It's all a little Fuzzy.

It’s all a little Fuzzy.

It has been a stressful, tiring, and busy month. Our country, O Canada!, has impaled itself upon the jagged rocks at the bottom of the precipice it so gleefully leapt off of with it’s “progressive” rights for LGBTQIA2S+(?M?).
It is now “family violence” in Canada for a Father to call his teenage girl his daughter, and he must hand her over to grown men to be sexually mutilated, molested, abused, and used for their profit. A man has no right to protect his daughter from grooming. A mother must participate in the abuse, or have their child ripped from the home to be fondled by sex obsessed liars seeking victims to exploit for their profit and gratification.
The Canadian Justice system is now subject to political intimidation, and the rule of law varies based on your connections.

And yet, what is Canada doing to save itself from its dire predicament? It is using its last dying strength, not to lift itself off the spikes that have caused it such mortal wounds, but to grasp the spikes firmly with both hands, and pull itself closer to the bottom. As if Canada thinks that a stalagmite is an arrow that must be pulled through, rather than pulled out. I’m here to tell you, that by the time those in charge figure out that you can’t pull the ground itself through a wound, Canada will be dead. A failed state. No matter how many socialist stars you wish upon.

As thousands of you are aware, on January 31, 2019, I hand delivered a letter to the Alberta Ombudsman, requesting that she open an investigation into Alberta Education to determine if criminal wrong doing was occurring, as was perceived to be occurring by the 639 Albertan’s who signed it. As of February 14th, I have not heard so much as a peep from the office of the Ombudsman. The actions of Alberta Education since January 31, have only increased my and other parents belief that systemic criminal activity continues to go on within this provinces Ministry of Education. From the ATA setting up a murderer to speak to teachers, to whispers heard of Alberta Education officials demanding to have secret private conversations with children about how safe they feel in school, that parents were not allowed to know about. (I’ll be making a separate post about the Letter to the Ombudsman, in the days to come.)

I’m stating all this, to help build up context, for the benefit of my readers, so that they have a clear understanding of why what I am going to talk about is such a concern. Reading comprehension has also taken a hit in the last decade, and the more context the better. Context has also taken a ludicrous hit by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Trinity Western decision, and British courts are saying context doesn’t matter vis-à-vis “Count Dankula” and “Tommy Robinson.” Reason and common sense prove otherwise, even if every corrupt judge on the planet says it doesn’t.

It is requisite that I expand context just a little bit more, and I hope that you bear with me. As I begin to discuss the core topic of this post, that of Medicine Hat Public School Division Policy [530] Procedure [009], I will surely be re-opening some old wounds to establish this context. That is unavoidable, but also healthy, as these wounds have never properly healed. They have in fact been festering under the service, and are beginning to turn septic. It is good to air them out, clean them, and have them properly heal, for the good of the community, and for the good of its children.

The events that happened in Medicine Hat starting in March of 2016, and continuing on through most of 2017, were a direct response to actions taken by the Board of Medicine Hat Public School Division (MHPSD formerly SD76) regarding their implementation of the so called “Safe & Caring” polices 621 & 622. Before March, 2016, I was just another pleb, minding his own business. The Concerned Parents of SD76 (CPoSD76) were also not a thing. That a coalition formed, (and is still united,) between Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Muslims, and Secularists over a school policy was unprecedented. That is the power family has to unite people. One might even call it very “inclusive.”

Yet despite this unprecedented coalition, 2500 residents requesting further thought and debate, and multiple warnings of the consequences of implementing these policies, some of which I gave myself, the Board continued to take bad faith action, after bad faith action. Even going so far as to silence their critics through attempts at censorship, obfuscation, and threats.

While many of the warnings that myself and several other residents tried to convey to the Board on that cold March evening in 2016, have turned out to be prophetic, the Board, and indeed Alberta Education as a whole continues to march forward, damn the consequences, to their meaningless “Safe, Caring, and Inclusive” utopia. I say meaningless in the literal literal sense, because as one Trustee recently told me, “there isn’t even a common definition of what inclusive means.” (That being a consequence of a ‘your truth’ mentality.)

Despite all the good intent to create a “Safe, Caring, and Inclusive” system, whatever the meaning, it has only produced the commonly understood opposite affect. Schools are less safe, less caring, and more exclusionary than they ever were. It is in this context, and in this understanding, why I first had concerns with MHPSD Policy [530] Procedure [009], and indeed many of you had similar concerns.

