Update on Out In Schools Police Investigation! Culture Guard News Release

 Comments Off on Update on Out In Schools Police Investigation! Culture Guard News Release
Dec 072011
 

Culture Guard Special

Dec. 7, 2011

For immediate release

(Click here for the video update and VPD Const. Lott’s telephone message)

Complaint? What complaint?

VPD comments on the ‘completed investigation’ into a complaint they never received!

The Out In Schools saga continues!

As you may recall, in September Kari Simpson attempted to file a complaint with the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) against the Out in Schools program and the program’s umbrella organization, the Out on Screen Film Society, for luring students to—and then exposing them to—pornography. She also wanted an investigation of the Vancouver School Board and the BC Teachers’ Federation, which had both endorsed the smutty program.

Constable Eric Lott, who “volunteered” to respond to (or, more likely, get rid of) the complaint, took no notes about the charges, and refused to accept the written documentation Simpson had taken to the Cambie Street headquarters of the VPD.

Within 30 seconds of meeting Const. Lott, Kari became suspicious that he had an ulterior agenda; during their 35-minute meeting the Constable did not exhibit the expected police professionalism—unless acting like a thug is now recognized by the VPD as a profession.

For those of us who know Kari—well, she is just the wrong person to try to bully or intimidate!

Unimpressed by Const. Lott’s thuggish tactics, Kari turned the tables on him, and asked what division he works in. It turned out that he is in traffic. Kari then asked what expertise, as a traffic cop, he has in investigating pornography.

Hit with this reality, Lott suggested another way to handle the complaint: he suggested that Kari should talk to the Diversity Unit.

When the Diversity Unit didn’t answer Const. Lott’s phone call, Kari obtained the number and said she would to contact them, and then left the VPD building taking with her all her documentation, unfiled complaint and witnesses.

When Kari returned to her office at approx 11 p.m., Const. Lott had left a phone message detailing a proposed “new approach” to receiving the still-unfiled complaint. He now wanted, as the “first responder,” to take possession of the complaint and pass it on to Vice and the Diversity/Hate units.

By this time Kari had been advised of some troubling information: apparently the VPD had already participated in an activity sponsored by the very group responsible for exposing the school kids to PORN!

Kari decided that she would pursue charges through a different venue, and did not provide the complaint and/or any documentation to the VPD.

Here’s where the story becomes really entertaining!

According to VPD media spokesman Const. Lindsay Houghton, and unbeknownst to Kari, the VPD alleged that she did “file a complaint”—even though there was no statement given, there was no file number assigned, and there was no information provided to the VPD—except for the cursory discussion and rude responses by Const. Lott on September 13, 2011.

So without receiving any of Kari’s documentation, or taking any notes of his own about the charges, Const. Lott apparently had the complaint “investigated”.

It gets more mystifying: Kari was recently advised that some unknown “investigator” proceeded to clear Out In Schools of any wrongdoing—without ever talking to Kari or obtaining any of her documented evidence.

Clearly, the VPD has decided to give special rights to radical sex activists among the LGBTQ++ community.

In previously related matters, the VPD allowed a member to broadcast silly personal definitions of what he views as “hate”: a definition that would compromise investigations by calling murders “hate crimes” before the police inquiry is finished.

The VPD also allowed its members to stand by and watch decent citizens being assaulted by gay activists during a parental rights rally. It regularly turns a blind eye to open breaches of the Criminal Code during the annual “pride” parade; ignores complaints by concerned citizens about public sex in park areas that should be safe for kids and families; and now carries out fake “investigations” into school programs that lure children into a world of gay pornography and sex without even talking to the complainant—and then issues a statement about how “age-appropriate” the program is!

One has to wonder: would Aaron Webster be alive today if the VPD had ensured that the law was being properly enforced at this well-known public site, where homosexual men meet for illegal sexual encounters?

Why do those words “bias”, “pandering” and “gay toady” keep coming to mind? Why is the VPD so fearful of the sex activists that they ignore open breaches of the law? Why is the VPD willing to compromise its reputation to scam the public into believing that they “investigated” a complaint that was never received or properly investigated?

Does VPD Chief Jim Chu really believe that a school program that lured students to a Queer Film Festival party featuring games like “Lesbian Debauchery” and “The Queeriodic Table” is appropriate for teen-agers?

Does the VPD really believe that exposing teens—and younger—to graphic gay porn is “age appropriate”, as VPD spokesman Const. Houghton says?

Does Chief Chu and the VPD members really believe that the Out In Schools program that linked students to a hardcore porn site, other sex sites and gay sex-activist political sites is “age appropriate”? How many parents did they talk to in this farce of an “investigation”? How many parents were ever informed of the truth about this program, and then still found themselves to be “engaged” as the VPD claims?

In this Culture Guard special update, you’ll hear the voice message from Constable Lott, admitting he doesn’t have the complaint… but now wants to “take possession” of it! But remember: Kari never gave it to him! Now she wants to know—as the named complainant—what did the VPD investigate? And on what did they base their so-called “investigation”?!?

