Author Archive J.Williamson

What is Conversion therapy?

With the recent trend in municipalities to make themselves legislaters on Conversion Therapy, I thought it was high time we found out what the public thought Conversion Therapy was.
It is only after we understand how the public understands it, that we can know if anything even needs to be done.

How do you define "Conversion Therapy?"

  • Electrocute the gays, beat out the gay, pray the gay away. (52%, 85 Votes)
  • Council someone on how to understand their sexual desires, and help them to be happy with who they are. (35%, 58 Votes)
  • Try to convert someone through argument and reason to a different line of thinking. (13%, 21 Votes)

Total Voters: 164

Loading ... Loading ...

How do you define "Gender Affirmation?"

  • Take any and all measures necessary, to affirm a person in the gender/sex that they have decided. (50%, 74 Votes)
  • Affirm a person in the biological sex they were born, in an effort to help them be happy and content with who they are. (42%, 62 Votes)
  • Affirm a person in their self identified gender, in hopes of preventing them from becoming suicidal, but not going so far as to encourage genital surgery. (8%, 12 Votes)

Total Voters: 148

Loading ... Loading ...

, ,

Is saying there are 2 sexes going to be a crime?

This is the first stage of phalio-plasti. This is what Joyal considers acceptable therapy for children, but telling your child that they are not born in the wrong body is psychological torture, and you are a child abuser for saying it. I’m going to force all the proponents of S-202 to look at this, and also so that all the fence sitters who want to ignore this know what they are actually tacitly approving of.

Yes, yes it is. I will not leave you hanging.

This isn’t going to be click bate.

With the re-tabling of S-260 in the senate as S-202, to ban “Conversion Therapy,” I began to try and draw attention to it, and the need to stop it. In that process I made this statement on facebook: “you can follow a link to where Senator Joyal states that if you tell someone there is only two sexes, even privately, you can be charged under this law.” That statement got me a lot of questions. Statements from “You are a liar” to “I’ve read the whole second reading, and he did not say that.” I’ve been ‘fact’ checked, and found to have 20 pinocheos. But did I lie? No. No I did not.

I remember a talking point some time ago about reading comprehension being an issue in schools today, and I think that is relevant here. I think I need to explain that statement, and work through the second reading debate with you, so that you can see why I made the statement, and help you to see it as well. That is, that although Senator Joyal did not make the sound bite quote “saying there is two sexes will be a crime,” but he did in his statements, state that if you tell someone there is only two sexes, even privately, you can be charged under this law. (See the difference between a quote, and a summary?)

There are many people who have read this Bill, and said it doesn’t do anything but stop advertising. That is a wrong interpretation, but not an unexpected one. It is my belief it was written that way intentionally so that people would misunderstand it, unless they did a through slow examination of it. This is why I will work through it with you. I will begin with the actual Bill, and then go through the second reading debate, so you can understand it. I’m not the only one who has seen these issues. ARPA, the Justice center for constitutional freedoms, Campaign Life Coalition, Faith Beyond Belief, Parents for Choice in Education, Life Site News, and yes even Justin Trudeau and Kristopher Wells have seen this Bill for what it is, and what it will do.

Some basics before we begin:

  • This Bill was written from the Top Down. It was based off of the false premise that forced conversion is a thing in Canada, and that it wasn’t the government or psychologists that were practicing it, but churches. Electroshock, drugging, and lobotomies to cure homosexuality or gender dysphoria never occurred in churches. NEVER. It was practiced by the ‘experts’ in psychology, and condoned by the government. Those same experts that want to cut the dicks off of children.
  • It was not asked for by the general Canadian public. At least not as the Bill defines it. Senator Joyal admits this, as he talks significantly about how everyone around the world wants to stop conversion therapy…as the public understands it.
  • Kristopher wells put out a fake document about the plague of Conversion Therapy, and sent it to law makers. Heavily Lobbying them to impose this. Giving him easier access to children for him to prey upon.
  • This Bill was written ‘in the negative’. What I mean by that is, it was written by defining “Conversion Therapy” as they wish to see it, not how the public see it, and then banning it as if it were defined as the public see it.
  • Advertising conversion therapy includes speaking “mouth to ear” that you offer council for gender identity or same sex attraction.
  • Any original text will be in italics. I will add my own interpretations, explanations, and comments throughout in “[ ]”. I may highlight some sections by underlining to add emphasis. I will separate major sections with a horizontal bar, so you know where the bill/debate begins and ends.

With that said, as Li Shang would say, “Let’s get down to business, to defeat” the bill. Let’s not let them force us to make men out of our women or vice versa.

First Session, Forty-third Parliament,68 Elizabeth II, 2019SENATE OF CANADABILL S-202
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy) [Formerly S-260]


This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to advertise conversion therapy services for consideration [right away it shows its intent to criminalize the act of offering any form of therapy for consideration that it considers convertive.] and to obtain a financial or other material benefit for the provision of conversion therapy to a person under the age of eighteen. [Remember this is focused on minors/children.]

Available on the Senate of Canada website at the following

1st Session, 43rd Parliament,68 Elizabeth II, 2019

BILL S-202

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the damage caused by practices and treatments designed to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity;

And whereas it is important to protect the human dignity [They think human dignity is preserved by castration and dressing in drag?] and equality of all Canadians by discouraging these practices and treatments in light of their negative consequences, particularly for young people;Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

1 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍5:Conversion Therapy
Definition of conversion therapy 286.‍6

(1) In this section, conversion therapy means any practice, treatment or service designed to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity [remember this is self identified, or based on what they wear for clothes, or the toys they play with. Ie. Based on Gender stereotypes] or to eliminate or reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex [Does this include if the minor is sexually harassing the same sex? What if a homosexual is encouraging a sexual relationship, and the parents are trying to stop it? This makes it a crime to seek to stop the predation of minors, or to prevent encouraging minors to engage in sexual activity at any age.]. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a surgical sex change [This bill applies to children, and yet they are going to allow surgical sex changes, on children. Surgical includes castration of the penis and testicles, mastectomies beginning (so far as we know) at 13 years old, phalio-plasti; which is the flaying of the skin on the forearm to form a flaccid imitation of a penis and attach it to the vaginal opening. This also quite often includes a removal of the uterus and ovaries, as menstrual blood can not pass smoothly through the imitation penis.] or any related service [Related services include chemical castration, cross sex hormones and puberty blockers, (that deform the body, can kill, and increase cancer rates to obscene levels,) dressing in drag, voice training, breast binders (again that deform the body and cause permanent lung and other organ damage), breast implants, and suicide prevention measures].Conversion therapy advertising [Right here is where they make plain their plan to allow the mutilation and sexual abuse of minors, (remember they set out in the preamble that this applies to children,) but exclude the ‘vocal’ therapy, that seeks to bring peace and satisfaction with who they were actually born as and are.]

(2) Everyone who knowingly advertises [Saying that there are two sexes, that they should be happy in the body they were born in, or that sexual relations with the same sex is a sin, and that Jesus can help with any of these issues. This is clearly explained in the definition that states gender identity, self proclaimed, is protected and can’t be ‘changed’ unless in the affirmative.] an offer to provide conversion therapy for consideration is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years [So five years in prison for saying there are only 2 sexes]; or
an offence punishable on summary conviction.Material benefit

(3) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly [There is that directly or indirectly, right there in plain English. A pastor benefits indirectly through his wages.] from the provision of conversion therapy to a person under the age of eighteen [again emphasising they are talking about children who can’t even vote, but must be allowed to get double mastectomies], is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Published under authority of the Senate of Canada

Now we get into the puff and bluster of the senate, and the not so plain language they use. That is, the second reading debate in the Senate.

The whole conversation/debate must be taken into account. One can not quote mine or sound bite it, as there is a lot of finagling going on in order to avoid directly answering questions. I will not have much to say about the opening speech by Joyal, it gives you a lot of background info, and how he draws his inspiration from Malta. There are some contradictions, logical pit falls, and plot holes, which I will attempt to bring to your attention, but the real meat of the bill and its intent is shown in the questions asked and the answers given.

I’ve divided the debate into two sections, and highlighted them into two colors. The first is the opening speech, and the second is the Q&As.

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Serge Joyal moved second reading of Bill S-260, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Conversion Therapy).

He said: Honourable senators, Bill S-260 is entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding conversion therapy. The summary gives an overview of the objective of the bill, which is to make it an offence to advertise conversion therapy services for consideration and to obtain a financial or other material benefit for the provision of conversion therapy to a person under the age of 18. [Except if it involves sexually mutilating, debilitating, or preforming a procedure that may end up killing the person under the age of 18. That is A OK in his book.]

Honourable senators can acquaint themselves with the bill’s very [ill] well-defined objective by reading the preamble. In short, this bill seeks to prohibit the practice known as conversion therapy. What is conversion therapy? The bill defines it as any practice, treatment or service designed to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity or to eliminate or reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex. In other words, it means any practice that seeks to fundamentally change the identity of a person and turn that person into something he or she is not.[Again except if you seek to turn a boy into a girl that they are not.] Conversion therapy violates people’s right to personal autonomy, or the right to be who they are as a person or individual. It also violates the right to physical and psychological integrity. [Sigh, what psychological integrity is there in believing you are a tuna, or a wolf, or a dragon, or an alien?] The Criminal Code already prohibits attacks on physical integrity. For example, genital mutilation is prohibited [But you don’t want phalio-plasti to be?] under the Criminal Code. Conversion therapy can be an attack on both physical and psychological integrity, particularly the latter.[But gender confusion isn’t? Is it not actually a form of psychological torture?] It seeks to convince individuals that their state of being is not acceptable according to the standards of society, their community or their environment. It seeks to change people’s fundamental nature.[But gender isn’t part of your fundamental nature?] That is why conversion therapy contravenes fundamental human rights and constitutes an attack on people’s right to dignity and equality. [Conversion therapy as defined in the Bill does none of that.]


If you read the bill, honourable senators, you will clearly realize that it is important to protect the human dignity and equality of all Canadians by discouraging these practices and treatments in light of their negative consequences, particularly for young people. This is the preamble of the bill.

You may ask where that comes from. Why are we here tonight in the chamber, trying to understand the objective of this bill and why should we amend the Criminal Code in relation to prohibiting conversion therapy?