When I first saw, and read P009, on the agenda for the January Council of Councils meeting, I had concerns, but I wanted to hear what was discussed about it, before making a fuss. Since I was going to give a report on the CofC meeting to my School Council, I opted to tell my council about it, and get their thoughts without ‘tainting’ it’s reception with my reputation. There were a few concerns raised, and some questions asked. I informed them that I would meet with the board or the superintendent to get more info for the next meeting. The board had not been presented the procedure at that time, and I believed it was prudent to wait to see if they had any discussion at the next public Board meeting, the following day.

Due to a scheduling conflict, I was not able to attend the Board meeting, so I e-mailed the Superintendent inquiring weather it had been passed by the Board. He stated that it had been passed as presented. I later came to know that this was standard practice for administrative procedures, which are the at the discretion of the Superintendent and for the information of the Board.

Given the Divisions past attempts at censorship, obfuscation, and bad faith actions, and given the larger current cultural climate of silencing dissent, (also here, and here, and here, and also here, lets not forget here, and recently here.) it seemed only fair, to seek legal opinion on it, as well as to hear from other stake holders within the division. No reasonable person could see 530 P 009, and all the examples of near identical policies, that have factually led to intimidation, threats, and law suits, and not be at least concerned that they might be abused.

After seeking out those opinions, and speaking with a number of individuals, I compiled the collective concerns, and tabulated a number of questions relating to those concerns. I then sought a meeting with the Board Chairman, Rick Massini, and Superintendent Mark Davidson. Mr. Davidson was open to a meeting, and did inform me, that the proper process was to meet with him first, and then apply to speak to the Board should that meeting be insufficient. The Date of the meeting was set for March 1st.

For readers reference, I have provided a copy of the concerns and questions that were presented to Mr. Davidson at the beginning of the meeting.

Concerns with MHPSD Policy 530 Procedure 009

1. P009 is outside the guidelines of Policy 530 Policy 530 is written in the context of use and distribution of technology, social media, and program material within division property and during work hours. All other proceduers (1-8) are within this context.

2. Division authority, mandate, and fiduciary duty does not extend outside of division property or outside work hours.

3. Exertion of control over private and personal social media, what information one shares, and who one associates with on private time, by any governmental body, violates the Canadian charter of human rights, with respect to freedom of association, conscience, belief, and religion. Violations of such constitute discrimination. (3.2, and 3.3 specifically.)

4. Definitions of conduct that violate this procedure are not clearly and concisely defined. Leaving it up to the whim of the superintendent is not sufficient.

5. Social Media content does not explicitly and universally exist in the public domain.

6. The statement that “Social media users are participating at their own risk,” contradicts the purpose of the procedure and negates all previous statements.
If the risk is on the user, than the division has no business monitoring, policing, or directing personal use of social media. To do so would make the division liable for the content shared, as they have made themselves responsible for policing it. Publisher vs platform argument.

7. Incorrect or inaccurate definition of Social Media. Doesn’t match dictionary or commonly understood definition.

1. Who is enforcing this?
2. How will this be enforced?
3. How much will enforcement cost?
4. Who benefits from this?
5. What issue does it address?
6. What programs is the division offering to instruct Students, Staff, and Volunteers on the use of social media?
7. What penalties will be levied for violations?
8. How are violations determined?
9. What is the conviction process?
10. What is the appeal process?

In the interest of time, and keeping you reading this until the end, I will summarize what I took to be the key points and answers.

Private vs. Public

Privacy is Contextual. One of the main discussion points of the meeting was whether Social Media users had an expectation of privacy, and the individual Charter rights we have to freedom of association, conscience, and belief. 530 P 009 is written in such away as to say that all social media exists in the public domain. This is not correct, and can be easily shown.
Mr. Davidson explained that the courts have shown that Facebook groups do not have an expectation of privacy. He stated that when you are sharing posts with 100s of people, there is no expectation of privacy. An example of this was given in referencing the teachers in Manitoba who did a lap dance. I was familiar with the incident, but not the details at the time. Mr. Davidson made reference to how they were terminated from their positions, and that it went to court, and lost. Stating that precedence was set on this. I countered that if there is any kind of privacy statement, that there was in fact a degree of expected privacy.
Since the meeting, I have had time to look into the details of the event referenced. There was some key inaccuracies in the example.
1. The teachers were not fired. One did not have their contract renewed, and the other resigned.
2. It did not go to court.
3. The Female teacher is still teaching.
4. This was not a social media ‘incident.’ These teachers were being inappropriate at a school event.
5. This had nothing to do with private or public social media association or precedence.