Kari says she can hardly wait to share the details of what emerges from her Freedom of Information request!

Stay tuned!

Click here for the Culture Guard Update video

=30=

Contact: Kari Simpson Tel: (604) 514-1614

Email cultureguard@gmail.com

6 December 2011 Webcast: Smart Meters – a (really) Dumb Idea

 1 Response »
Dec 062011
 

Why are corporate-backed Smart Meters being forced on British Columbians when they prove to be unhealthy, dangerous, and an invasion of your privacy? Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak with Sal Vetro, who is turning BC’s successful anti-HST machine against this latest attack on our civil rights.

Here are some links you will want to check out!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tuesday, December 6, 2011: Smart Meters = Dumb Idea

 Comments Off on Tuesday, December 6, 2011: Smart Meters = Dumb Idea
Dec 062011
 

Tuesday On RoadKillRadio.com!
Dec. 6, 2011- 7:30 pm

Why are corporate-backed Smart Meters being forced on British Columbians when they prove to be unhealthy, dangerous, and an invasion of your privacy?

Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak with SAL VETRO, who is turning BC’s successful anti-HST machine against this latest attack on our civil rights. GO People Power!!

Here are the links you will want to check out!

Important Show

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

EMAIL THE SHOW: RoadKillRadio@live.ca

Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage are welcome!

ALL SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED, LISTEN FOR FREE!!!

Tuesday, November 29, 2011: Polygamy!

 Comments Off on Tuesday, November 29, 2011: Polygamy!
Nov 292011
 

Tuesday On RoadKillRadio.com!
Nov. 29, 2011- 7:30 pm

Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray as they review BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman’s decision upholding the ban on polygamy, concluding “There’s no such thing as ‘good polygamy’.”

Hear each side of the argument from guests Gerald Chipeur, well-known civil rights lawyer and legal counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, and Doug Christie, a hero among those who work to protect free speech and expression. Mr. Christie appeared as legal counsel for the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Both lawyers agree; this case is far from over!


Important Show

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

EMAIL THE SHOW: RoadKillRadio@live.ca

Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage are welcome!

ALL SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED, LISTEN FOR FREE!!!

Ten Principles for Canadians

 1 Response »
Jul 142011
 

by Ron Gray

For Canada Day – which used to be (and should still be) called ‘Dominion Day’* – Vancouver Sun religion columnist Doug Todd listed his suggestions for ten “Canadian values”:

  1. Participatory democracy.
  2. Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
  3. The rule of law.
  4. Stewardship of the Earth.
  5. No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
  6. Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
  7. Universal health care for core needs.
  8. Readiness to pay taxes.
  9. Willingness to learn from “The Other.”
  10. Commitment to the common good.

I’d like to respond with a list of my own; that way, perhaps we can get a discussion going. But first, I need to establish some principles – principles are more enduring and immutable than “values”; values are merely what we ascribe value to, at the moment, and can change in an eye-blink; principles, like the laws of physics, don’t change. Ever.

Here are some principles for public life (which is what governments and politics are all about). Personal values and principles are just as important – maybe more important – but we’re talking about nationhood, here. Ultimately, the nation will assume a shape determined by the interplay of individual principles.

First of all, however, I have to confess that I have an advantage over poor Doug: my position doesn’t compel me to treat all faiths as though they were equal. And, indeed, that’s not possible: Judaism and Christianity and Islam say there’s only one God; Hinduism says there’s millions; Buddhism has no god. One = millions = zero is a logical absurdity. Some other tome, I’ll deal with why I’ve staked my eternal future on the Biblical faith; but for now, let’s get on with the national list of values principles.

Behind the principles that govern a nation’s identity must be a concept of governance. Ultimately, any form of government ending in “archy” or “cracy” isn’t really reliable; they depend on the personal integrity of the ruling authority. A monarchy depends on the monarch; a democracy depends on the people; a republic depends on both the Constitution (is it a good one?) and the people (will the people obey it?) Remember that Hitler came to power through a populist democracy; in the Messianic Age we’ll be governed by an absolute Monarch.

But the first principles of government must always derive from the concept of authority: what authority does a government have? and where does it come from?

There is – and always has been – only one Law-Giver; governments are not instituted to make laws, but to administer the Laws that have been given (at Sinai). William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the English Law were for 200 years the primary textbook of every law school in the English-speaking world, wrote that “no enactment of man can be considered a law unless it accords with the Law of God.”

So, since we have passed statutes that are at variance with the Torah, those ideas cannot be considered part of our heritage. But other innovations, such as the idea that we will not allow anyone to perish for lack of medical care or funds, are consistent with that part of the Torah that commands us to, “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

So what are the guiding principles that should keep Canada on the right path?