Honourable senators, I want to remind you what the Prime Minister stated on November 28, 2017, when he presented the apology of the Government of Canada to the LGBTQ2 community in relation to the discrimination that former public servants, former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and former members of the diplomatic service of Canada experienced in the 1950s and the 1960s. The sentiment speaks directly to this fundamental issue. I will read the Prime Minister’s statement:


While we may view modern Canada as a forward-thinking, progressive nation, we can’t forget our past:

and I really want to emphasize this —

The state orchestrated a culture of stigma and fear around LGBTQ2 communities. And in doing so, destroyed people’s lives.


I want to underline that.


The state orchestrated a culture of stigma and fear around LGBTQ2 communities. And in doing so, destroyed people’s lives. [The prime ministers statement had nothing to do with conversion therapy, but to do with preventing LGBT from joining the Armed forces etc.]

That’s what we’re dealing with here, destroying people’s lives. We’re not just preventing someone from crossing a street, stealing or committing any other common offence that we find in the Criminal Code. [You are just preventing them from asking for help, and forcing them into sex changes, chronic health problems, and death.] We are dealing here with initiatives that could destroy people’s lives. [Yes, yes you are, but choosing the wrong side.]

In as much as the Criminal Code is committed to protecting the physical integrity of a person if a person is the object of physical violence, as much as we should be mindful of protecting any initiative against psychological violence, both are violence against the same person.

The Prime Minister mentioned later in his speech that Canada needs to work more. I will read his propos in French:


And there is still work to do. . . . The Government needs to continue working with our partners to improve policies and programs.


In other words, when the Prime Minister made his excuse, he also made a commitment, which was to address the other situation in which the members of the LGBTQ2 communities feel that it is dangerous for them to live in our community, our society, our country, by being just what they are.

In the other place, last February, the Member for Saskatoon West, Sheri Benson, introduced a petition of 18,000 names, asking the government to intervene, to prohibit conversion therapy. Here is the answer that was tabled in the other place by the Minister of Justice, on March 18: [That petition was for how the public defined conversion therapy, not how this bill defined it.]

Conversion therapies are immoral, painful and do not reflect the values of our government or those of Canadians.[I agree, transgender affirmation surgery is debased, unethical, immoral, depraved, unbelievably painful, and unconscionably evil, but you are not stopping THAT practice.] Various medical and psychological associations have identified the practice as unethical.[But not the practice of cutting a girls breasts off at 13? They in fact praise that as wonderful.]

You would have expected that the government would have taken a legislative initiative following the commitment of the Prime Minister to do more in November 2017.

The fact is that this issue of conversion therapy — and I will explain it later — is condemned worldwide, in countries with similar patterns as Canadian society. [It is condemned world wide, but not how you define it.]

Here is how the Minister of Justice concluded his answer to the petition:

We continue to work with provincial and territorial governments to address these practices through the regulation of the health profession. [Yet, not a single example of it, as the public defines it, can be found in the past 50 years.]

In other words, the government shifted the focus to the provinces, making it only an issue of health.

That seems to me to be an easy way out. If you look into the capacity of this Parliament to legislate in relation to the Criminal Code and health, the competence of the federal Parliament is well established.

I want to refer you to a decision of the Supreme Court in 2017 in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society in 2011. It’s a recent decision. Here’s what the Supreme Court states in relation to the power of the federal government in relation to the Criminal Code on the matter of health:

. . . Parliament has power to legislate with respect to federal matters, notably criminal law, that touch on health. For instance, it has historic jurisdiction to prohibit medical treatments that are dangerous, [BUT YOU ARE NOT STOPPING THE DANGEROUS MEDICAL TREATMENTS WITH S-202] or that it perceives as “socially undesirable” behaviour: . . .

It’s quite clear that we have the jurisdiction through the criminal law to prohibit some treatments that are dangerous or that are perceived as socially undesirable behaviour.

I reflected, honourable senators, on how we should approach this issue in the Criminal Code, because if we are to legislate in the Criminal Code, it’s a very serious matter, and it has very serious consequences, because as you know, there are fines or even prison terms if the offence is recognized by a competent court to have been committed.

Honourable senators, I want to refer you to the bill that Parliament adopted in 2014 in relation to prostitution. I don’t know if you remember, honourable senators, Bill C-36 that was debated and studied at length at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

How did the government of the day address the issue of prostitution? The government didn’t ban prostitution, but the government banned and made infractions in relation to offering or obtaining sexual services for consideration; in other words, to receive money. [He is actually comparing talk therapy to prostitution here. It is insane.]

The other thing the government banned was publicity. In other words, you cannot advertise that you are going to offer your prostitution services, no more than you can draw a material benefit of exercising prostitution.

I look to my colleagues on the other side. You will remember very well we debated and voted on that measure. It’s now part of the law of Canada. In other words, we amended the Criminal Code to ban advertising and to ban the opportunity to receive material benefit from prostitution.

I reviewed the Charter rights involved in this legislation and I came to the conclusion that this legislation was in sync with the objective of the freedom of expression of Charter rights. [Here he is saying banning people from saying things like that there are only 2 sexes is in line with the charter. I don’t think he did much research.] That’s why it was limited only to those two segments of prostitution activities, offering and receiving the money. If you engage in prostitution without publicity and without money, that’s not prostitution in the sense of a criminal act.

I thought this was the approach to be taken in the bill that I would be drafting. That’s why in Bill S-260 [S-202] it reads that “Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy . . .”, and that’s why in the following article I make sure that the same elements of material benefit are recognized:

Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly . . . from the provision of conversion therapy . . .

In other words, this bill aligns with the precedent of Bill C-36, adopted in 2014, because I thought we were protecting the Charter rights that accompanied Bill C-36, the commitment that was defined according to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford case.

Some of you might remember the name of Bedford. She was the lady who challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code.

That being said, honourable senators, you might want to ask me how the approach of conversion therapy has been considered in other jurisdictions. I asked myself, where is it? How have other countries similar in stature, experience and commitment to Canada sought to protect individual rights, to protect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to protect Charter rights, to protect the human rights code of Canada — well, honourable senators, I want to give you a list of international organizations that have banned conversion therapy, and you will be surprised. I was surprised myself when I dug into the research to come to the list of international organizations that have taken a strong stand against conversion therapy and not yesterday or the year before.



[Remember throughout this section Joyal is talking about conversion therapy as the PUBLIC understandings, not how the bill defines it. The public understand it as FORCED conversion by physical measures. That is NOT how the bill defined it.]

The World Health Organization issued a statement in 2012 saying this type of therapy poses a “severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons.”


That was the World Health Organization seven years ago. Then there is the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the Human Rights Committee have already condemned the practice of conversion therapy in several countries.

I look at the European Union, because we draw our common law from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has passed legislation condemning conversion therapy. Ireland has legislation presently in their House of Commons to prohibit conversion therapy.

Malta adopted the legislation some years ago against conversion therapy. The European Union last year in a report from last March 2018 — more than a year ago — came out quite strongly against conversion therapy in its annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU. Even in Spain, there are some regions that have banned conversion therapy.

What about the United States? Because it’s always, of course, something that we refer to, south of the border. In the United States, honourable senators, 14 states have prohibited conversion therapy. According to the Williams Institute in California, 698 members of the LGBTQ2 communities have been the object of conversion therapy, and more than half, 350,000, were among teenagers.

In other words, half of the victims of conversion therapy in the States were youth; under the age of 18.

I wanted to know more about how the medical profession — or the psychology profession — approached this issue of conversion therapy, because I thought it would be important to know what the perception is in relation to conversion therapy among the most credible medical professions.

Honourable senators, I can report to you — and I’m quoting here a report from the American Academy of Nursing on policy, the Pan American Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges concludes, and I quote:

. . . reparative therapies aimed at “curing” or changing same-sex orientation to heterosexual orientation are pseudo-scientific, ineffective, unethical, abusive and harmful practices that pose serious threats to the dignity, autonomy and human rights as well as to the physical and mental health of individuals exposed to them . . . that efforts to “repair” homosexuality, [Interesting. Would that mean that curing homosexuality, by transitioning sexes is a form of conversion therapy?] by any means, constitute health hazards to be avoided and are to be condemned as unethical assaults on human rights and individual identity, autonomy, and dignity.

It is difficult to find more professional sources than all those associations that I have just mentioned, but I went further.

I wanted to look into what I called the scientific community to try to find out how they have evaluated conversion therapy. I want to refer you to a study by Cornell University in New York. Most of you would know about Cornell University, but just to remind you: 58 Nobel Prizes from Cornell University and four Turing Award prizes for mathematics.

Cornell University went through 47 peer-reviewed studies. Of these, they concluded, the majority, that conversion therapy and I quote:

…is ineffective and/or harmful, finding links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy.

They went on to say:

There is also powerful evidence that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation can be extremely harmful.

Honourable senators, if you want to read the cases that they reviewed, there are absolutely horrendous cases of people mutilating their genitals with a razor and pouring Drano on the wounds. When you read this, you have the impression that you are in a torture room, because some people feel so ashamed that they just want to react by mutilating themselves and what is the source of their perception that they are not normal and they have to do anything to try to comply with the norm of their milieu, community, their churches or anyone who has, as I said, a psychological influence on them. Honourable senators, it is appalling when you read that kind of material that those practices can be conducted freely without any kind of prohibition. [Hold up, hold up…you want to stop people who are cutting themselves and pouring draino on their genitals from getting therapy? You WANT to help them mutilate themselves instead? Are you actually insane? As you can see there is ZERO logic going into this bill.]

Fortunately, even though the federal government has decided not to move for the time being, some provinces have moved. In particular, Ontario. Ontario adopted legislation — and I will quote it here — Ontario adopted legislation in 2015 with respect to services that seek to change the sexual orientation or the gender identity of patients, to prohibit the medical profession, because provinces have the responsibility to rule the professions. The provincial government has the authority to determine what kind of medical practice is admissible, and what kind of medical practice will be covered by health insurance. In other words, the person who provides the medical service could be paid by health insurance funds.

Ontario legislated this in 2015. You will be surprised, honourable senators, to learn that Nova Scotia also moved last year and I will read the purpose of the act:

The purpose of this Act is to protect Nova Scotia youth from damaging efforts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I was also surprised to learn that Manitoba had also taken an initiative in 2015, and I read this in the news at that time:


The province of Manitoba has taken steps to ban conversion therapy in its health care system.


Even the City of Vancouver moved in June 2018 — a year ago — to take initiatives to make sure that municipal bylaws would prohibit the technique to try to convince people to engage in conversion therapy.