I belief that Mr. Davidson had simply been misinformed on the details of that incident, and I researched further for examples of where the courts may have said that private Social Media, like Facebook, did not have an expectation of privacy. I have not yet been able to find any. The closest I came up with was the Dalhousie Dental Program Incident in 2015, but that again did not go to court. So we are left with the S.C.O.C decision I referenced above, that it is contextual, and not a blanket ‘public domain’.

After all, the context of my conversation with the Superintendent was not private, even though it was conducted in his office. I had sought a meeting with the Superintendent to discuss a public policy procedure, that was precipitated by a segment of the public expressing concern, in hopes their concerns would be publicly addressed. Even so, there were several things that were discussed that had a private context amid that obvious public context.

To give an example of a legitimate situation, where I teacher may come into question under this procedure, but actually have their rights violated if it were to be enforced; consider a teacher who owns a firearm, and is a member of a online firearms enthusiast social media group, and frequently shares their enthusiasm for firearms on their Facebook account. There are obviously individuals who would have a problem with that, but that is not a crime, nor is it corrupting to children, but that could constitute “Reflecting Negatively” on the division to have a teacher who owns firearms. To enforce, or register a violation of this procedure, for such circumstances, would end up being subject to costly legal challenge.
Lets make this hotter, how about a teacher who believes homosexuality is a sin, that one is not born homosexual, and attends a Church that firmly beliefs the same. Would the teacher be allowed to share on Social Media their beliefs and associate with others who hold those beliefs on social media, or would that “reflect negatively” on the division?

Extent of Authority

The second significant topic of discussion was a concern of unjustified expansion of authority of the MHPSD. The authority and enforcement of division policy does not extend outside MHPSD property. This was also a significant point of concern with procedures for policy 621 (now known as Policy 612 P 001,) which states students are subject to discipline

when the student’s conduct detrimentally affects the welfare of the members of the school community regardless of where that conduct occurs.

Policy 612 P 001

This concern was raised because of two statements in 530 P 009 that say:


Internal: all Board members and staff

External: volunteers, contracted employees

Policy 530 P 009 – Definitions

1.Personal UseSocial media use on personal accounts, outside of work hours and off school property are subject to this policy and the procedures.

Policy 530 P 009 – Usage

This part of the conversation very quickly lead into a distinction between employees and contractors, and that of volunteers. I made it clear that I understood there was a differences between the groups, but it was clearly outside the divisions authority to dictate what values a volunteer held, who they associated with, and weather they ‘reflected negatively’ on the division.

Mr. Davidson gave three arguments to why the division authority did extend outside Division Property and working hours.

  1. Employees and Contractors sign agreements, and jurisprudence and ATA policy clearly outline what those groups can and can not say publicly.
  2. If you hold the division in low regard, or are extremely critical of it, why are you volunteering? The Division could also just politely decline your offer to volunteer.
  3. There was no punishment outlined for volunteers. There was mention that the School Act listed several things that parents “shall” do, but are not doing, and have no consequences listed. (I’ll get into this a bit more in enforcement.)

The First point is not valid in situations like that of those I listed earlier, regarding beliefs, values, and morals. Yes, an employer can terminate employment of someone who goes online and calls their boss, or the business, a big dunderhead, but they can not bring them up for discipline for differences in race, religion, or sex, anymore than the employee could. They also can not force them to violate their conscience, or restrict their freedom of association or expression. The phrase “reflect negatively” is so absurdly broad, that any reasonable person can see that it could be used to abuse authority, if someone were inclined to.

The Second point is discriminatory in it’s nature. If a public education system only allows volunteers who hold the values, thoughts, and beliefs that the Board or Administration prefers, they are violating their own mandate of a safe and inclusive community. They are making it unsafe for people who do not hold to the division orthodoxy, and they are excluding people from the joys of serving their community based on the their race, sex, religion, beliefs, and/or politics. I also did make a point that not all volunteers are ‘selected’ by the administration or the Board. School councils are elected volunteers, and if disciplinary action were to be taken against an elected volunteer, that would be a disastrous legal mess. Especially if it were because of that volunteer’s personal beliefs and associations.