  1. Obey the Law (that is, what is consistent with God’s Law).
  2. Be generous (personally; not with other people’s money).
  3. Be compassionate.
  4. Love people and use things (too much of modern life loves things, and therefore uses people).
  5. Work hard and joyfully – and for the future, more than for the present.
  6. Leave Canada and the world in a better state than we received it.
  7. Rejoice in what we have been given; do not make the ability to be happy conditional on things unattained or imagined.
  8. Respect the legitimate rights of others; defend your own legitimate rights (and know the difference between legitimate rights and indulgence).
  9. Speak the truth in love.
  10. Be honest in all your dealings; do not covet nor take what is not yours.

For comparison’s sake, let’s discuss Doug Todd’s Ten:
    1. Participatory democracy.
But democracy must not be idolized; it is always in danger of degenerating into mob rule, if we put it on a pedestal. When I was in school, we were taught that democracy meant rule by the majority, but stressed that the first obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the minorities.

The only reason to defend democracy, really, is the knowledge that no fallen man or woman can be trusted with absolute power; therefore everyone in authority must be accountable to those under his or her authority.

    2. Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
The operative word here is “reasonable”; we have fallen into the worship of a special brand of “diversity”, the hall-mark of which is intolerance for anyone who disagrees with it. The modern brand of “diversity” has no room for people who agree with Blackstone.

    3. The rule of law.
The importance in this dictum is that it supersedes rule by persons.

    4. Stewardship of the Earth.
A principle with which all (except the rapacious) can agree – it’s consistent with our Point #6.

    5. No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
This idea, so prevalent today, is rooted in a misunderstanding of the word “discrimination”. It was once though to be the hallmark of civility to be discriminating – to have cultivated the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad, and to choose the good, whether doing so is of immediate personal benefit or not. We must restore the proper meaning of, and respect for “discrimination”. The word acquired a bad connotation when “discrimination based on race” was recognized as a social evil. But many forms of discrimination are good, and should be honoured.

    6. Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
The use of the word “tempered” tells me that Doug recognizes the evil implicit in both unrestrained avarice and unconstrained regulatory power. We would surely all agree.

    7. Universal health care for core needs.
This is an expression of our Point #3, and is dependent on the limiting words “core needs”; but the socialist principle that prevents anyone from spending their money on any kind of health care, if it is not also available to all others, is excessively bureaucratic. And it must be recognized that abortion is never a “need”; it is the abuse of one person for the benefit of another; in this, it is akin to slavery and to the sacrifice of children to Moloch.

    8. Readiness to pay taxes.
It’s a pity that Doug didn’t see fit to insert a modifying word here – like “reasonable taxes”. Christian economist Gary North has pointed out that when the government demands more than the ten percent that is God’s tithe, it has straying into idolatry.

    9. Willingness to learn from “The Other.”
Yes; but there must be a standard against which everything we would learn must be measured. That standard is the Torah.

    10. Commitment to the common good.
No quarrel here at all; but again, there must be a standard for defining “good”; we cannot hope to make the world “better” until we know what is meant by “good”. And again, that has been defined for us by the Creator.

* – A word about the word “Dominion”, as in “Dominion of Canada” and “Dominion Day”: As a teenager, I though the term meant that Canadians were under the thumb of Britain. I learned from the study of history that the Fathers or Confederation chose the term from the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm: “He (meaning the returned Messiah) shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the great river to the ends of the earth.” Respect for His Torah, the foundation of all legitimate law, is implied in calling our nation a Dominion; and the term deserves to be restored.

Vancouver Sun’s bias is showing

 1 Response »
Jul 052011
 

By Ron Gray

The story and photograph reproduced below, taken from the Vancouver Sun’s web-page, represent a new low in Canada’s decaying journalistic standards.

The headline and story are about hate crimes. The picture is of a battered lesbian. The inference is that she is a victim of an “anti-gay” hate crime.

But she’s not.

Shannon Barry is a self-proclaimed lesbian; she was attacked by a 14 year-old stranger, in a brawl outside an Edmonton bar. But police investigation concluded it was not a hate crime.

That misrepresentation is bad enough; but what makes it even worse is that fact that the accompanying story doesn’t mention anti-gay hate crimes at all. The rise in reported hate crimes was in the categories of race and religion: the victims were Blacks, Asians, Arabs, and Jews.

But the way the Sun editors played the story creates the impression that Canada is deep in a wave of anti-gay violence – a non-fact often parroted in the media.

The Sun, like most of Canada’s major metropolitan dailies, is notoriously pro-gay; their bias colors both editorials and news coverage. Readers find it difficult to distinguish between editorials and the news. The uninformed opinion of writers in both genres bleeds into their work embarrassingly.

When I worked at the Vancouver Sun – when the late, great Jack Webster was City Editor, and Hal Straight was Managing Editor – keeping the editorial and news pages separate was an article of faith. Jack used to tell cub reporters, “You can’t ever be perfectly objective, but you must try.” Sometime in the 1970s, the journalism schools at Canadian universities began teaching neophyte journalists, “You can’t ever be perfectly objective; so be subjective.” And the reporters, instead of being invisible observers, became the focus of the stories they covered.