In other words, there has been action at the provincial level, but it is insufficient because it deals only with the medical profession. The provinces don’t have the capacity to create criminal offences. As I mentioned earlier on, the Parliament of Canada, according to the Supreme Court in 2011, has the capacity to determine that in the Criminal Code some “medical” practices will be prohibited because of the negative impact that they would have on the individual.


I submit to honourable senators that those are not the only associations that have moved in relation to conversion therapy. The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2015:


Conversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes, such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction.


In other words, honourable senators, in Canada, at the provincial level, among the Canadian medical profession, among the medical professionals of the psychology community in the United States, in Europe, the World Health Organization, in many international organizations, this practice has to be prohibited.

[The mob determines what is right I guess. Majority does not equal right.]

As I said, it has to be prohibited in our Criminal Code in the manner that we did with prostitution, which is essentially to prevent advertising and to prevent from deriving a material benefit of practising conversion therapies. In so doing, we protect the human rights, the Charter rights that exist in Canada and that we have to make sure we maintain when we legislate in the Criminal Code.

Honourable senators, I strongly invite you to reflect on this issue. It is a bit abhorrent. We don’t want to think about those things because they are so horrendous when you look into the details and you think of what it could be for an individual to be told that because he or she is born with a certain characteristic, because he has blue eyes or because he has brown eyes, those with blue eyes are not normal and they should all have brown eyes.

[This is actually funny. He is comparing incomparable things. It would be more accurate to use the comparison that a person has blue eyes, but believes they are brown, and wants everyone to be forced to believe and say they are brown, or go to prison.]

You are born with your brown eyes, you stay with your brown eyes, you value your brown eyes and you live your life happy with your brown eyes. When you’re born gay or when you’re born with a gender identity of your sort, you live the way you are and you have all the rights to be protected by the government and by society against any attempt to try to instill in you that you are not a normal person and that you have to change.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. [Other senators actually cheer this wicked infantile insanity being blasted as compassion.]

Senator Joyal: I applauded when the Prime Minister took a formal stand, and that stand was applauded on both sides of the House of Commons. [Remember when I said that the CPC also supported this tyranny?] I applauded when we introduced and debated civil marriage in this chamber. Civil marriage is now part of the fabric of Canada. We addressed the fear and the questions around the celebration of marriage.

I thought that society had evolved and adapted itself. Parties have adapted themselves. Society has adapted itself, and the institution of marriage didn’t fall down [Ya, a lot of people would disagree here.] because we allowed two people to commit themselves in front of the public, to support them, and to provide one another the kind of moral and material support that we commit when we marry a person that we love.

That didn’t change the institution of marriage. [On what planet?] In my opinion, it strengthened the institution of marriage. How can we, as a society that is supposed to be egalitarian, where we value dignity, where we value equality, still tolerate that we would not give a strong signal to everyone in Canada that we have to prohibit conversion therapy in the context of our Criminal Code?

That’s why, honourable senators, I took the initiative to bring this forward and have you reflect on it. I think the ideal of this country is to strive for a larger equality, a better equality. [Equality for all is good, but more equality for LGBT and less for Christians is better!]We know what we have been doing in relation to equality for men and women. [What is a woman? What is a man?] We’re not yet there, but at least we have an objective. We know where we are heading as a society. We know what we have to do in the economy. We know what we have to do in politics and what we have to do in our interpersonal relations [Clearly shows that he thinks it is the states responsibility to force us all to change our personal beliefs and behaviours. he is NOT libertarian in his message here.] between men and women. We have an objective. We have an ideal as a society. I think we should have as much an ideal to protect and to respect individuals the way they are.

We are all entitled to the same measure of equality and dignity. That is essentially what this bill tried [and failed] to achieve.

I commend it to your reflection, honourable senators, and I hope we will continue to have and share those reflections because they are important. As I said, they impact the lives of individuals. We, in this chamber, are here to promote that reflection, to enlarge the conception and the horizon of our freedoms, our respect of others. And in this chamber, we can be the voice of those who don’t have a voice, [as long as that voice agrees to shut up and comply] those who could always be pushed behind because they don’t carry the vote of the majority.

In my opinion, honourable senators, this is good stuff for the Senate. That’s where we are at our best, to reflect on that context as much as our former colleague Senator Pierre Claude Nolin reflected on legalization of marijuana [Hahahaha, did he really just say that?] almost 20 years ago. And, well, today we are there.

I hope it won’t take 20 years to achieve prohibiting conversion therapy. [Good news, as the public understands conversion therapy, it is already a crime, so you can close up shop and go home.] As I said, it’s the Senate that opens the door, and it’s the Senate that brings the government to reflect, to take action and to send a strong message that when we legislate in the Criminal Code, we are serious because the rights of Canadians are at stake. We have only one preoccupation in this chamber. It’s to make sure that we respect the dignity and equality of each and every Canadian.

Thank you, honourable senators, for your attention, even though I know it’s late.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.


The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Cormier, do you wish to speak or ask a question?

Hon. René Cormier: I would like to ask Senator Joyal a question, if I may.

Senator Joyal: Yes.

Senator Cormier: Senator Joyal, thank you for introducing this bill and encouraging us to take a closer look at this practice that is still being used in Canada far too frequently on people from every region and every generation.

You were right to say that Canada has a long way to go. I’ve been researching this topic for months. [I highly doubt that, if these are the conclusions you have drawn.] I’m in contact with the Maltese government to understand how they dealt with similar legislation.[Funny how Cromier contacts the Maltese, rather than find out what Canadians think.]

I have so many questions for you, but I will ask just one about the targeted group, people 18 and under. Why didn’t you include gender expression [Gender expression is literally the clothes you wear, what make up you put on, or how you style your hair. Does Cromier seriously think it is appropriate to legislate that?] in the preamble or in the definition of conversion therapy, for instance, since it appears in Bill C-16, which we passed some time ago?

Also, Malta very deliberately chose to include vulnerable populations, people with mental health problems, for example, who are often targeted by these conversion therapies; [In all your research you didn’t realize they were targeting them in the affirmative to make them homosexual, or trans, not to make them heterosexual?] why didn’t you follow their lead? That is my two-part question.

Senator Joyal: Thank you, honourable senator. I have before me the legislation that Malta passed on December 9, 2016. You’re right that the bill recognizes gender identity and sexual orientation.


The title is the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Act. You can deduce from the title that it is essentially the objective of the bill at that time it was adopted.

The reason I didn’t mention it is because we already have a Charter of Rights; we have section 15, which is pretty clear in terms of affirming the principle of equality. We have the Human Rights Act that we have amended to include, you will remember, Bill C-16 that was sponsored by Senator Mitchell and adopted two years ago.


There are, of course, at the provincial level, human rights codes that clearly state that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination, and, of course, all the other grounds mentioned in those codes and the gender that has been added in relation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I thought that was covering the principle that they didn’t have in the Malta situation.

Of course, Malta is a member of the European Union. It’s covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. If you have a violation, you can go to Strasbourg to make a claim and request a decision. But as you understand, our general statutory context is different than Malta.

As the dictum says, too strong doesn’t break. There is nothing that could prevent us from adding in the preamble the affirmation of gender equality and, of course, sexual orientation. It is totally possible, but as I say, I wanted to frame the act within the parameters of Bill C-36 in relation to prostitution because we had the benefit of the Bedford decision. I thought that to remain within those parameters would make sure that the bill could not be challenged on a ground that has not been reviewed by the court. [Joyal is showing here that he knows that this going to be challenged, and he is hoping to stop that, on the grounds that conversion therapy is like prostitution in his mind.]


Senator Cormier: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to ask Senator Joyal a second question?

Thank you for your answer Senator Joyal. I believe that this gives us an opportunity for careful reflection because gender identity is now included everywhere. [This is not a good thing.]

The bill would make it an offence if there is consideration or advertising. In your opinion, what about those who volunteer to provide this therapy? This conversion therapy could be offered at no cost and would not be covered by this law. Is that correct? [Here we see Cromier set up the question of churches offering council on sex and gender, hoping that Joyal considered this. Clearly showing intent to control the doctrines of churches.]


Senator Joyal: There are two elements in the bill. The first is advertising. If you advertise and say, “My services are free,” you’re covered by the act because you advertise. But if you also draw a material benefit or some benefit, you are guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code. [Joyal resonds by saying that you are in violation even if you don’t receive money, and also highlights material benefit, which is defined as either “direct or indirect”]In other words, the two are separated, as by a fence. It is not to advertise and have a benefit. It’s to either advertise and draw a benefit, or either only draw a benefit or advertise. There are the various possibilities within the bill, to cover as much ground as possible.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would Senator Joyal take another question?

Senator Joyal: With pleasure.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for this inspiring speech and for your initiative.

As you know, but hopefully other senators know, the Dignity Network is meeting in Ottawa as you speak today and this evening, and I hope the initiative you’ve taken will be shared with them.

My question builds on what Senator Cormier has just asked. How do you anticipate dealing with what is a very real pattern of behaviour among certain groups [McPhedran explicitly referring to churches.] within certain faith-based organizations who to a large extent do not need to advertise and do not charge but where, within their communication network, a tremendous amount of damage is being done to children whose parents [noting parents as being the abusers seeking councilors] are within those faith-based groups and consider their children’s gender identity to be unacceptable? Is there a way of protecting those children as well?

[Ok, so Joyal bloviates at length here, so I have highlighted with underlines the portions that support my statement that he seeks to ban saying things like that there are only 2 sexes. It is key to remember how the bill defines “Conversion Therapy”, and what Joyal considers ‘advertising.’]

Senator Joyal: Thank you for the question, senator. It is a very sensitive one because we deal with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. What for me is totally admissible as an attitude or an act or an intercourse would not be so according to another’s faith or conviction or religion. We have to respect that as much as when we legislated on civil marriage. There was a specific provision, and the Supreme Court was quite clear in its ruling in relation to the bill that we were invited to debate and pronounce on at the end that you cannot compel a church to celebrate a marriage whereby the principle of the church condemned that kind of marriage. [Of note. Although you cannot compel celebration, the courts have repeatedly shown that churches can not publicly express their belief outside the church, as evidence in the conviction of Christians of hate crimes in sending mailers and preaching in the Homosexual Village in Toronto.]

I think we all know that, for instance, the church to which I belong doesn’t recognize that a marriage between two persons of the same sex is a marriage that could be attested to by the church. In other words, there is no priest that would be a witness to my commitment to another partner of the same sex. That’s prohibited in my religion.