Thirdly, if no consequences are expected, than what is the point? Ya, sure, the School Act may do the same thing, but why is it in the school act? Just because your friend jumps off a bridge, would you? But I posit to you, that it is there for a reason. It does have a purpose. It is there to intimidate, to imply consequences. It is there to inspire self censorship, and to stoke fears of consequences. The Division has zero authority over what you or your children do on Social Media at home, or off work hours. If the division can make it appear as though they have that authority, heavily imply that there could be consequences, and make you belief that you are violating some law, than you will start to believe it, and encourage others to adhere as well. There is a reason “the Scarlet Letter” was so effective in keeping people in line.
Mr. Davidson said, “Policy can not be less restrictive than law, but it can be more restrictive.” He also stated that it was better to have policy and have something happen, than not have policy and have something happen. The thing is, policy can be more restrictive, but it can’t violate your rights. To enforce this policy for anything other than employer bad mouthing, would be a violation of your rights, and why would you need a policy to handle circumstances that would be a violation of rights to enforce? Especially when the ATA and contracts already cover exactly what employees can and can not do on social media.


Enforcement was the shortest part of the discussion. This is mostly do to the fact that this is just not enforceable, and that Mr. Davidson out right stated that there were no consequences given for volunteers. (Which were the center of most concerns.) It is also practically speaking, impossible. You would have to employ teams of professionals to troll employees/volunteers social media, and dig into their associations, to see if there were any violations. The cost would be astronomical and unsustainable. It would also be unethical, but that is beside the point.

I asked Mr. Davidson how he would enforce it, and he said it would only be if someone brought something forward. In other words, it’s a “If you see something, say something” kind of enforcement. To Mr. Davidson’s credit, I don’t think his intent is to wipe out dissent in the Division, though there were some who thought I was referring to him as Emperor Palpatine in this post. (I was not. I specifically stated I was referring to the NDP. “That being said, in my opinion, the NDP (the party) are just like Palpatine”) I did find it ironically funny that they are even attempting to impose this procedure, but Mr. Davidson said that enforcing a cell phone ban in school was impossible. (All you need is a cell phone jammer. That would render 90% of the issues with cell phones in school moot overnight.)

My and others’ concern rather are with those above and around him who would, and have, shown a propensity to hammer out dissenting views. After all, Davidson is just as replaceable as anyone around him, if say David Eggen were to say it was no longer acceptable to be pro-life, or associate with pro-life groups on Facebook. Let’s be honest, that is not outside the realm of possibility for Minister Eggen. Would Davidson terminate the employment of someone who shared a photo of an aborted baby, and a 16 year old student complained about how it made her feel to see it? I don’t think Davidson would personally, but what if Progress Alberta started calling the Division anti-choice? What if Eggen told him he had to, because after all, it was “reflecting negatively” on the division, and that is the reason the policy exists! So much ‘fuzzy’ territory.


These last two points were not specifically discussed with Mr. Davidson, but are more of the over arching theme of the concerns, and were accurately summarized in a brief discussion I had with a Trustee a few days after my meeting with Mr. Davidson. This discussion, although not in a private setting, did have the perception of privacy to some extent, and since only the Chairman of the Board can officially speak for the Board, I will not be sharing the name of the Trustee.

This Trustee appeared genuinely interested in hearing my concerns, and wanting to resolve them. The Trustee expressed that the intent wasn’t to censor, but to establish an understanding of expected behaviour. That people need to know that there are limits to what one can say. The Trustee gave the example that it was not OK to call Mr. Davidson an idiot, but it was OK to call Donald Trump an idiot. (The following writing is a break down of this example. It in no way represents my personal beliefs on Mr. Davidson or Donald Trump.)

The concern I and others have with the censorship that this policy procedure will lead to is that, “there is no Principled Argument for censorship, only arguments from power.” The example that the Trustee gave is arbitrary. Why is it not OK to call the Superintendent of a Public School Division an idiot, but it is OK to call the President of the United States an idiot? What is the deciding factor. This is exactly the point that Carl Benjamin makes in the above video. Sure, employees can’t call their employer an idiot, but the general public can do what they want. The example isn’t even morally consistent. If you can’t call one person an idiot because it would hurt their feelings, you can’t call anyone an idiot. Once you set arbitrary ‘taboo’ speech, there is not limit to how far that can expand.

This is a Public School Division. It is their mandate to remain neutral on matters not pertaining to education and obedience to law. As organizations like the ATA, ASBA, and PSBA, (whom the MHPSD Chairman is a member and advocate for,) consistently lobby to have the laws and constitution of Alberta changed to eliminate private, charter, and separate schools, so do the concerns over censorship increase proportionally.

As a Public Division, the Public is free to criticize the actions taken, just as they are free to criticize the government. The whole purpose of speech is to bring up grievances with the status quo. The reason we have separate, private, and charter schools is because people did not agree with the public system. The fact is, not everyone can send their kids to a private school, and as such they must have the ability to be both involved in the public system, but also be critical of it, if they perceive it is making foolish, dangerous, or illegal decisions.