Opinion has replaced news in today’s newspapers.

But you have to wonder: why have today’s media become so blindly pro-gay? What’s the big attraction?

There are several factors. The most unsavory is the fact that most journalists are, by and large, a pretty randy bunch: they want their own licentiousness excused, so they abuse their position as opinion-molders to become advocates for almost all forms of “sexual diversity” embraced by the politically-correct and paid for by us the tax-payer.

A more noble impulse among journalists is what I call “righteousness envy”.

In the late 1940s, the Fifties, and into the Sixties, newspapermen (we didn’t get the exalted title “journalists”, back then) were on the front lines of the struggle for the civil rights of Blacks (who were then called “Negroes”). I remember a white journalist from Texas, John Howard Griffin, in 1959 underwent treatments with drugs and ultraviolet light to darken his skin colour; then he traveled through the Deep South, and wrote about his experiences in a devastating expose of Jim Crow laws and racism, Black Like Me. Griffin became a hero to many journalists, much like Bernstein and Woodward in the 1970s for their exposé of Watergate.

A lot of contemporary journalists like to think they are walking in the same path of civil rights by embracing the cause of homosexuals. But there’s a world of difference.

For one thing, homosexuals may experience some social rejection, but they’re not a persecuted minority: their average education level and employment success are well above the national average. There’s no persecution in employment, and they have a much higher-than-average disposable income. They also have political clout wildly beyond their small numbers.

Another difference from racial discrimination is that militant gays really do have an agenda to change society by manipulating attitudes. Their agenda was clearly outlined in Kirk and Madsen’s 1989 book After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90’s (sic).

The problem with their agenda is that it is dishonest, and it is dangerous.

The militant gays almost never talk about the health problems that are endemic to men who have “sex” with men, or women who have “sex” with women. (They made an exception in 2009, when a coalition of Canadian “gay rights” groups filed a human rights complaint against Health Canada, noting that their health problems are much worse than those of the “straight” population, and demanding more spending on their peculiar and behaviour-induced illnesses.)

And their lies and propaganda become dangerous when they are adopted by schools and forced on an innocent captive audience: school-children.

Dr. Scott Lively, when he taught law at Pepperdine University in California, warned state school boards that if they sanction lessons designed to increase acceptance of homosexual behaviour, some students would be tempted to experiment; and some who experiment would become addicted; and those who had sanctioned the misleading lessons would be guilty of condemning those children to an early grave – and the school boards and their trustees might well be sued.

Later, the American College of Pediatricians sent a letter to every school board in the United States, warning that such pro-gay curricula are actually dangerous to children.

None of those facts ever make the pages of our major metropolitan newspapers. Instead of news that could warn parents about how their schools are being subverted by militant gay activists, by the BC teachers’ Federation’s militant gay wing, and by pro-gay school boards, the “downstream” media have become cheerleaders for the propaganda campaign, and viciously attack parents who rightly and responsibly seek to protect their children and to defend the public education system from political abuse.

When propaganda replaces news – like the editorial decision to play the photo below with an unrelated story—respect for the Fourth Estate takes a well-deserved nose-dive.

Shame on you, Vancouver Sun, shame.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Police-reported hate crimes rise in Canada: StatsCan

By Beatrice Fantoni, Postmedia News / June 7, 2011

Shannon Barry

Shannon Barry is a lesbian who was kicked in the face and knocked unconscious by a stranger in Edmonton on Saturday April 17, 2010. Figures released Tuesday by Statistics Canada suggest the number of hate crimes reported to police is on the rise. Instances of hate crimes increased by 42 per cent between 2008 and 2009, bringing the total to 1,473. Photograph by: Larry Wong, Edmonton Journal

OTTAWA – Figures released Tuesday by Statistics Canada suggest the number of hate crimes reported to police is on the rise.

Instances of hate crimes increased by 42 per cent between 2008 and 2009, bringing the total to 1,473.

While hate crimes remain primarily motivated by race (and black Canadians remain the most-targeted by hate crime), the data also showed the number of reported hate crimes perpetrated against Arabs and West Asians doubled (to 75 from 37). There was also a 71 per cent increase in hate crimes committed against Jewish people.

Statistics Canada analyst Mia Dauvergne says two factors might have influenced the result: While there may have been a real increase in hate crimes, it is also possible that more crimes are being reported as police forces across Canada set up special hate-crimes units.

Len Rudner, the Ontario regional president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said while the statistics could be a result of more reporting, “We have to acknowledge the fact that a lot of this is the result of an increase in criminal acts.”

Rudner said he has noticed a pattern where flare-ups in the Middle East are linked to flare-ups in hate crimes against Jews. Late-2008 was one such time, he said, and so it could have influenced the 2009 statistics.

