!

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Culture Guard: Human Rights Tribunal Complaint Against the VSB

Kari Simpson and Ron Gray detail the new complaint filed with the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Vancouver School Board’s calculated and deliberate agenda to cultivate an environment of hate, contempt and discrimination against staff and students who, for religious and cultural reasons, oppose “celebrating” homosexuality and other harmful sexual practices by allowing programs like Out In Schools to be incorporated into public schools.  This is an important case and show!  A must log on and watch!

 

 

Hierarchy of Rights

 Comments Off on Hierarchy of Rights
Apr 092012
 

Family Freedom Fighter host Ron Gray spells out the natural hierarchy of human rights, which have been recognized as far back as Aristotle’s time. Why has Canada strayed from this irrefutable hierarchy?

Mar 262012
 

Way back in 2007, Vancouver journalist Terry O’Neill, former editor of the Western Report magazine—and, until his success in municipal politics, a co-host at RoadKill Radio—wrote an Op-Ed for the National Post that called for ‘human rights’ legislation to be drastically altered, to prevent such tribunals from behaving like ‘Star Chamber’ inquisitions and trampling on Canadians’ rights of free speech, freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of religion.

We urgently need masses of Canadians to endorse Mr. O’Neill’s call for protection of our rights. NOW! How? Write or phone your MP!

In 1857, American anti-slavery activist Frederick Douglass warned:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

But wait. Aren’t words like “tyrants” and “oppression” a bit too strong for a constitutional democracy like Canada?

As Jonah Goldberg points out in his book Liberal Fascism, it has long been understood that when fascism inevitably comes to the democracies of the West, it will come as a smiley-faced, “nice” fascism, full of good intentions.

So who will bell the cat? Who will make the HRCs and judges keep to their proper spheres? It must be the people; and to do it, we must start electing MPs who are willing to endure the media’s scorn to defend the freedoms for which earlier generations were willing to risk their very lives

So how do you take up arms and become a freedom fighter? It’s not hard: you write to your MP—or better, visit him or her at the constituency office you pay for—and tell them that this is a “make-or-break” issue for you, when the next election rolls around—say that it will definitely determine how your vote. Then, when the next election is called, be as good as your word: ask each candidate to commit to your personal list of “wedge” issues: right to life, defending normal marriage, protecting freedom of expression. And if you can’t find a candidate who is willing to commit to defending your freedom, spoil your ballot.

This Day In History: Glorified Gangster Guns Himself Down

 Comments Off on This Day In History: Glorified Gangster Guns Himself Down
Mar 192012
 

Mark Hasiuk recounts the rise and ignominious fall of Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s muscle man, and draws parallels between Nitti and many of today’s pop icons. Why are so many people drawn to criminals and thugs as objects of admiration? Why are kids targeted as an audience for such poor examples of human achievement?

How can we expect more from our children when we stand on the sidelines and cheer their adulation of today’s Frank Nittis?

RoadKill Radio Schedule, Week of March 19, 2012

 Comments Off on RoadKill Radio Schedule, Week of March 19, 2012
Mar 182012
 

Taxing SEX!

Gangsters, Robocalls,

PC=InSaNItY, Sick Courts &

Part 3: The VPD fails!

 

RKR Flash Drive with Mark Hasiuk

Monday, March 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

This Day In History: Glorified Gangster Guns Himself Down

  

   Mark Hasiuk recounts the rise and ignominious fall of Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s muscle man, and draws parallels between Nitti and many of today’s pop icons. Why are so many people drawn to criminals and thugs as objects of admiration? Why are kids targeted as an audience for such poor examples of human achievement?

 

   How can we expect more from our children when we stand on the sidelines and cheer their adulation of today’s Frank Nittis?

 

RoadKill Radio News

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Culture Guard SpecialVPD Fail #3: Prejudices and Special Protection from the VPD

 

This is the third of our 3-part series dedicated to Vancouver Police Chief Constable Jim Chu, whose police force has once again shown its bias and unprofessionalism in dealing with serious complaints from citizens.

Culture Guard President Kari Simpson presents to Ron Gray inter-office emails from the VPD that prove a personal bias against Mrs. Simpson. Inspector Mario Giardini clearly tells others inside and outside the police department that Mrs. Simpson is a liar, which alone is an actionable case of libel unless he can prove his statements to be true. Click here to view Kari’s demand letter.

To compound his error, Giardini calls on “the community” to send “a strong message” to Kari. Isn’t it punishable by law to incite someone to commit acts of violence against another?

All the while, the VPD was conducting a sham “investigation” of charges that they made up and attributed to Kari Simpson, further impugning her integrity.

Chief Chu, is the Vancouver Police Department completely out of your control, or do you endorse this behaviour by your subordinates?

 

RKR Flash Drive with Ron Gray

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Zeal versus Voting Standards; Robocalls Are the Least of the Problem

 

  Ron Gray questions Canada’s ability to preserve the integrity of the ballot. While Elections Canada goes to great lengths ensuring that everyone registers to vote, does it apply nearly the same effort to ensure that votes are cast and counted legally?

 

  Does voting by mail or by voucher taint actual voting results? Are voting vouchers being sold for a quick buck? Who benefits from such time-tested and underhanded tactics? Certainly not democracy!

 

  Who needs “robocalls” when Elections Canada is too lax to monitor and prevent more obvious avenues of voter fraud?

 

RKR Flash Drive with the National Absurder!

Thursday, March 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

 When Political Correctness Bites Its Own Tail

 

RoadKill Radio’s National Absurder, Jim Lawter, makes a few observations about the recent INSANE trend of Gender Switch Days in our public schools. Why not just call them “Ridicule” Days? Better yet: stop wasting time and teach our children how to read!

 

RKR Flash Drive with Kari Simpson!

Friday, March 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

Why We MUST Tax SEX!

 

Here’s a tease!  Log on to hear the rest.  We here at RKR admit this is scary, but strangely sensible!

 

“As Canadians, we’re a tolerant bunch. We’ve embraced the right of individuals to indulge in behaviours and activities that are known to do personal harm.

 

A sex Sin Tax would be great! It is civil, compassionate, tolerant, diverse and fair. If implemented properly it could result in a tax windfall for the government…”

 

RKR Flash Drive with Ron Gray

Saturday, March 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm:

 

 Canada‘s Courts are Sick

 

RoadKill Radio and Culture Guard host Ron Gray identifies a growing and very serious problem in Canada: The Courts are starting to make their own laws! What is the point of the Parliamentary process of making law when any judge can merely toss the law aside and put his or her own spin on it?

 

Ron suggests a simple solution, but it’s up to citizens to tell their MPs that they want this problem fixed NOW!

 

Important Shows that go beyond Talk!