When you censor dissenting opinion, you only fan the flames of censorship, and prove that, what was once considered ‘conspiracy,’ is now actually fact, and the ‘fearmongering’ becomes justified. When you can’t agree on what “inclusion” means, you have no right to state what “acceptable” inclusive behaviour is. People can’t even figure out what gender they are. How are you going to make a fair standard of what is considered harassment, and not censorship?

Moral Standard of Conduct

The last point I belief I need to address in this short novella of a post, is a statement made by the Trustee that I mentioned under the Censorship point. The statement was that they (The Board? The Admin? The Government?) were trying to develop a “common sense, moral standard of conduct.” That statement took me by surprise. I had long suspected that that was the end goal, but to hear it said out loud, and semi publicly, was surprising. I found myself stopping several times after the discussion had ended, and wanting to go back and address it further.

To think that, a Public School Division, has the unmitigated gall to believe that they have the power to develop and enforce a moral standard on not just the schools, but the ‘school community,’ is astounding. To be perfectly clear, a Public School Division does not have even a microscopic smidgen of authority to enforce a self developed “moral standard,” let alone the moral integrity to do so. If they did, they would be a fascist institution.

Clearly the MHPSD is not basing this standard on the Bible. Clearly they are not basing it on the Koran. Clearly they are not basing it on the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, with their continued enforcement of policy that violates that declaration. Clearly they are not basing it on the Rule of Law, since they, for months, violated the law with Policy 622, until it was made legal under Bill-24. So what are they basing it on? What is its foundation? The following video gives one likely possibility.

The “Oppressed Oppressor Binary” is rooted in the feminist intersectionality ideology and the progressive stack. Both are fundamentally racist, sexist, and bigoted, so I would hope that that isn’t what they are basing the “moral standard” on.

Let’s also not forget, that the Public School Division had a moral standard, but they rejected it, and ejected it from all public schools. Do I need to remind you why that was? We live in a diverse country, with multiple moral standards. The 10 commandments were the foundation of Canadian society, but they were at odds with secularists. It was determined that the Rule of Law was the best standard for a multi-cultural society. When did that change? Are we to expect Sharia police to start patrolling our schools? How about an inquisition? Why not the puritan system of “The Scarlet Letter?” Surely an Amish social shunning would fix the wrong thought of Division students and volunteers!

It is laughable to think that the Division could come up with a logical consistent moral stand, when they can’t even define racism, inclusiveness, harassment, bullying, or gender in any kind of commonly accepted way. If the definitions of words are defined by the superintendent and the Board, than that is obviously tyrannical and fascist. The definitions of words are not set by individuals or Boards. Every single fear and concern that parents had was validated and cemented with the statement that the “they” was attempting to develop a “common sense, moral standard of conduct.” Who’s common sense? The common sense of those that say men can have periods?

I think we are in need of a history lesson, on just why exactly, a socialist/fascist/communist “moral standard,” arbitrarily set by a group of self proclaimed superiors, is such an extremely supremely bad idea. Some 50 million people were starved to death under Mao Zedong’s “great leap forward” moral standard (, a moral standard Praised by the father of our current Prime Minister, who recently said “Canada has no Core Identity”). Some 20 million people died under Stalin’s enforcement of the “…to each according to his need” Marxist standard. And some 6 million people died under the “Aryan Master Race” standard of Adolf Hitler.

I am not saying that our public school division is ‘literally Hittler.’ They are not, and I do believe that most of the Board and Admin have good intent, but as they say, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Hitler, Stallin, and Mao, I’m sure, all started out with what they truly believed to be good intentions. Just as the puritans and inquisitors did as well. The problem is, their definitions of good were not the same as everyone elses, nor were they benevolent people. All of mankind is fallen and broken, and as Carl Benjamin referenced above that JohnMilton observed in Areopagitica, “the censor must assume to themselves above all others in the land, the grace of infallibility and uncorruptedness”

The School Division is certainly not infallible or uncorrupted, so why do they think that they have the ability and authority to develop this moral standard? After all, members of the administration have warned me that if I were to start meddling in the personal lives of Division staff, that that would be different, and how they would respond, to such meddling, would be significantly different. So how is it any different than them meddling in the personal social media lives of members of the community outside of their authority? Are not our concerns morally justified on that basis alone?

You must be logged in to post a comment

Daily Tidbit

No quote today