Rudner also acknowledged that reporting crimes varies between communities, since not all cultural or religious communities enjoy equal access to police and justice services. While the Jewish community enjoys a good relationship with police, other groups are not necessarily as well-represented on the hate-crimes radar, he said.

It is this lack of representation that partly explains the jump in reported hate crimes against Arabs and West Asians, said Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation. In addition, the Canadian government is fostering an environment of hostility toward Arabs and Muslims in Canada, he said.

“We are a very vulnerable community,” Mouammar said. “We don’t have resources, we don’t have the numbers,” he said. “Many people are silenced and try to avoid talking about issues to avoid being targeted.”

Sohail Raza, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said the opposite was true.

“It’s a two-way street,” Raza said. “We have to get over the victim mentality…. Only then will (there) be less hate crimes,” he said.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

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

Is Anything Left of Religous Rights?

 Comments Off on Is Anything Left of Religous Rights?
Jun 142011
 

With Terry O’Neill & Kari Simpson!

Show #105, Part 2, audio only:

Download Show #105, Part 2, audio only

8:00 – 8:45 pm: SEAN MURPHY from the Catholic Civil Rights League will talk about the controversy over the Burnaby School District’s attempts to establish a policy that gives special rights and recognitions to politically loud militant gay activists, while ignoring and discriminating against the rights of others – namely civil-minded faith groups and other common-sense Canadians. Click here for the CCRL submission, here for the recent News Release from the Parents’ Voice.

I’m coming out as a “homosceptic”

 Comments Off on I’m coming out as a “homosceptic”
Jun 132011
 

by Peter Saunders, (CC) 13 June 2011
Original Article Here

Dictionaries need a new word to describe disagreement with some of the key precepts of the gay lobby.

Last year’s election in the United Kingdom threw up some interesting results as a variety of issues took prominence in different constituencies. In particular we saw strong reactions to four conservative parliamentary candidates who had, either during the campaign or previously, held views which were judged as being “homophobic”.

Philip Lardner lost his candidacy for saying that homosexuality was “not normal behaviour” – sacked by party leader David Cameron. The uproar surrounding Philippa Stroud’s Christian beliefs about the issue was a major factor in her failing to take Sutton and Cheam for the Tories. Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering “bed and breakfast” being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 70,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past “homophobic” voting record, when she said her views on homosexuality had now changed.

Being judged “homophobic” can cost you dearly.

I’ve always been puzzled by the term “homophobia”. In the minds of most people it means being prejudiced against, or even hating, people who are homosexual. Wikipedia defines it as “a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual”.

In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to “racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry” on the grounds that “it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”.

It is therefore understandable that “homophobic” is a label that no one wants to have. There is even an International Day Against Homophobia celebrated on May 17 each year. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton marked the day with a statement condemning the “terrible scourge” of homophobia and transphobia.

However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men’s fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who “come out” as homosexual.

These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.

For many people “homophobia” is actually about “having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people”. This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.

This kind of “homophobia” is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.

For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term. I’d like to propose the term “homosceptic” – a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as a known word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context. (In the American spelling, homoskeptic, there are only 230 examples.)

The Urban dictionary defines a “homosceptic” as “a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms”.

I’d like to broaden this definition to include “being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement” such as the beliefs that:

    Homosexuality is genetically determined
    Homosexual orientation is always fixed
    Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
    Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
    Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Of course if you accept these “key presuppositions” you may well believe people who don’t to be ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy.

But if you have some doubts about the truth of some or all of these beliefs – and suspect that they might be more “ideology-driven” than “evidence-based” – then perhaps you could argue that you are not “homophobic” but rather “homosceptic”.

Dr Peter Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article has been cross-posted from his blog, Christian Medical Comment.

Is Province Columnist Ethan Baron a Bigot?

 Comments Off on Is Province Columnist Ethan Baron a Bigot?
Jun 022011
 

Is Province Columnist Ethan Baron a Bigot?
By Kari Simpson, Co-host of RoadKillRadio.com

June 2, 2011

Is Ethan Baron a media bigot? Yep. Here’s the proof: It’s clear from his musings of May 13, 2011 in the Province newspaper that he willingly presents himself as a self-declared, gay activists’ toady.

His bizarre attack on John Cummins resonates with similar delusions, also hysterically declared as fact, by gay activist and NDP MLA Spencer Herbert about a 12 year-old email written by BC Liberal candidate Mark Dalton. The media ‘reporting’ that ensued was beyond amusing, and made the witch-hunts look almost childish in comparison; but far more educational was the silence that instantly gonged after RoadKill Radio issued a news release suggesting Dalton should sue Herbert for defamation.

It seems that Herbert’s skills in reading and publishing facts are as non-existent as Ethan Baron’s—and many other members of the media. Herbert, when confronted with the libel-laced facts, found an appropriate-sized gag ball, placed it where it belonged, and choked.