It doesn’t mean that because it is prohibited in my religion civil marriage should not exist. I happen to believe that the dogma of my church — it’s one of the seven sacraments — is what I have to abide by as much as another church might have a different conviction. The United Church of Canada has a different conviction, and a minister of the United Church can attest to a commitment under the marriage institution. So various churches have various positions.

You are right in stating that a church can, of course, through mouth to ear, state that such a person should be consulted and that the youth should be brought to that person to be consulted or that a camp should be organized to have all those youth together under the tutorship of a monitor who would, as I say, try to convince them that what they are is not acceptable and, according to their own belief and their own convictions, that should be changed. [It is unclear if the statement “that should be changed” is referring to the the aspect of the child’s sexually, or that those beliefs of those institutions should be changed. Joyal further is acknowledging the issues with church teachings on this matter. (That there are two sexes, that homosexuality is a sin.)]

As long as they don’t advertise and as long as they don’t draw material benefit, they will not be covered by this bill. [Joyal clearly states here that churches can not take material benefit from these teachings. Pastors are payed by churches. Pastors preach the teachings of their churches. I’ve personally know several pastors that could be caught under this.] There’s no doubt about that. I, too, reflected upon that, but I thought that this bill has to be thread in a way to respect sections of the Charter, as much as when we legislated on marriage and made special provisions that we could not compel a minister of a church to celebrate a marriage.

It is a fine line, as you might understand. We have a Charter. We value the Charter because it protects the freedom of conscience and religion of any Canadian, any person. As the Supreme Court has said, you could believe whatever you want according to your own church, even though for another one it would seem outrageous; but that’s not where the freedom of religion exists. The freedom exists in the commitment of a person to believe a set of convictions in relation to an explanation of the spirituality of the world as it works, as it evolves and as it has been created and as it has some kind of a future.

You believe in an interpretation of the world principle. You adhere to that, are loyal to that and try to abide by that. The court will never say, “No, this church is too wacko. That should not be protected.” That’s not what the court has said. The court has been very clear many times, especially a former retired chief justice, in many judgments that she has been signed — of course, with the concurrence of the court — that the court will never pronounce on the substance of a conviction.

As long as it is within those convictions, of course you can conclude that it might harm youth. It might create the same kind of damage and create low self-esteem because the person says, “I’m not like others and I feel bad because I try to repress that, but I can’t. It always comes back. It’s my nature.”

There’s no doubt that there is a situation of great unease, but it’s not what this bill is trying to avoid.

[So Joyal is not trying to avoid a situation where this bill could be used to say a pastor is harming a youth by sharing those beliefs with the child?]

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Joyal. Your time has expired. I know there are a couple of other senators who want to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes, senator?


Senator Joyal: Yes, please.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you, Senator Joyal, for your initiative on this bill. I appreciate the passion that you bring to it, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the drafting of the bill in consideration of Charter issues. It’s also very helpful to hear the jurisdictional research that you’ve done, particularly with respect to the United States. However, I’m more familiar with what is happening in Canada.

I followed the work in the Ontario legislature. Former MPP Cheri DiNovo spearheaded that, and I think it was a tremendous accomplishment with respect to regulated health professions and their scope. As you have indicated, that is very important as is the insured services program of support in Ontario and other provinces.

I am interested in the fact that all of the literature, all of the research and evidence clearly states that for young people, at least, this is child abuse. [Lankin is very bluntly stating that he thinks telling young people the beliefs of the church are child abuse.]The majority of victims of that child abuse in the form of conversion therapy are young people — that goes without saying — and the majority of people who have been exposed to conversion therapy are young people.

Is there an approach, just through the evolution of societal understanding, in terms of definitions of child abuse and inserting in those definitions an understanding of conversion therapy as a form of child abuse [Lankin wants to expand this bill to make those teachings recognized as child abuse.] that is something that we should also be looking at and working with provincial and territorial partners on?

Senator Joyal: I thank you for the question, senator. This is an issue that I have been thinking about because, as Senator McPhedran said, the harm is done in a way. [Joyal agrees with Lankin] If we believe that, as I say, any person has the right to physical and psychological integrity, when you violate that integrity, the result is the same. There is harm. As I said, the purpose might seem sound to an adult, but the reality is that this is a violation of the autonomy and normalcy of the person and of the right to be who you are. We are born with the right to be who we are. [You are not born with the right to be who you are not though.]That’s the most fundamental right. It’s not even expressed this way in the Charter,[Joyal acknowledges here that this whole bill is not a charter right. Contradicting himself and the whole point of his opening speech. Remember he said he did research.] but it’s the way it has been interpreted by the courts. When you are born, you are born with the right to be who you are.[What ruling exactly?]

If there are situations whereby, as you describe, a young person is abused, there should be a way for the act to be interpreted such that this harm is covered. [Further statements from Joyal that his wishes to include these teachings (of the church) as criminal.]

I think that as much as youth protection is a provincial jurisdiction, there is a case in the province of Quebec that made headlines. As you know, a 7-year-old girl was abused by her foster parents and was found tied to a chair and beaten. She was taken to hospital where she later died. The province had a dire emotional reaction, but this is a reality. As much as I said this child was physically abused, she was also psychologically abused at the same time.[This is sick. Bringing up a case that has NOTHING to do with conversion therapy as justification for banning psychological counseling. This argument could be used for ANY psychology if you take Joyal’s understanding.] We always put more emphasis on the physical aspect than on the psychological aspect, but the suffering is in the head. It is in the flesh but also in the head. As I say, conversion therapy is sometimes more [Here we see the clear intent to control what speech and beliefs are allowed.] prevalent in the head than in the physical, unless the person is led to self-mutilation as a reaction, as I described in the cases I read.

When the committee studies this bill, it should also look into whether the protection that exists in provincial legislation in terms of youth protection is sufficient to cover that situation. [Joyal states that he hopes the committee will come up with a way of controlling the psychological front (beliefs and convictions.)] As much as the Minister of Justice was right in saying we have to continue to work with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice, there are initiatives the federal government can take and I think they should take.

I deplored the situation two years ago when the government made the excuse that there was not an initiative taken at that time because people were conscious of the need to do more. It’s not because you excuse yourself 50 years later that you are done with an issue. There is more to it than that. I hope the committee will continue to study this measure.

(On motion of Senator Cormier, debate adjourned.)

In conclusion:

  • The definition of Conversion Therapy in S-202 is not the same as the definition they are ‘debating’ with the public.
  • The intent of the bill is to stop the alleged psychological harm of Conversion Therapy counseling
  • Joyal hopes this can be expanded so that parents who teach the beliefs of the church are considered child abusers.
  • Joyal clearly states that beliefs like two sexes are psychologically harmful and torturous.
  • Joyal (and other senators) want to regulate the beliefs and teachings of the church, but are not sure as yet how to circumvent current legal precedence.
  • Joyal believes that the sexual mutilation of female genitalia through female circumcision is a crime, but cutting the breasts off of 13 year old girls is not, nor is flaying the forearm to attach the skin to the vagina. He believes those practices should be protected. (He wrote the exemption for sexual transition surgery after all.)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Canadabalism that much of a stretch?

I have been very harsh on those that support the likes of euthanasia, abortion, child-transgenderism, the destruction of the family in favour of the state, and climate alarmism. I’m frequently accused of being too harsh, and unloving. I take it in stride, because I would rather be thought harsh and unloving, than on the side of depravity and wickedness that would make Sodom blush.

This article in the Post Millenial is not a joke. What the author is making you aware of is not an exaggeration, a euphemism, or hyperbole. Literal cannibalism is what passes for ‘enlightened’ today. It is the agenda. It is out of the mouths of barbarians, heathens, and primitive animals that these ideas come. It is the agenda that petulant, opulent, callous, sycophantic, self worshiping cowards support. It is something that our current prime minister, Justin Trudeau, the SCOC, the Senate, and Parliament would support.

Don’t believe me? Just look at what they support now: That 14 year old girl is pregnant by her father? Kill the child, and send the father to counseling for his sexsomnia. That 5 year old boy is saying he is a girl? Rip is dick off, and tell him to prostrate himself for men in drag. Carbon exists in the atmosphere, as it has for thousands of years? Lets make a great ‘leap‘ forward and tear down every building in the nation to make them more inefficient (that isn’t a typo). After all, the bees are dying, and we only have 11 years left to live.

Our schools, courts, and government are invested in evil. Those in positions of authority are obsessed with such depravity, that one can not in good conscience support or obey them. The bowls of God’s wrath are brimming. It is but only surface tension that keeps them from overflowing. His patience is running out. Rivers of blood are flowing from “sea to sea to sea”, and we are spitting on each other over who has the best political activism and ‘likes’. Calling one another the ‘enemy’ while not 1 person in power AND I MEAN NONE, want to see the blood rivers dry up. Not Scheer, or Singh, or May, or Bernier.

We are writing articles, posts, and letters of appeasement, groveling, and surrender. We are absconding to demented depravity and injustice, all so we can have a day or two of delusions of security or adulation. The stench of our petulant rot as a nation has reached the heavens. God’s judgment is at the door, and when he kicks in that door, all our likes and adulation will not save us. All our virtue signaling will grant us no mercies. All the blue bins in the world will not save us. Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao will stand and condemn us.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m the lunatic. Maybe molech will be appeased by our devouring of our spouses and children. But we must remember to

“Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”

1 Kings 18:27b

, , , , , , , ,

The Five Stages of Grief over Canada

I think whatever timeout corner Facebook shoved me in, may have expired. My numbers have been going up lately. Not where they used to be, but better. Maybe filing a fraud complaint over canceled adds got my FB assigned chaperon’s attention. Or maybe it was the video I did about them illegally demanding a copy of my passport. Who knows. But the numbers are up, and I ultimately have all of you to thank for sharing what I post, and talking about what I share. Despite all the dreary gloom and dread over the incomprehensible idiotic reasoning of the Canadian Human Rights Mob Courts, (did you know a group of kangaroos is called a mob,) we have hope. Canadians like YOU are waking up to the fact that our courts, our government, and our schools don’t give a flying carp about the safety, well being, and future of Canada or Canadians. That they seem only concerned about how to pleasure themselves or how to make a killing while doing it.

I know the work you are each doing is often thankless, and you feel alone.