WHERE: Listen/watch – http://www.roadkillradio.com

EMAIL THE SHOW: Roadkillradio@live.ca

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage is welcome!

ALL SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED, LISTEN FOR FREE!!!

Feb 272012
 

NEWS RELEASE from Culture Guard

Feb. 27, 2012

For immediate release

Citizens’ rights advocate threatens education ministry with human rights case over ‘slurs’

VICTORIA, Feb. 27, 2012 (CultureGuard) — A citizens’ rights advocacy group, Culture Guard, has asked Education Minister George Abbott to ban words it says demean and incite hatred against students, parents and other stakeholders who oppose having the homosexual political agenda propagandized in schools.

The offensive words include “homophobia”, “homophobe”, “homophobic” and “heterosexist”.

“The words are just made-up propaganda words,” says Culture Guard president Kari Simpson. “They may sound pseudo-medical or pseudo-psychological, but they aren’t found in any recognized medical, psychological or psychiatric dictionaries.

“Their only purpose is propaganda: once the sex activists hang a hateful label on parents or others who don’t want children brainwashed in school, they can more easily persuade the public, the media, and politicians not to listen to fact-based arguments for protecting students from political propaganda.”

In a letter to Abbott, Mrs. Simpson cites the up-coming “Pink Shirt Day”, which will be observed in many BC schools, as an ideal time for the minister to ban the use of such “bully” words in official documents and programs.

“Failure to stand against this anti-democratic strategy, which denies civil Canadians rights that are explicitly protected within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will result in a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal,” her letter states.

Simpson notes that many homosexual practices are provable vectors for diseases which are at epidemic proportions among homosexuals, and which cost the public billions of dollars—but are “100% preventable” by behaviour change.

Under the guise of “anti-bullying”, sex activist campaigns seek to “celebrate” in schools (quoting a recent BCTF graphic, handed out at a conference where teachers were coached on how to implement the “teachers’ guide” Making Space)

One example cited was a report published by a provincially-funded community health organization that serve Vancouver’s homosexual community, which stated that throat cancer caused by sexual practices common among homosexual men is now a greater threat than lung cancer from smoking.

Another web-site funded by the government gives kids “how-to” information on “fisting”—a physically dangerous practice common among homosexuals. And her letter stated that a pro-gay, Drag Queen sex activist who “sponsors” a northern BC school’s “Gay-Straight Alliance” club gave the same kind of information to students.

=30=

contact: Kari Simpson

phone:        (694) 514-1614

e-mail:         RKRNews@gmail.com

Correspondence to the Hon. George Abbott follows.

Culture Guard

Tel: 604 514-1614 ~ Fax: 604 514-1669

 

The Hon. George Abbott

Minister of Education

Room 310

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

VIA FACSIMILE:    250 387-3200

February 27, 2012

Re:    Eradication of the Slurs: Homophobe, Homophobia, Homophobic, Heterosexism, Heterosexist

Attention Mr. Minister:

The opportunity is before us to make “Pink Shirt Day” truly meaningful—to convince students to end the use of all slurs, including hateful, harmful, and demeaning “bully” words like “homophobe”, “homophobia”, “homophobic” and “heterosexist”—which are all invented propaganda words. Although they sound pseudo-medical and pseudo-psychological, they are not to be found in any recognized medical, psychological or psychiatric dictionaries.

As you are aware, words like these are verbal weapons, used by some radical teachers and sex activists against students or their parents (and others) who hold constitutionally-protected views and opinions about homosexuality, sexual promiscuity and other defined or yet-to-be-defined sexual identities. These words are typically used by sex activists to demean and promote contempt for those who seek to have a mature, informed and long-overdue discussion about the growing and costly implications—to both our health-care and to our social services—associated with homosexuality and sexual promiscuity.

It is long past time to eradicate the use of such contemptuous labels. And when official documents and/or statements make use of them, it gives official sanction to a fascist strategy of co-opting authority to silence dissenting opinions.

Failure to stand against this anti-democratic strategy, which denies civil Canadians rights that are explicitly protected within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will result in a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

I trust you are aware of the growing and troubling numbers, among those 25 years of age and under, relating to transmission and proliferation of sexually-transmitted diseases. As Education Minister, you have a duty to inform students, for their protection, about the serious implications and costs to health and social services that are a direct result of dangerous and unhealthy sexual practices. I, like most Canadians, support the right of others to engage in relationships of their choosing; but the factual reality is that some of these practices are now costing me, and other Canadians, billions upon billions of dollars in health-care and other related costs. This is where it becomes my business, and that of other Canadians, to start questioning the irresponsible behaviours of individuals that are over-burdening our social services. It is also where I and other Canadians, including our elected representatives, must look critically at the purveyors of false and/or misleading information, and how this propaganda is spreading through our civil society and contributing to goals contrary to those mandated by the School Act, specifically:

WHEREAS it is the goal of a democratic society to ensure that all its members receive an education that enables them to become literate, personally fulfilled and publicly useful, thereby increasing the strength and contributions to the health and stability of that society;

AND WHEREAS the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable all learners to become literate, to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy;

. [Emphases mine]

I was recently engaged in an exchange of correspondence with a man who has contracted AIDS. This individual’s sexual practices included sodomy. I trust you are aware, as BC’s Education Minister, that in Canada, the category of men having sex with men (“MSM”) is vastly over-represented in the new infection statistics from the Centres for Disease Control. MSM is, in fact, the primary vector in North America for a number of costly sexually transmitted diseases.

This individual, in addition to all the medical costs to tax-payers related to his treatment, is also collecting two government pensions, including a federal disability pension. He is also receiving a government subsidy for housing because of his 100% preventable disease. He likes to live comfortably, so one of his recent accommodations costs $1,800.00 per month. He shares this with his “buddy”—another man collecting the same pensions, due to his own AIDS status. He also advised me that he expects hard-working Canadians to pay for “all his expenses.”

I trust that, as Education Minister, you are aware that among the homosexual male population, throat cancer caused by common practices among that group is now more likely than cancer caused by smoking! Here is one warning that a provincially-funded community health organization called Health Initiative for Men, which, in addition to creating hard-core homosexual porn with tax-payers’ money, also provides health advice to homosexual men, the caution states:

Too Much of A Good Thing Can Make You Sick

The ‘good thing’ in this case being oral sex. Yes boys, a new research finding has officially stated that giving too much head is more likely to cause throat cancer than smoking! Stating the obvious; we love giving our partner’s penis and ass some loving, perhaps more so than our straight counterparts, and with more ‘partners’ at that. This means then that the gay population is at higher risk of getting throat cancer, especially when you consider the fact that the more people you perform oral sex on, the greater the odds of you contracting an oral infection which leads to the cancer.