Clearly though, Mr. Baron is skilled and possesses some abilities; for example, he is provably fluent in propagandist gayspeak. Like other prominent media blabbers (e.g., Bill Good, Rafe Mair, Mike Smyth) he parrots the factless retro-yack of yesteryear.

It seems these gaydumb toadies cum laude have been left off the email lists of the sexmania trend-setters. Well, let me help you!

Ethan, don’t you know that ’way back in 1999, Gareth Kirkby, then managing editor of Xtra West, publicly declared his “choice” to have sex with men? Then there are Stan Perky’s personal insights, which he so generously broadcast over CKNW in 2000. Rafe Mair, admitting his own ignorance on the subject, had stated:

All right. Stockwell Day raised the issue: as a matter of fact he did it right here on this show where he said that ahhh homosexuality was a matter of choice. Eeee! Great human cries came thereafter, mostly from the non-gay community I think, trying to be liberal like me, saying oh no, no, no, this is something that you’re born with. You’re telling me, Stan, two things; first of all in may or may not be an acquired taste; and secondly what does it matter?

Stan Persky replied; “That’s right…”

Gasp… shock! Quick, Ethan! Call the bigot patrol; you need to slime Persky! Oh wait…he’s gay!?!

It’s time to grow up, Ethan; the world has changed. In case your demonstrated ignorance includes not knowing who Stan Persky is, I’ll help you: Stan is a prolific homosexual writer from North Vancouver. In the off-chance you want to know Stan better, I suggest you read Autobiography of a Tattoo; in part it details his European sexual escapades with male prostitutes—all of ‘legal’ age, of course (wink, wink)—that he indulges in when on a break from his teaching position here in BC.

You can also check out his opposition to criminalizing the creation and possession of child porn.

And then there’s his classic piece, ‘Recruit, Recruit, Recruit’, published in the Vancouver Sun. I am sure Google will be helpful—you do know how to do a Google search?

For the record, I like Stan and Gareth; they’re refreshingly honest—you should try it.

Now, concerning the politics of gay propaganda: I think any political leader or strategist, who analyses the cause of the obliteration of the NDP in 2001, should easily conclude that these issues—namely truth, respect for all people, and parental rights in education—matter deeply to British Columbians. The Burnaby parents provide a current example, one I suggest will be a factor in both the November election of school trustees in Burnaby, but even more resoundingly in the next Provincial Election.

I believe educational choice—including a voucher system, protecting parental rights in matters involving state intrusion into the family, over-zealous social workers, the Infants Act, and the ideological abuse of the classroom by activist teachers—will prove to be pivotal issues.

As for John Cummins: yes, of course the new BC Conservative leader wimped; and if anything makes him unsuitable to be the next Premier of BC, it won’t be his factual, if awkwardly-spoken, comments about choosing one’s sexual behaviour; nor his provable comments about one group being given special status before the BC Human Rights Tribunal. No, it will be his willingness to be led astray by backroom political strategists who don’t know how to talk the language of common-sense, civil-minded British Columbians. But the greater indictment against him is his willingness to be bullied by gullible gaydumb media bigots like you, Ethan Baron.

Kari Simpson Co-hosts RoadKill Radio
and can be heard at RoadKillRadio.com

Parents’ Voice press conference to outline growing concerns about draft policy 5.45

 Comments Off on Parents’ Voice press conference to outline growing concerns about draft policy 5.45
May 242011
 

Burnaby, May 24, 2011—Parents’ Voice will hold a press conference Tuesday, May 24 at 6:15 p.m., during a rally at the Burnaby School District’s Administration Office, to highlight parents’ growing concerns surrounding draft policy 5.45.

To date, the Burnaby Public School Board has not released information pertaining to planned curriculum changes, committee meeting minutes, or other pertinent information requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Growing numbers of students, parents and other tax-payers are concerned that the Board’s failure to provide full disclosure may be a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that there is a hidden political agenda—an agenda that doesn’t respect parental rights, student’s rights or the Charter-mandated equality rights of Canadians, but instead serves the political interests of activist teachers and their union.

It is now evident that health professionals, religious leaders and members of Burnaby’s faith communities were deliberately excluded from the committee that developed draft policy 5.45.

Parents’ Voice, an ad hoc organization representing parents’ and students’ concerns, has learned that the “Ad Hoc Advisory Committee” was comprised exclusively of LGBTQ activists and their “allies”.

Religious leaders, members of the faith community and health professionals are apparently not included in the Board’s definition of “key educational partners” or “allies.”

Parents’ Voice asks; “If the faith-based community is not considered an ally, does this Board of School Trustees consider them to be the enemy?

Further, the serious issues associated with teen suicide and the increasing health risks resulting from homosexual sexual practices cannot be ignored. Parents’ Voice believes that the Burnaby trustees are willing to jeopardize the best interest of students to cater to a political movement that is thwarted when the facts are made known. Are we to assume that health care professionals share the dubious title of being the “enemy” of the Board as well?