I know that many of you are working tirelessly in the ‘anti-shadows’, behind the scenes, to wedge back some sanity, reason, and compassion into our political parties. I know many of you are working in our schools to keep the sexual predators at bay, and keep our education pure and effective, against the tide of massive bloated corrupt associations, unions, and lobbies that seek to undermine families and human decency. I know there are many of you in the courts that are depressed and disillusioned with the state of affairs, and are on verge of breaking. I know the work you are each doing is often thankless, and you feel alone. I know at times you feel like Elijah crying out that you are the only one left who has not bowed the knee or kissed Baal. I know that you have felt like Jeremiah, sitting at the bottom of a well, up to your waste in muck, all because you spoke the truth to the authorities.

But you need to know this. You are NOT alone. You are not defeated. You are loved. Just as God preserved Lot from Sodom, just as God reserved 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, just as God sent Ebed-Melech to save Jeremiah from the well, God will preserve his people, and God will restore a nation that turns back to him. We need only stand in the truth of his light, and persevere.

What does it mean to stand in truth?

What does it mean to stand in truth? Well, it can easily be said of me, that I am crass, blunt, and often negatively reflecting on people or governing bodies. For that I do not apologize. I have said what has needed to be said, and I would say it again. For more than 30 years we have been coddling degeneracy and depravity in Canada. The soft touch is not working, and is clearly not an effective tactic. That was how Lot dealt with Sodom. Yes there has always been the remnant that has refused to kiss the ring, but why was it that Elijah was being hunted down to be killed by Jezebel, why was it that Jeremiah was thrown in that well? It was because they said what was forbidden. It was because they were ‘reflecting negatively’ on those in power. They were speaking the truth, even though it hurt peoples feelings, and in reality it was because they shone a light into the darkness of depravity and sin that the officials wanted ‘tolerated.’ It is time was all stopped ‘tolerating’ the depravity in our nation. We need to stop excusing the wicked in our policies, just because compromise is easier. We need to stop being ashamed of our positions, our faith, and our God. The world is not a happy pleasant place. It is a fallen, broken, and deteriorating mess. Pretending that problems don’t exist, so that we don’t get into a ‘negative space’ will make it worse. That is called denial. Congratulations, you are stuck in the first stage of grief.

We need work as though we are rebuilding a nation, not reforming it.

Canada is Dead. I’ve said this recently, and believe it to be true. We are a dead nation, and the sooner we all get to stage 5 of our grief, the sooner we can revive her. Will she be what she once was? No, but neither was Jerusalem. We can make her thrive again though, we just need to quit being outraged every time we here of another injustice or deranged law (anger). We need to stop wallowing in hushed circles with our heads down hoping and praying that they don’t single us out,(depression.) We need to stop sending petitions and pleading with our governing bodies to listen,(bargaining.) We need to accept the fact that she is already dead, and we need work as though we are rebuilding a nation, not reforming it.

Once we accept that we are rebuilding Canada, we can be more effective in our efforts to establish rule of law, to bring justice, and to protect the innocent. Currently we have no coherent or logical established justice, or any form of consistent neutral rule of law. Precedence is no-longer valid. Once we accept this, and admit that it was our reliance on man’s law rather than God’s that killed us, we can have the tenacity and conviction of our Grandparents to build a God fearing morally righteous nation that could stand against the Devil and his minions. We need to ditch the ‘Sorry’ persona, and re-don the old persona of steadfast and unwavering in the face of the German war machine. But none of that comes until you move on with your grief, and get to the acceptance stage.

The things you are seeing happen in Canada, are the signs of a dead nation, not a dying one.

I want to close this with a wake up call. Not to try and remove your hope, but to slap you as one would slap a person in a hysterical fit, to jar them back to reality. A slap done in love, to help bring you through your grief, into acceptance. The things you are seeing happen in Canada, are the signs of a dead nation, not a dying one. All the news around the child predator Yaniv, are merrily the gases of decay escaping the body.

The following video is done by Paul Joseph Watson. It describes the current state of affairs in Sweden: Sweden -> Blandland
(For further evidence of the validity of PJW’s claims, you can watch this Tim Pool Video.)

Where Blandland (Sweden) is at now, is where Canada will be, if not worse, in 4 years. Perhaps a little longer if the decay is slowed by a CPC win in the election. For example we already have the permissive sexual assault of women and children with the aforementioned Yaniv, transgender affirmation, and the Edmonton groping acquittal. (I guess a girls testimony is only worth a third of a man’s to the Judge.) Lethbridge is now the highest ranked city in Canada for increase in crime, and last year it was the third most dangerous city in ALL OF CANADA. Now the mayor is pleading for help, and they are in an undeclared state of emergency.

Lethbridge pleaded to not have a safe consumption site. Lethbridge pleaded to no implement the guidelines to best practices. Lethbridge is still in stage 4 of grief. Edmonton and Calgary are in stage 3 (The sighs in the courtroom on the Groping ruling). This is Alberta, the most conservative and level headed province in the Country. Everywhere else in Canada is worse. Bill-8 by the UCP only made it not a crime to tell parents that their kid was going to a GSA. Nothing else was changed, and not one thing the NDP had implemented in Education has been undone. Things are actually worse, because the lying degenerate child abusers in Education now have the power to fire elected officials that refuse to participate in the torture and molestation of children with LGBT dogma.

So please, stop asking nicely for them to not hurt your children. Start putting them back into their place. Start reminding them who is in charge here. When they come after you, refuse to comply. Refuse to apologize. Refuse to ‘see their truth’. Their truth is a lie. Their intent is to destroy. When building a nation up from the rubble, one does not take the advice of the corpse buried underneath on how to build it. Their plan is what killed them.

, , , , ,

Anti-Conversion Laws, & The Sexual Abuse & Mutilation of Children in Canada

On July 9th & 10th the C.B.C published two articles about anti conversion therapy laws that Ottawa aims to implement in Canada. Neither article mentioned that a law has already been tabled in the Canadian Senate (Senate Bill S-260), and is waiting for parliament to re-constitute itself after the election. I am unable to determine if this because the C.B.C. is lazy and incompetent, or if they are doing this deliberately, because they want to wean you onto the idea that raping, molesting, and mutilating children is A-OK in the eyes of our government, our schools, the media (including the C.B.C.,) and the courts.

I’ve written and spoke at length about the dangers of S-260, and you can find the status and several links about concerns here, so I’m not going to talk to much about S-260. Rather, I will be focusing on what anti-conversion therapy laws are, what some of the consequences of those kinds of laws have been, and just what conversion therapy is. First thing I need to do is set the record straight as to what “Conversion Therapy” is.

Conversion therapy IS NOT the forced abusive and coercive conversion of homosexuals or transgenders

Conversion therapy is not the forced abusive and coercive conversion of homosexuals or transgenders into heterosexuality or removal of ones gender identity. Despite what you might have seen on C.S.I., N.C.I.S, Criminal Minds, or the like, no, pastors are not setting up torture cells in the basements of their churches to electrocute the gay devils out of children. Those are works of fiction. The truth is that those same psychological institutions that are now clamoring to forcefully rip the penises off and cut out the breasts of minors to ‘help’ them ‘transition’, are the same ones that came up with electroshock therapy for homosexuals, and lobotomies before that. Think about that. The Canadian Psychological Association, (and its earlier incantations,) who used to electrocute and bore out pieces of the brain from homosexuals, are now deigning to tell you that you should cut off your 5 year olds penis, and to do anything else is “super cruel”. If you are taking the CPAs position on this, you need to give your head a shake.

What conversion therapy actually is, is caring compassionate verbal council to help children be happy and content with an immutable aspect of their body, to not value themselves by what sexual organs they have, and to help them understand and accept what the only natural form of procreation is; To accept how the body functions and how the 2 sexes are supposed to interact naturally. In the vast majority of cases, the conversion therapy is also to help the child deal with sexual abuse or trauma in their lives. Most times the therapists are registered accredited psychotherapists. The same can not be said for transgender affirmation ‘councilors’. There is not a single, I repeat not a single Canadian church or institution in Canada that openly and legally operates or condones forced abusive or coercive conversion therapy. The only exception is transgender affirmation & mutilation therapy, which would not be banned, but forced under S-260

If forced and coercive conversion therapy isn’t happening in Canada, why do we need anti-conversion therapy laws?

You may ask “But if forced and coercive conversion therapy isn’t happening in Canada, why do we need anti-conversion therapy laws?” That is a good question. The short answer is, we don’t, but these laws are not being proposed to protect transgenders and homosexuals. These laws are being proposed to legalize the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors, to open new profit streams for ‘health care’, to remove freedoms and exert tyrannical power, and most importantly, to protect the sex cult religion of the LGBT™.

To understand why I say the Anti-Conversion laws are really about protecting the sex cult religion of the LGBT™, you need to have a proper comparison. To do that, I am going to have to give you a history lesson, and a bit of personal background.

In 1999, India was attempting to pass it’s first “anti-conversion” laws. Those laws made it illegal to use “force or allurement” to convert someone from one religion to another. Essentially, it was illegal to proselytize. Christians were not allowed to share their faith, because it was alluring to Hindus and Muslims. You will note, that they used the same excuse about ‘force’. That same year, a prominent Evangelist in India, Dr. P. P. Job, was publicly opposing this law. In an effort to shut him up, an attempt on his life was made by Hindu fanatics that supported the law. It failed. Shortly after that, they killed his son Michael to get to him. Dr. Job then started the “Michael Job Center” in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

In 2003, I went on my first mission trip to the Michael Job Center. It was there that I heard dozens of first hand stories of persecution because of anti-conversion laws. I met a woman from China, who walked the Himalayan mountain range to be at the Michael Job Center, because it was illegal for her to travel out of China as a Christian. She wanted to hear from me, a 19 year old young-man, what it was like in Canada, to have such freedom.

I met a dutch man who spent years in a prison in Napal because he supposedly violated an anti-conversion law there, by sitting in a chair outside his dorm/motel reading his Bible. Absurdly, he was charged for ‘enticing people to convert from Hinduism to Christianity by simply reading his Bible to himself within the compound he was dwelling.

Did you know that to this day innumerable Christians are being raped, imprisoned, and executed under anti-conversion laws?

Did you know that to this day innumerable Christians are being raped, imprisoned, and executed under anti-conversion laws? Did you know that in every single Islamic nation on this earth, it is an executable offense to leave Islam? In most cases of anti-conversion law violation, you are lucky if you get prosecuted. You’re more likely to be killed in the street, than sent to prison or executed. It’s worse if you are a women. You will probably be gang raped and sold as a sex slave by your own family, if not killed. In many cases you are raped and/or killed regardless of your sex, even if you are ‘lucky’ enough to be sentenced to prison.