Then we have the provincially funded youth resource “Planet Ahead” which, aided by “Luci Lubricant” and “Condom man”, is invited into schools to alter/form the “values” of 12-15 year olds. Like government-funded Planned Parenthood (which changed its name to Options for Sexual Health after the link between Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, and Adolf Hitler was exposed, along with her racist advocacy of “eliminating weeds from the human garden”), these groups promote to students the liberty to freely “express themselves” in any sexual manner they wish.

“Won’t get Weird”, a youth-oriented web-site funded in part by we tax-payers, and operated by Options for Sexual Health/Planned Parenthood, gives kids “important” information, such as “giving blow jobs with braces on”, while making mock of parents.

Another government funded site called “Spiderbytes” gives information to teenagers on “fisting”—how-to, etc. This information on fisting parallels information given to a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club at a public school in northern BC by its “drag queen” sponsor.

One alarming aspect of all this sex talk is that the reality of the financial costs and health hazards associated with irresponsible and unnatural sexual conduct and/or behaviours is utterly absent from the discussion—and there is no opportunity for debate. It’s all one-sided propaganda… and lies.

Respected BC Court of Appeal judge, Justice Mary Southin, addressing the issues of promoting homosexuality in the public education system, wrote:

When there is a sea-change in the accepted wisdom of a society, those who have adhered to the attitudes of the past, what I call the “old wisdom”, in a very short space of time may find themselves denigrated by adherents of the “new wisdom”.

The slurs used by adherents of the so-called “new wisdom” have been shown to be factually foolish; what is more, they wilfully endanger the health and well-being of our children and youth. Further, the monetary costs to our society by “celebrating” medically unsafe sexual practices are prohibitive.

Defaming and denigrating those whose wisdom and insight has stood the test of time—and continues, provably, to do so—must not be tolerated. As Minister of Education, you will also be culpable for promoting hate and contempt, if you tolerate your subordinates embedding the language of hate within Ministry of Education statements and policies.  These slurs of hostility and belittlement, designed to silence anyone who would dare to initiate pertinent, fact-based discussion of important and serious matters relating to sexual practices, must cease.

Here is one of many ironic examples: in the Ministry of Education’s Safe Caring and Orderly Schools directive, schools are required to incorporate a number of policies and practices designed to “protect” all students—i.e., to teach, model and encourage socially responsible behaviours that contribute to the school community, solve problems in peaceful ways, value diversity, defend human rights, and assume responsibility, in partnership with the wider community, for resolving critical safety concerns.

This looks like a good directive—until one reads on and sees that your Ministry believes it is OK to single out those who—for religious, cultural, moral, medical and other common-sense motives—want to challenge the propaganda being published within the schools by politically-driven sex-activist teachers. And here’s where your Ministry starts to use demeaning slurs:

…work together to better understand issues such as bullying,

harassment and intimidation, racism, sexism and

homophobia

Linking this invented propaganda/slur to “harassment” and “racism” is a further insult to people whose opposition to homosexual propaganda in the schools is based upon valid medical and economic criteria, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “hate”.

You exacerbate the problem by asserting—as factual—propaganda published by self-identified homosexual and political groups like GALE (now known as Pride Education Network), and by allowing its use as “appropriate resources”. Resources like Challenging Homophobia are political, and incorporate hateful words and slurs designed to bully, demean and silence fact-based opposition to their writers’ political agendas.

Because these materials are so clearly political—in some cases acknowledged as such by their authoring groups—they have absolutely no place within our schools!

I have been appalled at the many examples I now have seen that demonstrate the cultivation of hate within our schools; newly-recruited homosexual “allies” use despicable bullying tactics to target youth, parents and other stakeholders who might dare to demand a factual and truthful account of important issues relating to homosexuality and other aberrant and unsafe sexual practices.

I recently confronted the Chair of the Vancouver School Board with these facts, after witnessing the hatred and contempt demonstrated by some students who made presentations under the guise of “questions” to the Board at two recent meetings. I am delighted to report that Ms. Bacchus subsequently refrained from using the slurs referred to herein, at the next VSB meeting. I have, for your convenience, enclosed a copy of my recent correspondence to Ms. Bacchus.

With the controversial “Pink Shirt Day” fast approaching— controversial because its original agenda of opposing all bullying has been hi-jacked by homosexual activists and the BCTF—I fervently hope you will embrace the true spirit of that day by refraining from using any slurs. Further, I request that you write to me forthwith, affirming your willingness to:

1) Eradicate from the Ministry of Education’s policies and/or directives any use of the slurs referred to herein;

2) Write to all Boards of Education, instructing them to prohibit the use of the said slurs in any policy or program.

I hope this matter can be resolved quickly, as failure to do so will certainly result in a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. I believe the documented evidence will be overwhelming as to the degree of hatred and contempt being fostered in our schools by allowing these slurs to be treated as “acceptable”. They are not.

I trust that you will act quickly to resolve this troubling situation.  I remain in my willingness to meet with you and brief you on the issues related to the BCTF and the political agenda of sex activists within BC schools.

Yours truly,

Kari D. Simpson

President, Culture Guard

Tel:       604 514-1614

Email:   cultureguard@gmail.com

Enclosed Patti Bacchus letter follows.

Culture Guard

Tel: 604 514-1614 ~ Email: cultureguard@gmail.com

Ms. Patti Bacchus

Chairwoman, VSB

1580 West Broadway

Vancouver, BC V6J 5K8

Via Email

February 7, 2012

Re: Hateful & Contemptuous Slurs

Attention Ms. Bacchus:

As you are aware, I attended the last meeting of the Vancouver School Board on January 16, 2012. The meeting was also attended by a number of concerned parents, students and several homosexual activists and homosexual activist teachers: teachers who belong to overtly political groups like Pride Net.

I was disappointed and offended to see you allow hateful and contemptuous slurs being used that night: slurs made by trustees, teachers, students and PAC representatives. The terms “homophobe”, “homophobic” and “homophobia” are well-known hateful words, typically rooted in bigotry or ignorance and used to target, demean and bully into silence and compliance individuals and/or groups opposed to the public dissemination of false and propagandist information related to homosexuality and other allegedly “fluid” sexual determinations.

These same slurs are standard verbal weapons used by sex activists against individuals and/or groups that oppose the “celebration” of medically unsafe sexual practices like sodomy, and other associated sexual practices that are physically harmful and cost individuals their lives and their health—and which heavily burden our tax-funded healthcare system and other social services with obscene costs that are, for the most part, 100% preventable.

The groups targeted by the sex activists include members of the various faith communities (whose beliefs are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms); medical and mental health professionals; politicians; and informed Canadians—all of whom are increasingly appalled at both the misinformation being disseminated by their public education system, and by the abuse of their tax dollars by individuals who engage in risky and unhealthy sexual practices, and then expect the next generation to pay for the medical and societal expenses associated with the consequences of their sexual behaviour.