The conduct of the Trustees and administration staff in the development of this draft policy clearly violates the BC Human Rights Act and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to mention the School Board’s and BCTF’s own codes of conduct.

The Burnaby School District’s own website states:

The Burnaby School District expects all members of the school community to treat others with respect and courtesy, and to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the respect of others, in order to promote a safe and positive school climate… Conduct by any member of the school community that adversely affects school climate shall be considered a serious breach of the District Code of Conduct, warranting appropriate forms of intervention.

Parents’ Voice encourages the Board of School Trustees to review their own Code of Conduct, and to govern themselves accordingly. It is obvious that the Board’s discriminatory acts in this matter have “adversely” affected the school climate. Perhaps the Board needs to be disciplined.

Further, it appears that some policy committee members and trustees are deliberately misleading students, parents and the media when stating that twelve other school districts have similar policies, when in fact this is incorrect. Most other school districts’ policies avoid the use of discriminatory and inflammatory language. Burnaby has followed in the dubious footsteps of the Vancouver and Nanaimo School Districts by labeling those with differing opinions as being “dangerous to communities and individuals.” Some of the school districts have simply added discrimination based on sexual orientation as unacceptable, bringing their policies in line with the Burnaby School District’s existing Code of Conduct, which already protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Parents’ Voice affirms the existing Code of Conduct—which is already an excellent example of a code that protects the rights of all students.

Some Trustees continue to publicly assert that draft policy 5.45 will not result in any changes to the school curriculum, even though the draft policy includes seven separate references to curriculum changes. Parents’ Voice asks; “Why is curriculum mentioned in the draft policy if there will be no curriculum changes?” We wonder if the curriculum changes are a part of the Trustees’ hidden political agenda.

The Burnaby School Board has threatened to stop all public consultations on June 3rd, 2011. This is unacceptable. The process to date has not been democratic, nor has it reflected the Charter values of inclusion and freedom of expression that Canadians lawfully expect. Furthermore, the Burnaby School Board has failed to ensure properly balanced representation on the policy development committee.

This process has been flawed from the start. Parents’ Voice demands that the Board begin the process anew, and make the new process is lawful, inclusive and respectful of all the stakeholders, in order to truly reflect the whole community.

The Board has, by their actions, created a toxic and hostile environment, and must apologize to the membership of Parent’s Voice and other excluded stakeholders. The Board has facilitated a proliferation of misleading information, and has played to media madness; and in doing so has offended a large portion of the community.

These acts of deliberate discrimination cannot be tolerated.

Further, the Board of Trustees has allowed students to be used in a political game, which brings shame on them! The Board owes these students an apology as well.

In closing, we call on the Burnaby School Board to ensure a safe, bully-free environment during the rally in front of OUR school board property and to protect concerned students, parents and citizens from the assaults and bully-tactics that happened during the May 10th meeting and rally.

We believe respect must be shown to all people, and ideas must be openly and freely discussed and debated, not shouted down by chanting mobs

Parents’ Voice boycotts Radio Station CKNW

 1 Response »
May 242011
 

Skewing the News is unacceptable.

Due to the history of vilification of parental rights groups and their representatives by Radio Station CKNW, and the broadcaster’s persistent misrepresentations of the facts on important public matters, such as the Burnaby School District draft policy, Parents’ Voice has decided it will not provide any further interviews to radio station CKNW until such time as their reporting becomes fair and balanced.

Background
The CKNW campaign of vilification includes:
1997—2002 – A campaign of hate and vilification was commenced by former talk show host Rafe Mair and broadcasted by CKNW—a campaign that a BC Supreme Court judge found to be promoting hatred and contempt for prominent parental rights activist Kari Simpson and those who supported her. CKNW management allowed Rafe Mair to lie repeatedly on air about her. Rafe Mair refused to have Simpson on his show, and cowardly refused to debate her.

Bill Good, another CKNW talk show host, has accused parents of teaching their children “bigotry”—and then childishly denied it; that is, until he was challenged to produce the tape of the show. Good also lied to his audience about a situation involving parents who pulled their child out of a militant gay activist teacher’s classroom. Bill Good lied by asserting that it was because the teacher was “gay.” In fact, the teacher, James Chamberlain, is a proven liar, and was abusing his role as a teacher by exploiting his students for an ideological purpose. The list of his unprofessional conduct is long and disturbing.

Recently, Bill Good has again proven his bias on the gay agenda by broadcasting misleading information concerning the current debate. Bill Good is also a coward; his refusal to debate Kari Simpson on the issue clearly demonstrates this.

CKNW reporter Brett Mineer interviewed Ron Gray, vice-president of Parents for Democracy in Education, in March 2011. The news clip aired in an edited form that omitted important and scientifically verified information provided by Gray. Then, in typical CKNW “skew the news” form, Jon McComb, commenting on that news clip on CKNW’s The World Today, made a comment that put words into Gray’s mouth, followed by McComb’s mocking comment. Of course, Mr. Gray was excluded from this carefully-edited “smear the parents, twist their message” distortion. McComb, like Bill Good, used the fact that he has the last word on air to bash the parents’ right cause by his distortion of Gray’s interview and his position on the relevant issues.