Anti-conversion laws give people the justification they need to commit atrocities against others, because the people that violate those laws, are ‘immoral’ criminals. They see themselves as doling out ‘justice’. Just as Jordan Hunt justified round-house kicking a pro-life woman, because he saw her as ‘violating’ the rights of women, so to will the congregation of the church of LGBT™ justify assaulting ‘unbelievers’ for stating that there are only 2 sexes.

We have already seen a lesbian couple in Brazil literally tear off the penis and eventually murder ‘their’ 9 year old son, because he refused to ‘be’ a girl. We have already seen a transgender man turn violent and throw a tantrum like a baby in an EB Games store because a real woman would not call him mam. We have already seen Morgane Oger persecute a Christian man for stating the biological fact that Oger is a man, and the justice state that the truth had no place in the case. We have already seen a pastor mobbed, arrested, and thrown out of the gay village in Toronto, for peaceably preaching love to homosexuals. We have already seen Senator Joyal, who tabled S-260, state that it is OK to believe there are only 2 sexes, but it will be a crime to say that to anyone. Just like how it is OK to be a Christian in India, your just not allowed to tell anyone.

The greatest evidence that anti-conversion therapy laws are just religious anti-conversion laws, is…

The greatest evidence that anti-conversion therapy laws are just religious anti-conversion laws, is that the LGBT™ church says you are born LGBT. Without exception, every single anti-conversion law was written under the premise that you are born a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or whatever, because your parents were. It is an inherited, immutable aspect of your life. Except it is not, if you want to convert AWAY from Christianity. You can convert to Islam, to Hindusm, just not to Christianity. It is the same with the church of LGBT™. You can ‘discover’ in your mid twenties, after having multiple male sex partners and having a baby, and getting married to a man, that you were actually a lesbian all along; like my sister. Or you can be a male athlete, that competed in the male Olympics, and got a gold medal, has a family and multiple children, and then declare you were always trans, and make Glamour’s woman of the year; like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

As a good friend of mine recently said:

“The Left believes that people CANNOT change their sexual orientation, but that they CAN change their gender. Think about that for a minute! Does that make any sense?”

This isn’t about health, safety, love, compassion, or justice. This is about violently removing opposition. It is hatred for the family and Christianity. Their intent is to exterminate Christianity and Christian morals from society, dissolve the family unit, and let depraved deviancy reign, so they can do whatever they please, to whomever they please.

A healthy well adjusted mentally sound individual doesn’t abandon their husband and drag their child out of their home to go fornicate with another woman. A mentally stable loving parent doesn’t take their 3 year old child into a clinic to have them injected with cancer inducing, bone deforming, immune suppressing, puberty blockers. These are the decisions of the mentally ill, self absorbed, child abusing, whiny, attention whores. Banning people from stopping this abuse of children will intentionally ruin lives, produce immeasurable suffering, actually kill people, and lead to the destruction of Canada. We will collapse. God will judge us, and I pray you have an exit plan, otherwise “you will […] share in her sin and catch her plagues.”

, , , , , , , , , , ,

ESP ~ Ep 5 ~ The Age of Cowards

We are in stage 4, in all of western society. Weak, cowardly, and appeasing men, are creating hard times. Whether it be Trudeau banning plastic straws and water bottles in lue of “paper water box drink things,” or Andrew Scheer kicking Cooper off the justice committee because Cooper dared to defend Conservatives, or Maxime Bernier taking his ball home and starting his own party because the other boys wouldn’t vote for him, Canada is chalk full of weak men (and women, I’m using men in the ‘mankind’ sense). Men too cowardly to stand on solid ground, and dig their heals in. These cowards are destroying Canada. Too obsessed with their own wealth and power to care about the consequences of their actions. Appeasing and kissing the feet of rapists, molesters, and murders all for vanity and pride. Surrounded in the decadence that their grandparents fought and died to give them, they tremble and cry for their ‘economy’. Concerned only for maintaining their pleasures. Ignoring and defying the very principles and values that gave them those pleasures. These cowardly men, they unfortunately do not exist purely in government. They exist and infest media, the schools, the courts, and most frighteningly, the church.

…who are the strongest of men?

These cowards are infesting everything and destroying us, so how do we get back to creating strong men? Is it violence? Violence seems to be inevitable. It was violence that brought about the prosperity that took America, and the world out of the great depression. It was violence that brought the prosperity of Germany after the crippling debt of the Armistice of 1918. God forbid! While it is true that violence brought temporary prosperity to Germany, it was only for the oppressors, not the oppressed. And yes, violence does create strong men, but the strong men are not the conquerors and oppressors, no their strength is fleeting. The true strong men come from the victims of the oppressors. Those that stood up to the violence. Those that were only violent in defense. Those that only used violence to protect the defenseless. But you know who are the strongest of men? The best of men? The men that are great leaders, and bring about the good times? Those are the men that will sacrifice everything for others. For those they do not even know. John 15:13 –Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

Canada has lost it’s ‘greater love’.

Canada has lost it’s ‘greater love’. We are obsessed with self love. We love to esteem ourselves greatly, to beat our chests, and announce how virtuous and high our station is. We like to lord ourselves over others as their superiors. We’ve become so obsessed with self love, that we have dedicated an entire month of the year to celebrating debasing carnal and unnatural sexual pleasures, to the point where we throw petulant tantrums, (kudos to Scheer for not caving on this,) when someone will not indulge our promiscuity. 1 Peter 4:4 – “With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you;” This forthcoming Canada day is not a day to celebrate. We have become a mockery of what our strong men sacrificed for. Canada has become a nation of hedonistic narcissists, with freedoms that are soon to be relics of the past, so what are we celebrating? Surely not the ‘freedom’ to molest and mutilate children to fulfill the sexual fantasies of adults and pad our pockets. Surely not to celebrate the 10s of thousands of babies disemboweled every year with abortion. Surely not to celebrate our freedom of religion, thought, conscience, or beliefs? What are we celebrating? No, no this Canada day, you are better off to sit in sack cloth, and pour ashes on your head. Canada is dead. It is better to weep, mourn and lament, and plead for mercy and forgiveness.

Canada is dead. It is better to weep, mourn and lament, and plead for mercy and forgiveness.

Why say all these things? If there is no hope, why even say anything? I say these things, because there is hope. We have hope in Jesus Christ. In Christ, what was dead can be made alive again. We can save Canada, our neighbours, and our children. We can create strong men. 2 Chronicles 7:14 –if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” We can be revived, but it will take sacrifice. There will be those who pay for attempting to turn our nation from it’s wicked practices. We will be beaten and abused. We will suffer under the tyrants boot, lose our jobs, our homes, our families, but like Telemachus was the monk that was the catalyst that brought about the end of the colosseum ‘games’, so to will we be the catalysts that bring about the ‘strong men’ that will rise from the ashes, that will throw themselves in harms way for the weak and defenseless. Those strong men will bring us back into the good times. The Lord will bless them for their compassion, their love, and their faithfulness. And those that have sacrificed their all, that have laid aside their earthly comforts and treasures for the love of another, Matthew 6:20 – “[they will] lay up for [themselves] treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.”

Indeed some have already suffered abuse. The list of martyrs from all walks of life and beliefs grows. The injustice and tyranny has given rise to such a foul stench that even the most godless have begun to take note. Jordan Peterson, Lauren Southern, Lindsay Shepherd, Fr. Robert Chisholm, Reverend Peter Hughes, Trinity Western College, WISDOM home schooling, Derek & Frances Baars, William Whatcott, the parents of the 11 year old girl in Calgary who was being secretly ‘transitioned’ into a boy, Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson, “Black Pigeon” (real name unknown,) Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Parents for Choice in Education, Steven Crowder. The list goes on. There are to many to list. We are living in times of persecution. The demons are clawing at the door of legislature, and soon they will break through, and rip our freedoms to shreds with such things as section 13 human rights tribunals, and bans on ‘convers[at]ion therapy’ under Senate Bill S-260. Where are the brave men and women to stand against the demons? To stand against the vile wickedness that is poised to be set loose upon us? Where indeed.

There are those brave few, who stand upon the bridge of a Khaza Dum.

4 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus[a] is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.[b] 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men[c] by which we must be saved.”
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” 21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.

Acts 4: 1-22 English Standard Version

There are those brave few, who stand upon the bridge of a Khaza Dum. Those brave men and women willing to sacrifice everything for the truth, and for the love of their neighbour, for those that come after them. They are doing that which we all should be doing. Yes, we should be standing up to them when they libel and slander us, as Parents for Choice in Education is doing with the MLA that slandered them. Demanding they retract their lies. Demanding that they acknowledge that the truth is not in them. But it is more than that. We must confront them. Defy them. Disobey them. Disseminate the truth, and expose their dark deeds to the light. Acts 4:19 –But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.””

One does not hide the light under a bushel no. One uses it to pierce the night, and shine the way for others to follow. When that light reveals a dragon lying upon his hoard, do we drop our light, and give ourselves over to be consumed by the beast? NO! We put on the full armor of God, and declare what Tolkien penned Gandolf the Grey to have said, “You can not pass! … Go back to the shadow.” Instead of capitulating to wicked men, we must expose their evil, and tell them to “go back to the shadow.”

Yes, we may be pulled down by shadow flame…

Yes, there are consequences for our defiance. Yes, we may be pulled down by shadow flame, but our struggle will refine us, and make us pure as gold. As white as snow. And those that come after us, will find the strength to go on. They will be emboldened by our courage, not our cowardice of capitulation. John the Baptist knew this. Matthew 14: 3&4 – “For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife,[a] because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”” John confronted Herod on his wickedness in taking his brother’s wife. John knew what the consequences may be. John had the courage and conviction to say so anyway.

Eric Cochrane knew this. He knew what exposing Pinterest might cost him, but he also knew that it was wrong for Pinterest to label those that are saving the lives of babies from abortion as a ‘pornographic’ organization.

Steven Crowder knows this. This is why he does his “Change my mind” segments, because they either know they either have no argument, or they are willfully propagating evil for selfish reasons.

[iframe src=”” width=”640″ height=”360″]

Andrew Klavan Understands this, as he explains:

What conservatives have to understand is that this is the central fight we’re in. This is where the battle for the soul of the future is taking place. We have to remember that we are not just on the right, we are in the right. And if we allow ourselves to be silenced — if we allow ourselves to be frightened — if we start to watch our words or apologize for faked misunderstandings or dial back our humor or throw our friends overboard when they misspeak, we lose.

Andrew Klavan June 15,2019 [emphasis s mine]

I understand/understood this. Though I may not have been able to express it as succinctly back in 2016. It is my hope though, that you will understand this from today as well.

It’s not that I have not heard them, it’s that they are wrong, and they know it.

Over the weekend of the of June 14th, 2019, a update on a story out of British Columbia came out, that I just could not stand. It is what inspired me to do episode 5 of the Eminent Sire’s Pontifications, and to write this piece. This story showed the depths of depravity by which Canada has fallen. The fact that the original story even happened is enough to make your blood boil, but the update shows that this has gone on for long enough. That I am not doing enough. That you are not doing enough. Every single Canadian with a conscience, moral decency, and a platform or method to speak on it, should be blaring about at every opportunity. The dial needs to go up to 11. The update I speak of is the case of Alexi. [Not her real name.] Alexi is a girl, who’s depraved ‘doctor’ is demanding that she be given cross sex hormones in a lunatic attempt at ‘making’ Alexi, Alex. Everything about this case is an abomination of justice, crime against humanity, and an affront to truth and decency.

The thing in the update for the case that really got me going though, was the fact that the Justice is demanding a complete media blackout on the case nation wide, demanding everyone call Alexi a boy, and being so delusional as to believe that he can order U.S. publishers to not report on it. John 3:19&20 – ” 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”

Make no mistake Justice Francesca Marzari and Justice Gregory Bowden do not love mercy or rule justly. They are aiding and abetting the sexual assault, molestation, and mutilation of Alexi and hundreds of other children in government care. They know what they are doing is wrong. They know that Alexi’s butcher-doctor Wallace Wong and predator activist lawyers Kay Scorer and Barbara Findlay are going to bring irreparable harm and psychological distress upon all those under their ‘care’, but for reasons unknown or explainable by any individual of sound mind, they have chosen to side with evil and call it good. They have instead decided to call a loving, caring, protective Father wicked, and call his actions ‘violence’ against his daughter. It will be better for all those involved in making Aleki into Alex to have millstones tied around their necks and cast into the sea, than for them to remain in their positions and for me or you to remain silent and obey their commands.

This is why I’m calling upon you to take action. I am asking you to stand with courage. To stand in defiance of the lies and evil. To refuse to back down. As long as you still cower before them, they will continue to walk on you. As with every bully or tyrant, you must stand up to them. If you can not share it in your own words, share this post, or the following video with your endorsement. Stand in solidarity. Declare in unison that the actions of these courts are in contempt of the charter, contempt of law, contempt of nature, and contempt of human decency. Declare that we will not go silently into the night, covering our light with a bushel.

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border: none;” src=””]

, , , , , , , , , ,

Everything you know is wrong!

Everything You Know is Wrong – “Weird Al” Yankovic

It has been quite some time since my last post. With the Provincial election going on I was focused on that. This did not mean I was not working on other things. In fact, I was quite active in several other projects that fit into C.P.O.S. Including the 2019 conference on the Family. (CotF) I believe the conference was successful in that we had over 100 attendees/watchers. I was disappointed that the numbers were not higher, due to the fact that we have an insane numbers of attacks on the family happening across Canada right now. But again, there was an important election happening, and I thank God that the NDP did not win again.

The CotF wasn’t the only thing I was working on though, nor was it what was taking the majority of my free time. Between my job, my family, my church, and my ‘informative’ activities on Facebook, there wasn’t much left over. Thankfully I have had some offers of assistance, and Luisa Cisterna has graciously taken on sharing important articles and news items in the Parent Watch forum. This has left me some free time to focus on three important issues facing our children and the family.

The Letter to the Alberta Ombudsman

As I stated on the day the writ dropped in Alberta, I got a response to my letter to the Alberta Ombudsman. I’ve been quite silent on this for a reason. I’m working on my response, and I’ve got a year to do it.

To summarize the letter I got though, the Ombudsman does not believe it is within her mandate to open an investigation into Alberta Education. I disagree, but I have not decided yet whether it would be fruitful to argue that point. The response was not all bad news though. In fact there were three points that could be pursued further.

1. The curriculum rewrite.

This point is on hold. All of the issues with the curriculum rewrite may be moot, as the UCP have promised to pull the brakes on that. Once I find out more, and know whether the UCP follow through, then I will be able to see if this needs further action.

2. Christopher Wells & the GSA Network, and their connection to Alberta Education

The main argument from the ombudsman was that I didn’t give enough details on what my complaint was, or evidence to support that claim. My letter was an initial point of contact, and was not intended to make the argument for each point I submitted. I thought this was clear in that letter, nevertheless I will be gathering up the relevant information and contacts, and preparing it for presentation, but I don’t know if it is worth it to pursue this action.

The UCP’s new education minister, Adriana LaGrange, seems to be a good fit, and her profile makes me feel like she is a reasonable person. It may be more productive to pursue communication with her, to see oversight of Wells and the GSA Network, than to ask the Ombudsman to do it. I’ll be keeping this on the back burner until I see how productive that communication is.

3. Trinity Chistian School Assocation & WISDOM Homeschooling, and it’s sudden shut down and subsequent court battle that saw them reinstated.

I’ve already begun some action on this. I’ve made contact with TCSA and WISDOM, and I am soliciting their members to write me letters of impact, that I may present to the Ombudsman. Part of the Ombudsman’s response was that I was not “directly impacted” by the shut down, so I could not request action.

If I were to receive letters of impact from every family that was affected by that shutdown, I would then be able to collect them together, and request action by the Ombudsman. Though again, this may not be the best course of action. With the new Minister of Education, and my perception of her being a reasonable person, it may be more expedient for me to send the letters to her, and request a policy change, than to send them to the Ombudsman, who has indicated a lack of interest.

This of course will depend on the permission of TCSA & WISDOM members, and the kind of response I get to my solicitation. The ball is really in their court on this one.

If you are a TCSA or WISDOM member, and wish to participate, you can contact me through the CPOSD76 contact page.

Senate Bill S-260

Cross Sex Hormones

For those that have not heard me ranting on Facebook for the last month, Senate Bill S-260 is a bill to criminalize conversion therapy. (The full text of the bill is linked in the name.) The bill makes it a crime to offer, council, or provide conversion therapy to anyone, or derive material benefit from it directly or indirectly. This essentially makes it a crime to so much as whisper the very thought of the idea that a person is not homosexual or transgender. This is a blatant rehash of California Assembly Bill 2943.

1 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 172:

Definition of conversion therapy

172.‍01 (1) In this section, conversion therapy means any practice, treatment or service designed to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity or to eliminate or reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a surgical sex change or any related service.

Conversion therapy advertising

(2) Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy for consideration is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Material benefit

(3) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy to a person under the age of eighteen, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Published under authority of the Senate of Canada

Emphasis mine.

If for instance a pastor were to preach from the Bible, that Jesus can bring you out of the homosexual life, or that God made them Male and Female, or suppose that parents were seeking help with their 4 year old boy who is claiming to be a girl, these would be criminal offenses. Those children would be taken into government care, and the pastor or parents thrown in jail along side child rapists and murderers.

Phalloplasty, Click here to see the truth of the “do no harm” that Canadian social workers support.

This bill is completely upside down, and backwards. In an alleged effort to recognize the “critical importance of doing-no-harm“, Senator Joyal (with the support of the Canadian Association of Social Workers) are banning all non abusive and coercive help, and protecting and forcing the single most abusive, coercive, debased, manipulative, sexually invasive, barbaric practice known to mankind beginning on children as young as 3, by doctors who are victimizing at least 500 children a year in one province alone. Doctors with no moral standards, that tell their patients to lie, in order to receive life altering sterilizations and surgeries. Doctors that will to cut a child’s breasts at 14 or 15 years of age for $9000 profit.

Double Mastectomy

If Senate Bill S-260 makes it through to be law, people will not just be ‘de-platformed’, but charged, convicted, and sent to prison for 5 years. S-260 is the crucible, the watershed moment for Canada. If Canada enshrines into law such barbaric disdain for the safety and well being of children, there will be no going back. Canada will not ever be able to recover, save for divine intervention. We are denying the foundation of humanity. There is no reason, logic, or intelligence in the transgender movement. There is no science, fact, or truth. It is all delusion and chaos. It is the epitome of being given over to a debased mind. The emperor is naked, and it high time he was told so.

Known damage caused by corsets. Breast binders work on identical principles.

It is for this critical reason, that I have been closely monitoring Bill S-260. It was on April 9th that it had first reading. It was scheduled for second reading on April 11. It has, as of May 2nd, not received a second reading, and it is my fervent prayer that it never does. I am however not naive as to the intent and power behind seeing this bill passed. Given that Prime Minister Trudeau insisted on have a ‘gay’ loonie minted to commemorate the decriminalization of sodomy in Canada, that multiple school districts in Ontario are forcing rainbow flag ceremonies in all of the schools under their authority throughout the month of June, and that a corrupt Judge in British Columbia is trying to get a Father imprisoned for calling his daughter a girl, I am under no delusions that the Senate will not attempt to force S-260 in law before national debauchery month and the Liberal government formally shuts down for the coming election.

I have already been in contact with multiple MPs to arrange an opportunity for the public to speak to the Senate about S-260. I have already submitted a request to appear before whatever committee it may be assigned to, and I have already received word of support for that endeavor from MPs. All Canadians need to unify against these ongoing atrocities at are being inflicted upon our children, and stand firm in our beliefs and knowledge that we are on the side of truth and reason.

Skip to 33:28

Medicine Hat Public School Divisions “Moral Standard”

One of the less urgent, but nevertheless still important issues I’ve been working on is the “Moral Standard” that the Medicine Hat Public School Division is stepping outside their power and mandate to enforce. There are many serious concerns with this, which I discussed at length about in this post.

Not a lot has happened with regards to this, but it is still pushing forward, and I am still pushing back. I have not yet had the time to have a second meeting with the Superintendent, and I’m not sure if it will be fruitful. I may have to go over the School Divisions head on this, and with all the bridges I’ve built in the last 4 or so years, that is seeming like a strong possibility. I also don’t want to burn the rickety rope bridges I’ve made with the Division either, so I’m going to spend some time praying on this one.

, , , , , , , ,

The 2019 Alberta Election

Well, the Alberta Election is on, and the candidates are hitting the ground running. Notley dropped the writ, kicked open the door of the legislature, and came out spinning her arms wildly, flinging as many insults, and as much mud as possible at Kenney and the UCP. Thus far, watching the election really has been like watching spoiled siblings try to hurt each other as badly as possible, while simultaneously being terrified of getting hurt themselves, while the responsible sibling has to babysit them and keep them from destroying the house until mom and pop get back from marriage counseling. Sometime in October, at the latest. Of course the responsible sibling isn’t without their problems, but they can keep it together long enough….at least that is what everyone hopes. Which is why I’m writing this post.

A couple days ago….or was it just yesterday….I don’t know, time seems to be relative these days, I wrote a post on my Facebook page, stating that I disagreed with Kenney on the GSA issue. Now, I never said I wasn’t supporting U.C.P., or that I was telling people to vote for some other party, but some thought I was attacking Kenney. Some thought I was showing that the election was pointless. Some thought it was all hopeless. Some were afraid I would bring 4 more years of the NDP. I wasn’t doing any of that, nor was my intent to remove hope from peoples minds. My intent was actually to spur people on, to stay active, keep up their guard, and continue to press for change, even after the election. To show that even if the U.C.P. make government, there is still work to be done.

One of the sad things about our society today, is that the snow flake, oppressed, ‘tolerant’, feelings based, victim Olympics, has made most everyone utterly incapable of hearing, participating in, or acknowledge constructive criticism, rebuke, or debate. This has made critical thinking and discernment, (some call that discrimination,) nigh impossible. We then tell people what they were saying for them. Some take advantage of this, using vague and ambiguous language, so that they can be interpreted however they want, depending on the circumstance, and others do it quite unintentionally or unknowingly.

In my post disagreeing with Kenney, I thought I was making it clear that I liked what the U.C.P. plan, regarding removing Bill-24, was going to be, but that I simply disagreed that the A.T.A. or any other professional organization should 100% be trusted to be making decisions about other peoples children. There needs to be oversight, and consequences for abusing that trust.

So in an effort help people understand how I can be in support of a party or a candidate, and still be critical of them, or make them uncomfortable, I will attempt to explain how I come to a decision on who I vote for, and maybe, others will see the value in that process, and help them decide who to vote for.

My voting process consists of 3 levels based around the Beliefs, positions, and values at that level:

  1. Personal
  2. Party
  3. Candidate

If I can’t find a voting option at a lower level, I go up 1 level, and see if there is any position I can or am willing to change or compromise on, and then go back down a level, and see what new options might be available. I know this sounds funny when you read it, but this all actually goes on in peoples heads, for a great deal many of the decisions in their lives. It’s called a logic tree. I’m also prone to thinking in this manner, as I’m a programmer, but it is useful in critical thinking, because if your logic tree breaks a branch, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea you are trying to analyze.


My personal beliefs are always at the top. They are founded on a solid rock. That cornerstone is Jesus Christ. Everything I try to be, is based on Him. My position on all issues go back to what His position is. Are all my positions set in stone? No, many are, but others do shift, because I am fallible. I may be misinformed, confused, or just plane stubborn because I don’t want to accept the truth, or give up some thing I value. If I ever got to the point where I thought I was set on every single issue, and every single topic, then I have truly fallen from my rock.

There are some issues that are not debatable. Some things that are observably true, and to change my position on them, or compromise, would be to compromise reality, and the foundation by which I am anchored to. Those things include such issues as abortion, euthanasia, biology, faith, and marriage. Those issues can never be compromised. These issues usually help narrow down the choice of parties. Thankfully, I’ve never been left with no choice at this stage, but I could see it happening. Especially if cultural trends continue, and parties become hopeless to change.


Choosing which party I vote for is easily narrowed down by finding out what their principles are, and a little bit by their platform. For instance, I would never vote for a party that is based on Marxist principles. Be it socialist, communist, or fascist. Marxist principles are fundamentally anti-God, anti-Family, and anti-Individual Responsibility. They are collectivist, totalitarian, and tyrannical at their core. Marxist political parties can be tied directly to the deaths of 180million people in the last century, and that number continues to climb. This puts parties like the N.D.P. and the Alberta Party firmly in the NO vote category, and by the logic tree, any candidate representing those parties, as they are saying they believe in and support the Marxist principles of their party.

Liberal or libertarian parties can still remain in the ‘maybe’ or ‘backup’ pile, but it heavily depends on their platforms, and their record of whether they truly hold to ‘liberal’ principles. Liberal parties tend to be more anarchical than liberal, and they remind me of the old Biblical phrase, “and every man did what was right in his own eyes.” The Liberal Party of Canada for instance, by its fruit, is actually more like red N.D.P.ers. (Red Communists?) I’d never vote for the L.P.C., just based on their track record.

So that just leaves the various conservative parties.


No we get to the last level of the logic tree. This is where we get the responsibility of getting to know the individual that says they will represent you. When I’ve gotten to this level, and I decide I don’t like the candidate, and I have to go back up a level, it is usually because I have serious issues with the candidate. There is something really rank about them, or alarm bells are going off. It could be a high degree of untrustworthiness, or they openly display contrary values to that of the party they say they represent. I’ve only had to vote for a different party because a candidate was this bad once, and my second choice wasn’t all that bad.

Fortunately, this election, I know the U.C.P. candidates for Cypress-Medicine Hat, and Brooks-Medicine Hat well enough to know I will not have any trouble voting for the one that will represent me. They are both the kinds of people I would be proud to see elected. (I know that last paragraph was a bit awkward to read, but the constituency lines moved this election, and I’m now in a different riding.)

I hope you now understand how I come to a decision on who to vote for, and that what I’ve said might help you develop your own process for deciding who to vote for. Choosing who to vote for is not a simple task, and it should be given a great deal of thought. Your choice can affect generations of people coming after you, so please don’t base your choice on feelings, fears, or promises. Give it a somber second thought.

I hope you now also understand why I may criticize someone I may be voting for. I am striving to make a good choice better. I wish to see the best option possible, and the best future possible for our children, and their children. I can not simply give up fighting because I saw ‘my team’ win. ‘My team,’ can always use improvement, and the best way to do that is to stay involved, and let them know when I think they are making a mistake.

, , , , , , , , ,

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?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LGBT™ Experts are a Social Construct

I’m SHOCKED! That an LGBT™ study was a lie, SHOCKED I tell you!…..well not really. Everyone with a moments pause, and an IQ above 80 knew this, but “Dur my feels! You Bigots!”
The thing is, this study had real consequences, and it was a scam from the beginning. It was studies like the one linked above, and the one in BC, Canada, that were used to Make Bill 10, the Guidelines to Best Practices, “Safe and Caring” policies, and Bill 24. I wrote here about how the BC study was bogus and how they even admitted that they already had an outcome they wanted, and they generated the data to support it.

Where are we now? Drag queen story hours, sex diagrams about how to have anal sex with old men, kidnapped children taken to sex grooming conferences, girls trying to kill themselves because a ‘responsible adult’ told them they were actually a boy, and Christians being banned from adopting because they would abuse the children by not letting them cut their genitals off. That is just the stuff the government endorses and promotes. Lets not even get into the stuff that the ATA, Alberta Education, AHS, and the schools look the other way for, when they see it.
Am I calling you stupid if you supported this? Well, yes, you would have to be. If not stupid, than certainly improperly educated, ignorant, negligent, incompetent, and extremely gullible. Definitely not qualities for someone running government, being in charge of schools, or instructing children. Really, any position of authority.

Did that hurt your feelings? Well, tough. Suck it up buttercup. YOU are the reason child sexual exploitation has exploded. YOU are the reason pedophiles want sex with children decriminalized, and are bold enough to demand it in public. YOU are the reason your kids are at risk of being taken to sex conferences and molested by a ‘responsible adult’. Besides, would you rather I called you what the only other possible reason for supporting this could be? Would you prefer I called you a child molester and sexual predator? So grow a pair. (Ovaries or testis, whatever the case may be.) Lick your wounds. Learn from your mistake. Take the hit, and determine to never make the same stupid mistake again. [I have to clarify here, because apparently reading comprehension is a serious issue these days. Thus far the “YOU” I’m referring to, are the people who supported this LGBT™ indoctrination in the schools in the first place.] This far, no further!

This sex train isn’t going to stop until ALL of us pull the e-brake together. Proponents who are not child predators need a slap upside the head. (Metaphorically speaking.) Detractors need to stop cowering in the corner. Stop saying yes. Starting say NO. Start demanding representation of the majority. Start taking stubborn proponents to court. Start picketing schools, and filling up foyers at Board offices. Start overwhelming calendars with appointments to speak to representatives. Take your lunch breaks, your coffee breaks, your holidays, and your sick days to bother your ‘betters’. This issue is crossing into the fascist zone, and once it takes root, you’ll never have a ‘getaway’ to go to. You’ll find your travel has been ‘restricted,’ you’ll find your kids will have been taken to a ‘more supportive’ environment, and you’ll realize all your supporters and friends have gone to ‘camp’.

And in case you don’t believe me that this is becoming fascist, lets just set aside that C-16 already forces you to speak the way they want you to, under threat of prison time, and focus on what some of the Ontario Public Schools decided to do last Tuesday February 19th.
That is right, salute the LGBT™ Rainbow Flag, you 5 year old bigot, or else! Why anyone would compare the rainbow flag to other totalitarian symbols is just mind boggling. It’s not like any other infamous group of fascists have ever made flag worship mandatory in schools…. You can take a first step in fighting this. Sign the Campaign Life Coalition petition to reverse the public schools decision. This is only the first step though. If you live in Ontario, walk up to your school representative, and call them out on their stupidity and ignorance. Let them know what the alternative is to acknowledging that there position is stupid. Let them know you will press charges, or sue, or pull your kids out of school. Enough is enough, and you can’t leave it all up to people like myself to fix this. I can only do so much. ALL of you have to do your part. If not, the only person you have to blame, when they come and destroy your family, is yourself. At that point, everyone that could have helped you will be gone, because you were not there to defend them, when they were warning you it would happen.

In closing, to see the dangers of mindless ideological indoctrination to children, one need look no further than this video. [I am not making a statement as to the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of the senator’s response in this video. I am simply showing the result of using and terrifying children with ideological goals, that have nothing to do with helping or protecting them.]

[An additional Video, that was just released that absolutely proves that LGBT™ Experts are a Social Construct.]

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Daily Tidbit

No quote today