As a trustee, Ms. Bacchus, you are duty-bound— by your own policies, and by law—to ensure that an environment without discrimination is cultivated within the Vancouver School District. Your lack of leadership and willful acquiesce to the bully tactics that played out that evening were nothing short of disgraceful; and perhaps only trumped by the ignorance displayed by students who spoke — students who proved only that the VSB has been providing platforms for sex activists who are demonstrably ignorant about issues involving homosexuality; but are well-trained in parroting the talking points and slurs used relentlessly by homosexual and other sex activists. Hardly something to take “pride” in.

I trust tonight’s meeting will be conducted in a more respectful and lawful manner. I believe it would be prudent for you to ensure that hateful slurs like “homophobe”, “homophobic” “homophobia” and “heterosexist” are prohibited. These words create a false impression of medical or psychological authority—but they do not appear in any recognized medical or psychological dictionaries. They are merely propaganda labels used to dismiss legitimate arguments used by opponents of the “gay agenda”. I am requesting that at the outset of tonight’s meeting, you openly declare those terms, and other similar words, to be inappropriate; and that you apologize to those in attendance for having allowed such vile and contemptuous slurs during the last meeting.

Be further advised that I have also asked the Vancouver Police to attend, to protect concerned parents who will be there. At the last VSB meeting, a videographer for Culture Guard was assaulted by one of the pro-sex activists. Your participation, by allowing nonsensical, divisive tactics like the politically-driven censure of Trustees Woo and Denike, fuelled some of the sex activists’ penchant for violence. I trust you will ensure that individuals videotaping the aggressive conduct of sex activist teachers, trustees and VSB facilitators will not have to endure further physical assault. I also trust that you will not give preferential treatment to sex activist teachers like Ms. Dumont, a member of the sex activist political organization Pride Education Network, as you did at the last public meeting. Ms. Dumont’s request not to be video-recorded at a public meeting is at best silly; she is featured on the PrideNet website, picture and all.

I remain in my willingness to meet with you and brief you on matters related to the Out In Schools program and other propaganda like Gender Spectrum—another pile of propagandist nonsense put out by the BCTF.

It is obvious from the last meeting that you and a few of the other trustees appear to be ignorant of the facts relating to the Out In Schools program. This is most troubling, as you refused my request to appear before the Board at the last meeting—an appearance that would have informed you about the Out In Schools program. Are you afraid of the facts? Do you fear public condemnation when parents find out about a program that you endorse, but claim to be ignorant of? Yes, I have the video from the last meeting which confirms both these statements.

In closing, Ms. Bacchus, be advised that I will accept your invitation to meet if you have the leadership skills and courage to extend one. I will do this, I admit, not because I have any measure of respect for you—quite the contrary—but because the students involved deserve to have their best interests protected, and their parents deserve to know the truth.

Yours truly,

Kari Simpson

President, Culture Guard

Copies –

VSB Trustees

VSB Superintendent

VSB Secretary Treasurer

Media

Informed Canadians

Not a Natural Situation

 Comments Off on Not a Natural Situation
Jul 222011
 

By Terry O’Neill – The Tri-City News

Once upon a time, there was a people — an entire country, moreover — that professed a great love of all things natural. Except, that is, for one of the most important natural processes of all.

The people, let’s call them Canadians, praised the natural beauty of their great land. They looked in awe at the magnificent mechanisms of the natural world around them.

They passed laws against pollution, carbon emissions, and the dumping of toxic wastes in order to protect nature. They preserved great expanses of natural eco-systems.

Why, they even bought natural foods and natural remedies in copious quantities.

But these nature-loving Canadians had a blind spot. While they loved, adored or even worshipped the many natural things around them, they ignored a vital aspect of their own natural beings.

You see, nature has chosen to give we humans an equal number of baby girls and baby boys. It’s only natural, since one woman and one man come together to procreate.

One would think that Canadians, of all people, should recognize this essential, natural balance. Instead, they have willingly allowed a decidedly unnatural process to take place—the gender-based culling of unborn baby girls.

In fact, Canada has no law whatsoever regulating abortion, with the result that gender imbalances are beginning to show up in some communities, according to a 2006 report, “Canada’s Lost Daughters,” by investigative journalist Andrea Mrozek, now with the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

The problem is more acute overseas, where hundreds of thousands of female fetuses are aborted every year in countries such as India and China, according to a recent Maclean’s cover story. Nevertheless, Canada has no official foreign policy opposing sex-based abortion.

My colleague on the other side of the page is ready to sacrifice these unwanted baby girls on the altar of feminism and choice, and also professes to see my opposition to the rampant purging of unborn girls as a none-too-subtle pro-life initiative.

I cannot claim to be without convictions in this matter. But I would rather be guilty of defending the natural goodness and intrinsic beauty of newly created human life than be responsible for abetting the destruction of a class of humanity because of prejudice, ignorance or misguided ideology.

Jun 232011
 

By Terry O’Neill in The National Post Jun 23, 2011

It has been a good week to be a psychologist, criminologist or sociologist in B.C., as quote-seeking reporters and columnists scoured the academic countryside looking for insights, observations, theories, explanations and opinions about all things to do with Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riot. Disappointingly, however, their responses invariably fell short of being truly illuminating.

Even some of the rioters and looters themselves have turned to the usual lineup of deep thinkers to help them explain why they did what they did during that infamous night.

This, in fact, is exactly the strategy one university student embraced in a now-notorious essay she posted online in an attempt to apologize for her looting of a men’s wear store. Parroting many of the experts — and, indeed, actually quoting a few of them — Camille Cacnio described how an allegedly conscience-numbing combination of alcohol and adrenaline caused her to steal two pairs of pants, which she said she took as souvenirs of the evening’s events.

As noted in Wednesday’s National Post, Cacnio’s original, 3,000-word-long mea culpa declared, “I had no intentions of defiling the city … But in my immature, intoxicated perspective all I saw was that the riot was happening, and would continue happening with or without me, so I might as well get my adrenaline fix.”

Statements like that led many online critics to blast Cacnio for attempting to rationalize or even justify her actions, and she subsequently posted a far-shorter, more straightforward apology in response.

Nevertheless, her original tract remains accessible. This is undoubtedly good news for students of human nature, because the document provides some important insights into the destructive riot and, in doing so, also inadvertently rebuts facile rationalizations about its causes.

Facile, because a great many experts, such as Christopher Schneider, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia (who was, in fact, quoted by Cacnio), concentrated their ruminations on explanations relating to “mob mentality.”

Regrettably, however, few ventured into the more complex and potentially more revealing territory of personal conscience and responsibility. This omission inevitably led casual observers to conclude that many of the rioters were little more than biological machines that reacted in strange and dangerous ways to the stimuli of the night: the bitter disappointment or anger over the Canucks’ game seven loss, the booze and the adrenaline.

Insights and observations about the role of free will, individual choice and ethical action were difficult to find, even though it is clear that a great many fans, who were subjected to exactly the same stimuli as Cacnio and the other rioters and looters, did not join the mayhem.

What could explain dissimilar responses to similar stimuli? Ironically, Cacnio herself provides a clue in a passage in which she attempts to persuade the reader that she is a “good person.”

She writes: “As many of you already know, I am majoring in Conservation Biology at UBC. I strongly believe in ecological conservation and sustainability. That night [the night of the riot], I saw a few people that were trying to knock trees down. So what did I do? I yelled at them, saying ‘Pleaaseee [sic], not the trees!!!!’ And what did they do? They stopped. And I felt like a hero.”

What Cacnio is telling us, then, is that, on a night in which she says she was so jumped up with adrenaline and booze that she found looting a store to be a perfectly rational thing to do, she was also morally aware and clear-headed enough to put her love of the natural world into action by saving some trees.

Something doesn’t add up. She can’t have it both ways, just as the experts’ musing about the effects of stimuli on the rioters doesn’t explain how the same stimuli can leave so many people unaffected.

Clearly, there’s an element missing in Cacnio’s self-analysis and the experts’ cogitations, and that’s the role that one’s moral standards play in determining one’s actions. Cacnio’s strong convictions relating to the environment allowed her to overcome the otherwise conscience-numbing effects of the evening’s stimuli and to make the “right” decision about saving trees.

Similarly, it can be speculated that the majority of the fans were able to resist the temptation to join in the mayhem because of their moral convictions about such things as responsible action and the value of personal property. Conversely, it can also be said that those with less-well-formed moral character succumbed to the stimuli.

Ultimately, then, participation in the riot was a matter of free will. Some chose to do evil. Thankfully, however, a great many chose to do good.

National Post

Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver journalist and community activist who co-hosts Roadkillradio.com

Spratt & von Dehn found guilty of violating BC’s ‘bubble zone’

 Comments Off on Spratt & von Dehn found guilty of violating BC’s ‘bubble zone’
Jun 212011
 

RKR NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release

Spratt & von Dehn found guilty of violating BC’s ‘bubble zone’:
no jail time, both will appeal

VANCOUVER, June 20, 2011 (RKRNews) — Two prominent pro-life activists were convicted of violating BC’s infamous “bubble zone” law in provincial court today, but will serve no jail time—and their convictions and sentences will be appealed.

Don Spratt was fined $1,000 fine and sentenced to two years’ probation; Cissy von Dehn was sentenced to two years’ probation.

Both were arrested June 19, 2009 for standing inside the “bubble zone” outside a building at 2525 Commercial Drive that houses an abortion mill, passing out copies of the Access to Abortion Services Act (the “bubble zone” law) while wearing sandwich-board signs that said “WARNING! YOU CAN BE ARRESTED UNDER BILL 48” and “BE INFORMED. READ BILL 48.”

The previous day, Spratt had learned that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear his appeal of an earlier conviction under the same law, when he had carried a cross made of 2x4s and a small sign reading “you shall not kill” into the bubble zone.

Speaking for both accused, defence counsel Doug Christie said the conviction would be appealed on four grounds:

• The court ruled that the Access to Abortion Services Act is a “strict liability” statute, which means that proving mens rea (intent) is not necessary for a conviction. But Christie (as Mrs. Von Dehn’s counsel) and Ron MacDonald (Mr. Spratt’s counsel) both argued that the Act is not a “strict liability” statute.

“They were convicted because of who they are—prominent pro-life activists,” said Christie. “But it doesn’t matter who does the action, it’s only the action itself that the law addresses.”

• The court erred in not recognizing their “due diligence”—the fact that they had taken steps to determine that what they did—passing our copies of a law exactly as published by the government of BC—was not a crime.

“In no jurisdiction could distributing copies of a law be construed to be a violation of that same law,” said Christie.

• The court erred in defining “officially induced error” too narrowly.

Mrs. von Dehn had been inside the zone carrying identical warning signs on three previous occasions, and police had informed her that her actions were not violations of the Act.

• The court erred in not limiting the meaning of the terms “protest” and “sidewalk interference”.

No evidence was introduced at trial that anyone on the sidewalk had been impeded by the presence of Spratt and von Dehn; nor had they said anything about abortion.

Before sentencing, Spratt made a statement explaining why he felt compelled to oppose abortion in Canada. In 40 years of assisting the oppressed in impoverished nations around the world, he said, he has seen how tyranny develops: first, human rights are crushed when those who cannot defend themselves are oppressed or killed; then, civil rights are also destroyed, as anyone who attempts to defend the helpless is punished.

“The Canadian government, like all tyrants before them, are not only committing human rights violations against the pre-born, but have moved on to deny the civil rights of anyone who dares to speak up or intervene on behalf of the downtrodden. True to the pattern of repressive governments everywhere, our constitutional protections are swept aside, and off to jail we go!” he said.

“To be arrested and jailed, simply for informing the public of the existence of a law that could send them to prison, looks and feels a lot like despotism to me!”

He quoted Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, when he introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960:

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe is wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

Comparing abortion to slavery—both are the abuse of one person’s rights for the benefit of another, according to legal scholar Charles I. Lugosi—Mr. Spratt also quoted U.S. President Abraham Lincoln:

“Abraham Lincoln said, ‘You cannot have the right to do what is wrong’, and ‘If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.’ I say, ‘If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong; and we cannot have a right to choose to do wrong’.”

Mr. Spratt’s full 2,300-word statement is to be made available on-line at:

www.renaissancecanada.ca

RKR Weekly Definitions 01

 Comments Off on RKR Weekly Definitions 01
May 252011
 

Election Reform – Fairness in voting supported by every candidate and opposed by every office holder.

Gaydom – The gay utopia that will exist after the world is finally bullied into realizing that homosexuals are to be worshipped.

Global Warming – Weather predictions based on political agendas and corporate profits.

Human Rights Mausoleum – Winnipeg’s Human Rights Museum

Induced Coma – The ill, at ease.

Social Alchemists – Liberal reformers who believe they can magically reshape human behaviour by the power of their progressive beliefs.

Thought Farms – Public schools

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Submit your own Definitions to jim@roadkillradio.com

May 242011
 

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.

2003The 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.

Most documents referred to in the pamphlet are available through the links found at
https://roadkillradio.com/2011/05/24/gay-activists-political-abuse-of-public-education/

Click here to download, print, fold, and distribute a tri-fold brochure of this post.

Contacts for Parents’ Voice:
Daud Ismail – daudism@hotmail.com
Charter Lau – charterlau2011@hotmail.com
Gordon World – gordonworld@hotmail.ca
Website – www.theparentsvoice.org

May 022011
 

The proposed new Vancouver School Board ‘diversity’ policy, recognizes that “race” is an arbitrary social categorization—correctly, for the Human Genome Project has informed us that the physical characteristics which we have customarily called “racial characteristics” comprise only 0.012 per cent of the human genome. There is, in fact, only one “race”: the human race (GASP!: a position consistent with biblical ethics, which proclaims that “God has made all men on one blood.” (Acts 17:26) )

However, the Social Responsibility and Diversity (SR&D) team that drafted the proposed new policy then blithely proceeds to re-introduce “race” as a policy concept, adding “racial and” to the phrase “cultural diversity”. And the Aboriginal Educational Enhancement Agreement, to which the SR&D team says the VSB is committed, of course, defines the target beneficiaries by traditional concepts of “race”, which this paper correctly says are obsolete.

Of course, the distinctions implicit in the Aboriginal Educational Enhancement Agreement can be, and should be, understood to be rooted in culture, not race.

The prohibited grounds of discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code, which provided the basis for this draft, urgently need to be reviewed in light of three decades of study that now reveal that some of the protected categories and practices are in fact harmful to society and to the individuals who engage in them.

Some of the terms used in this report require definition – e.g., “ethnocentrism”. What, exactly does that mean? The roots of the word would seems to mean a focus on ethnicity—but the implication of its use here is that one ethnicity is given preference, and that’s bad. Well, if ethnicity means “race”, we have already demonstrated that such a focus would be wrong; but if it means culture, then the SR&D team has descended into the absurdity (very popular in some circles today) of declaring that “all cultures are equal.”

But clearly, they are not: some cultures embrace cannibalism, female genital mutilation, “honour” killings, child marriage, forced marriage, and slavery. Those cultures are demonstrably inferior to others which have transcended such savagery.

Again, the policy statement that “welcomes diversity” is not clear about what aspects of cultural or behavioural diversity are to be welcomed. Some behaviours are vectors for lethal diseases; others are rich artistic expressions. Some are barbaric; some add welcome dimensions to our own culture. In both parallels, the former should be discouraged, and the latter welcomed.

But the proposed VSB policy does not seem willing to make such distinctions, fearing to appear “Euro-centric”; but there are cultural divides according to which some cultural practices conform to or enhance Canadian society, and others are deleterious or even criminal.

The failure to make such distinctions is the result of a common and widespread misunderstanding of the word “discrimination” – a misunderstanding that is vividly apparent in this proposed policy statement.

Discrimination is, at its heart, the ability to tell good from bad, and better from best. In previous generations, discrimination was regarded as a good characteristic; we spoke of “a discriminating gentleman,” and it was meant in praise. Today both words are considered terms of opprobrium.

Prejudicial “discrimination”, of course, is wrong: to pre-judge without information, and then arbitrarily to classify people as “good” or “bad” is, in fact, the very obverse of true discrimination. True discrimination is beneficial, to both the individual and society. Prejudice, meaning pre-judging, or judging before the facts are known, is wrong; discrimination is good. This policy statement wrongly equates the two words. Such inability to use words correctly is one of the results of the deterioration of public education in recent decades, or a wilful attempt to deceive).

The policy draft falls into a similar trap when it mandates an “inclusive and multi-centric” curriculum.

But a primary goal of education is to transmit the national culture from one generation to the next, thus providing a moral framework from which other cultures can be evaluated when they are encountered later in life.

There’s a classic example in a story from the days of the British Raj in India. The Governor wanted to abolish the custom of suttee, by which, when a man of rank died, his widow was consigned, alive, to the flames of his ghat. When the British Governor sought to outlaw the practice, one of his Indian advisers cautioned him, “This is an established tradition in our culture.”

The British Governor replied, “It is an established tradition in our culture that whoever does such a thing is to be hanged.”

Suttee was eventually stopped.

The British Governor’s moral values were rooted in his culture, and he sought to guide India into governance that conformed to those values. He was also able to appreciate Indian art and cuisine; he was a discriminating gentleman.

Today’s “multi-culti” and post-modernist administrators – and the graduates of curricula such as the VSB is proposing – would not be able, with consistent cultural logic, to say that burning a widow alive was wrong; they would fear being considered “judgemental”. To them, suttee would be defensible because “all cultures are equal.” But they are not.

The SR&D team would probably excoriate the British Governor’s actions as “Euro-centric bias”, and would teach our children that he was wrong. But simple humanity screams that he was right.
This faulty perception of culture extends, in this policy statement, even to staff development: the proposed policy says, “All staff members need the knowledge, skills and attitudes to understand and accommodate diversity and difference.” That is fatuous, errant nonsense.

They need the knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable them to discern between diverse ideas and practices, to select the good and eschew the bad.

If the attitudes proposed in this policy proposal become the template of public education, there will be no people in the future equipped with the necessary discernment between good and bad cultural practices. If the Vancouver School Board wishes to destroy our society and culture, then let them campaign clearly on that theme rather than impose a regulatory agenda by bureaucratic deception.

~ Ron Gray

Nuke Evolution op-ed

 Comments Off on Nuke Evolution op-ed
Apr 082011
 

By Terry O’Neill

One doubts whether the millions of Japanese directly affected by the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant will give a hoot about the prophecies of a Canadian academic named Thomas Homer-Dixon, but it’s still worth noting the professor believes that issues associated with events at that northern Japanese power station could lead humanity to a pivotal point in its history.

In fact, the professor goes so far as to assert in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed that the manner in which the world solves the energy-production problem, that has been brought into sharp focus by Fukushima, not only “should mark a turning point in human history,” but also “will be a defining challenge in the evolution of our species.”

Evolution of our species, eh? Given the widespread concern about the adverse effects of radiation, one’s first reaction upon reading this phrase might be to assume that the learned professor was attempting to pump some life into the hoary old science-fiction theme of radiation’s tendency to mutate living organisms into monstrosities. Some classic films from the 1950s come to mind, including Them! (giant, angry ants), The Amazing Colossal Man (think Yao Ming, but much, much bigger) and Attack of the Crab Monsters (which pretty much speaks for itself).

Fun stuff. But, alas, Homer-Dixon, who is identified as “the CIGI Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ont.,” is not predicting a plague of gigantism but, rather, the potential for the development of some sort of fundamental change in our species’ consciousness associated with the recognition that our supply of carbon-based fuels is finite and that nuclear energy is too dangerous. Either we evolve, he says, or “it’s game over for anything resembling modern civilization.”

But not only is this evolution idea far more mundane than all that monster stuff, but it’s also almost impossible to understand. In fact, Homer-Dixon never actually gets around to explaining how the adoption of new energy sources such as “ultra-deep geothermal power” (his personal favourite) would represent an “evolution” of our species instead of, say, yet another example of the sort of intellectual and technological advance for which we humans have become justly famous throughout the galaxy.

Rather, he leaves the impression this undefined evolution would represent some sort of fundamental transformation. Remember the apes who encountered the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Fast forward to the present, and Homer-Dixon would have us believe that we’re the apes once again, but that this time the black slab has been replaced by an overheated nuclear reactor.

Or something like that. It’s difficult to know exactly what he’s getting at. It kind of makes me miss the old Homer-Dixon, who gained some notoriety over the past decade, first, for his neo-Marxist theorizing that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were manifestations of social and economic disparities and, second, for his apocalyptic views about how environmental problems, ranging from global warming to declining fish stocks, might spark violent conflicts among the peoples of the world. In fact, he was often quoted as saying that the world was on the cusp of a “planetary emergency.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Homer-Dixon’s world has now gone from the eve of destruction to the dawn of a new age? It’s nice to know that, unlike old dogs, tenured academics can learn new tricks.

Then again, for those of us party-poopers who think that Homer-Dixon has always been noted more for the quantity of the overheated atmosphere he produces than for its quality, this “evolution of the species” stuff is simply more of the same.

Moreover, it puts him into the same premier division of esoteric snake charmers as the likes of Oprah’s favourite guru, Deepak Chopra, who talks about human evolution as being linked to some sort of harnessing of creativity. Perhaps this is what the hippies meant when they dreamed of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

In fact, while the U.S. public school system may be smoldering over evolution-related questions about where humans came from, it seems that the whole New Age, transcendental, Taro-card-reading, astrologically-inclined, Mayan-calendar-predicting, Gaia-worshipping subculture is burning with questions involving the direction in which humans are now evolving towards.

Personally speaking, I’m quite content with the idea that the evolution of the branch of the species with which I am most familiar was completed when my ancestors, Francis and Julia O’Neill, left Ireland at the beginning of the potato famine and settled in the Ottawa Valley. Nevertheless, I understand how others may believe the species must still deal with unfinished developmental business.

Even then, I’m more inclined to view this, not as some sort of hypothetical evolutionary leap, but simply as something with which I am in full agreement: the advance of civilization.

Terry O’Neill’s Evil Commentary

 Comments Off on Terry O’Neill’s Evil Commentary
Mar 182011
 

Does anyone other than a dwindling minority of Procrustean traditionalists recognize evil anymore—personal evil, that is? Oh, sure, there’s plenty of the geopolitical variety to go around these days, especially in North Africa. And there’s more than enough being identified on the national stage by perpetually outraged critics within this country too, most notably by those on the political left, who eagerly attach the E word to everything from corporate profits and free trade to the oil sands and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s piano playing.

But we rarely hear about individual Canadians doing “bad” things, exhibiting sinister behavior, acting wickedly, or carrying on immorally, let alone sinning.

Instead, there’s always some sort of exculpating explanation for bad behaviour. Shoplifters suffer from kleptomania; corrupt officials have succumbed to stress or have manifested a previously undiagnosed psychiatric disorder; prostitutes are victims of the patriarchy, poverty or both; juvenile delinquents are the recipients of inadequate parenting; inner-city gangsters are victims of racial discrimination; and thieves are impoverished or addicted, and, if the latter, are surely not responsible for the burden of the illness under which they are labouring. You get the picture.

Look at the website promoting the recent Pink Shirt Day/anti-bullying campaign—a cause that should easily give rise to descriptions of bullies acting wickedly, etc.—and you’ll see therapeutic twaddle aplenty along with much vigorous exhortation to get to the root of the problem, etc., but nothing about the plain and simple fact bullies are acting immorally.

Which brings me to Exhibit A, otherwise known as the spark that gave life to this particular column. You might have heard of a horrible hit-and-run accident in Coquitlam, B.C., two weeks ago which left two young women dead. In covering the aftermath of the crash, which included the laying of several charges against a suspect, including two counts of impaired driving causing death, a local newspaper turned to a clinical psychologist from Simon Fraser University for some “insight” into “what might lead someone to flee the scene” of a serious accident without giving help.

Dr. Joti Samra is quoted thusly: “Assuming that it’s a true accident, the reality is… even from the perspective of the person that caused the accident, it can be quite traumatic and cause an acute stress reaction.” Got that? Acute stress reaction.

The good doctor goes on to explain that the brain could be flooded with information and emotion that would cause a person to act unusually. “The fight or flight response is something we’re exposed to when we are faced with extreme traumatic events,” Dr. Samra concludes. “Our body kind of goes into a shock, it doesn’t know what to do.”

Notice the focus on the culprit’s body and not his mind? I suppose it’s true that this human-as-hormonal-machine answer is what you’d expect from a clinical psychologist, whose business, of course, is to produce exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis. But there’s no excuse for the news media to limit their probing into human behaviour to “experts” such as Dr. Samra. Why not someone with some grasp of the profundity of human existence, someone like a novelist, a moral philosopher or a religious leader– someone who recognizes we’re more than just pre-programmed biological machines?

To my mind, it would be a welcome relief—and far more enlightening—to hear some real insights into moral character, the dark origins of personal cowardice, or the nature of evil in circumstances such as these. And so, for example, when asked why a driver might flee the scene of an accident in which he had struck two innocent people, a priest might comment that such a person had become alienated from God, had too easily succumbed to temptation, and had become a sinner in need of redemption.

This would be really useful information as far as I’m concerned, and might also help many readers reflect more deeply on their responsibility—indeed, their duty—to act in a moral fashion.

But, of course, in this secular, humanistic era of ours, we see very little serious discussion about evil in the public square. Perversely, one is more likely to find scintillatingly descriptive words, purring about the concept of evil, in advertisements attempting to induce a consumer to indulge in some sort of deliciously sinful wickedness for an affordable price. Moral inversion to sell chocolate pudding.

A recent full-page newspaper advertisement for Volvo is a perfect example of this lamentable trend. Emblazoned above an image of a shiny red S60 model, the ad copy informs us, “There’s more to life than a Volvo. Like raising a little hell with 300 horses, spanking corners with your all-new sport-tuned chassis. And feeling a little dangerous in a car tricked out with safety technology. That’s why you drive the all-new naughty Volvo S60.” (Emphasis added.)

A 16th-Century proverb holds, “Evil doers are evil dreaders.” Today, however, evil doers are either the next patient for the couch or a target market.

PARENTS’ ALERT #2 • PARENTS’ ALERT #2

 Comments Off on PARENTS’ ALERT #2 • PARENTS’ ALERT #2
Mar 132011
 

Parents for Democracy in Education/March 2011
Thanks to BC Parents and Teachers for Life (BCPTL), we’ve been informed of a new propaganda booklet produced by a pro-homosexual group, Pride Education Network, that is being distributed by the teachers’ union in B.C. (BCTF). This booklet, Gender Spectrum, makes unsupported claims that gender is a “continuum”, and that normal concepts of “male” and “female” are obsolete. (We have included a copy below, so you can read their one-sided presentation for yourself.)

In contrast, Dr. Leonard Sax, author of Why Gender Matters, Boys Adrift and Girls on the Edge—a medical doctor and a PhD in psychology—has published a rebuttal to such ideas in the Journal of Sex Research (his article is also included below). We call your attention to a statement on Page 9 of Dr. Sax’s peer-reviewed study, which—after a review of the medical evidence—declares:

“The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female.”

The PEN/BCTF mis-information campaign is working through teachers in an attempt to radically change the very nature of our schools, among other things encouraging children to practice cross-dressing as “role-playing” the identities of children in one of five (or more) imaginary “intersex” genders.

Such a campaign puts the health and safety of 99.98% of students at risk, for the sake of a pro-homosexual doctrine being promoted by the BCTF.

To protect their children from this barrage of propaganda promoting acceptance of sexual perversions, parents should take steps to establish clearly their wishes for the education of their children.

Bear in mind that the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, states clearly in Article 26, section 3:

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

While there may be elements of that Declaration not all Canadians agree with, very few would argue with Article 26—and because Canada is a signatory, the Declaration’s concepts have protective force as strong as Canadian law. If your wishes are made known to your children’s school, they must be respected.

Below is a copy of a Parents’ Directive document available from BC Parents and Teachers for Life at www.bcptl.org
Use (or adapt) this document, then sign and date two printed copies of it, and deliver them to your children’s school with a request that one copy be signed by the Principal and returned to you.

Parents’ Directive regarding education of their children
BCPTL has frequently drawn attention to the necessity of parents taking steps to protect their children in the schools, given the attempts to propagate harmful propaganda in the school system. British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is offering what we think may be of some help: a Parents’ Directive regarding the education of their children, a document which parents can deliver to the school, making clear their wishes with regards to the education of their children.

We think that this document is written in respectful terms yet is firm in stating the parents’ wishes. We do not take credit for the idea. Others have written similar documents. We present this as reflective of issues we feel parents should be concerned about, and hopefully reflective of the tone which such a document should have.

This document, when sent to the school, does not come from British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life. It is only of value if it is recognized as coming from the parents who deliver it. Parents are responsible for the document when they use it. British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life cannot be responsible for its use, and our name should not be attached to it when it is sent as a parental directive.

Should you as a parent wish to change the document in any way, you are entitled to do so. You may have other concerns which you wish to express, or you may wish to change it in some other way to suit your family’s situation. Of course, we are not responsible for any changes made. It would be well, in our view, to ensure that any changes retain a respectful tone and are carefully checked for wording before the document is delivered to your children’s school. The text of our suggested directive is given below and also on the “Help for Parents” page of this website (www.bcptl.org).
Parents’ Directive regarding education of their children
To the administrative authorities of _______________________ School in??_______________ in the province of British Columbia, regarding our children, namely:
______________________________________?__ _____________________________________
________________________________________ _____________________________________
We, the undersigned, as parents, are desirous of the welfare of our children in every aspect of their lives. We are thankful for the positive opportunities for education which are available in our country, and for teachers in our schools who generously devote their time to teaching the children and youth of our nation.
Conscious that parents are the first educators of their children and that they continue to bear a prime responsibility for their education, we are communicating the following statement of wishes regarding our children’s education. We request that this statement be kept on file in the school to which we have entrusted our children, and that it be brought to the attention of all those teachers and other staff members who will be charged with dealing with our children. We respectfully issue this statement as a legal directive to school authorities and personnel.

Holding certain principles regarding the family as the basis for our own teaching of our child or children, we desire that those principles should in no way be undermined.

We hold as an ideal the concept of the family as founded on the life-long commitment of one man and one woman to one another in marriage, and on their commitment to the welfare of their children. Nothing taught to our children in the school should undermine respect for this principle.

The school should seek the welfare of all children entrusted to it, and to the best of its ability protect all from harassment; but it shall in no way teach our children that concepts of the family diverging from our ideal are equal or superior to that ideal.

We hold to the belief that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing taught to our child or children in the school should undermine respect for this principle.
We, as parents, have signed two copies of this document as an indication of our wishes. We request that you return one copy with the signature of the school principal, as an indication of his or her having received the document. We further request that any principal succeeding the present one shall likewise sign this document.

Dated and signed this _________ day of _______________, in the year ___________ at??_________________________ in the province of British Columbia.

The National Absurder: Embargo This

 Comments Off on The National Absurder: Embargo This
Mar 112011
 

Can you believe there’s a country that forces its children work in factories? Wages are 44 cents an hour. Unions are illegal. Government enforces censorship with violence. Critics of the government are thrown in dungeons. Tax fraud, theft and smuggling are punishable by death. Newspapers, books, and the Internet are severely censored. Religious and ethnic discrimination are state-sponsored. Women suffer forced abortions and sterilization to control the population.

I’m not talking about Cuba here. I’m describing China.

The U.S. has no problems with Americans visiting China, our chief supplier of poisoned dog food and lead-tainted toys – not to mention off-the-scale pollution and BILLIONS of cases of human rights violations.

But Cuba? Americans can’t come here.

To be accurate, the U.S. does allow some Americans to visit Cuba. Cuban-Americans, reporters and politicians can apply for permission. Last year about 6,000 permits were issued to Americans to visit Cuba. Last year more than 200,000 Americans actually visited Cuba.

Thank you, Canada. While American Customs agents are hassling me over my nail clippers and tube of toothpaste, Canada Customs were allowing me to exercise my free choice. And Cuban Customs agents do NOT stamp American passports. Come on down!

All this is done on a wink-wink, nudge-nudge level. While I’d like to see Canada grow a pair and tell the U.S. to stop this sham embargo, I can understand why Canada doesn’t want to lose the revenue of a quarter of a million round trip vacation packages to Cuba every year.

The United States lies that this is a United Nations-backed embargo. Let’s see, the latest vote was 173 countries against the embargo, and 3 for it. Three. The United States, Israel, and the Marshall Islands. There’s a country called the Marshal Islands?

The Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bill Clinton love their Cuban cigars, but YOU can’t have any. So who’s really being punished?

The details hurt my head – admit it, they give you a headache, too. If we actually paid attention to who’s paying off whom, we’d all demand this absurdity to stop immediately. Or as American voters, we’d have to accept culpability for America’s unjust management of embargoes.

Whoa, that was way too many syllables. I’m on vacation, after all.

Hey Fidel, another mojito over here, por favor.