Philip Till—in keeping with CKNW rhetoric on the Burnaby issue—stated on the morning’s “news” commentary: “Some can’t accept discussion of homosexuality.” (In fact, Parents’ Voice has been trying to have a rational discussion, but propaganda and chanting mobs have been the only response.) Till also said, “I don’t care what your religion or culture is, if you have a problem with your School District trying to prevent your child from becoming a homophobic bully, there’s something wrong with YOU!” This is a classic “straw man” argument: no one connected with Parents’ Voice or Parents for Democracy in Education has ever said anything that remotely suggests that they favour bullying.

The list goes on:
CKNW’s historical record of censoring the news that involves factual information about the gay agenda and the political abuse of the education system includes the failure of a single CKNW talk-show host to interview parent representatives who were assaulted by the International Socialists and militant gay activists when they held a parents rally in Robson square. This event was the lead story for three days on other media stations. CKNW talk show hosts Rafe Mair, Bill Good, and Philip Till censored all reporting of this violent attack against parents, free speech and parental rights.

Further, CKNW’s lawyers are also well aware that the trial judge involved in an important libel case that they won was not qualified to preside over the case. That judge was embroiled in a serious legal matter involving libel defamation and religious intolerance—and committed what appear to be acts tantamount to obstructing justice, namely fraudulent conveyance. CKNW’s lawyers know the decision was wrong, and when invited to act lawfully and responsibly to remedy the situation, i.e., a new trial, they refused. The matter is far from being settled and has now become an on-line reality show, DRIVE FOR JUSTICE, that will debut June 7, 2011 online at RoadKillRadio.com. It appears that CKNW as a news source relies on judicial corruption, rather than upholding the Rule of Law.

It is the position of Parents’ Voice that these deliberate acts by CKNW to Skew the News have contributed to gross societal ignorance of the facts about issues material to the Burnaby controversy. Parents’ Voice has found the reporting of CKNW to be contemptuous of the truth–at best–-and therefore refuses to provide them with any form of interview until such time as they can demonstrate balanced and fair reporting of the facts.

Parents’ Voice appreciates the advent of the Internet, and that the ability it gives us to communicate our message to individuals has dramatically changed this debate. Media outlets likes CKNW, which deliberately manufacture misleading news, will thus soon become deservedly despised and irrelevant. The world of communications has changed.

Parents’ Voice appreciates those media outlets that have provided a fair and balanced reports of the issues in the Burnaby School District—issues that involve the safety and well-being of all children. Parents’ Voice will continue to make ourselves available to you as trustworthy sources of news and information.

Contacts for Parents’ Voice:
Daud Ismail – daudism@hotmail.com
Charter Lau – charterlau2011@hotmail.com
Gordon World – gordonworld@hotmail.ca
For more information on the historical record of CKNW and the gay political agenda visit https://roadkillradio.com/2011/05/24/gay-activists-political-abuse-of-public-education/

Or Contact Kari Simpson tel: (604) 514-1614 email: Kari@roadkillradio.com

Gay activists’ political abuse of public education

 1 Response »
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.

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.

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

Parents have primary rights in kids’ education

 1 Response »
May 232011
 

by Terry O’Neill

FACE TO FACE: Does court-ordered ‘socialization’ in Quebec case go too far?

Of the countless buzzwords that flutter around the practice of child rearing, none currently surpasses “socialization” in its pervasiveness.

We are informed that infants should begin to experience the joys of early socialization in daycare; that toddlers should go to playschool to better socialize with their peers; that pre-schoolers must attend kindergarten in the name of socialization; and that children should enrol in school in the name of several goals, among which socialization is in the first rank…

Click here to read the full Tri-City News editorial, or

Click here to view / download a PDF file of the entire text.

Click here to watch Terry O’Neill deliver this commentary during a RoadKill Radio webcast.

Forced Socialization of Children in Quebec

 1 Response »
May 232011
 

Terry O’Neill of RoadKill Radio gives his thoughts on Quebec’s forced socialization of children in Quebec. If this ruling is allowed to stand, courts across Canada will have the option to remove children from their homes in order to force them to associate with “appropriate” social groups – even when the parents object to such an invasive action. Parental rights are under assault in Canada!

Do Parents have Rights in Quebec?

 Comments Off on Do Parents have Rights in Quebec?
May 172011
 

Show #101 Part 1

Download Show #101 Part 1

7:30 – 8:10 pm: Quebec is ground zero! A line in the sand has been drawn. Tomorrow the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the Quebec case which will decide parental rights with respect to religious instruction. Two important guests will talk about this landmark legal battle: JOANNE McGARRY, Executive Director of the Catholic Civil Rights League and RoadKill Radio regular HELEN WARD, President of Kids First Canada.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries