Nov 182012
 

On October 27, 2012, I was the Master of Ceremonies for the Freedom Party of Ontario dinner held to hear three outspoken individuals give their views about the inculcation of moral subjectivism in our public schools, and how it may affect students and society.

The speakers varied in their ideas about what constitutes a proper code of morality, but they shared an opposition to the view that there is no such thing as right and wrong, better or worse.

None of the speakers was a member or supporter of Freedom Party of Ontario when they participated in this event.

The opinions expressed are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect my views nor the views of Freedom Party of Ontario.

Mar 012012
 

239 - Gunning for Liberals 168x100Sometimes an event encompasses so many of government’s problems that it becomes a lightning rod for condemnation by just about everyone.

From the National Post:

“Last week, Jessie Sansone of Kitchener, Ont., was arrested inside his children’s school when he arrived to pick them up after class. He was strip searched and thrown in a cell, while his wife was brought into the police station and his children taken by Family and Children’s Services. After several hours, Sansone was suddenly released with apologies, and told the entire ordeal was triggered when his four-year-old daughter’s teacher reported there may have been a gun in Sansone’s home. The basis of this allegation was a picture she’d drawn of her daddy shooting monsters and bad guys. Sansone is not a firearms owner, and the closest thing to a gun the police found after searching his home was a plastic toy.”

The victims in this story are of course Mr. Sansone, his wife, and their children.

The villains? Let’s make a list;

The teacher who upon seeing what must have been a remarkably rendered drawing for a four year old of a toy gun decides to tell the principle of the school of a potential threat to the welfare of the child.

The principal who calls Family and Children’s Services,

Family and Children’s Services who immediately call the police,

The police, who show up to the school in marked cars and uniforms who handcuff Mr. Sansone and take him away in front of children and neighbours to be stripped searched and held for hours,

The Superintendent of Education at the Waterloo Region District School Board, Gregg Bereznick, who defended the actions of his staff saying that educators are “co-parents,”

And Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty who defended the action of the school.

To be clear at the outset, any adult who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child in their care is being mistreated by anyone should report their suspicions.

That being said here is what was wrong with the behaviour of all of the villains I have listed. They are insane. They are nuts. They are lunatics who should not be in the charge of children, arresting people, running school boards, or running a government. That’s my knee-jerk opinion of course. The same opinion held by almost anyone who has heard this story.

A more considered analysis would take the following form:

It is not unlawful for Canadians to own guns, even handguns under special permission. Therefore if a child draws a parent with a gun shooting monsters and bad people then the proper action for the teacher should have been, “That’s nice, dear. I hope he got them all.” Who among us, males especially, as children have not defaced their school work with drawing of tanks, jet planes dropping bombs, zombies and blood covered NAZIS? Of course the older ones among us remember a time when guns were thought of as weapons to defend ourselves and to hunt with. They still are but unfortunately around the late 1960s the liberal revolution of the state education system implemented a systemic program of indoctrination into the pacification of the populace. I remember as a School Board Trustee on the London Board that some Trustees would even correct other Trustees if they referred to the little dots preceding a point in a written document as “bullets.” They were told to call them “fuzzy dots” or something equally as inoffensive.

Such a dangerous philosophy as pacifism has disarmed us and has given many of us adults and our children the incorrect notion that guns, whether long guns or hand guns, are evil and that they should be abolished. Well that is of course wrong. Guns are tools which can defend your life and that of your family. If anything children are to be taught anything about guns it should be on how to use them. People should be allowed to buy and carry handguns. It flows from our basic right to our life that we have a basic right to defend it and there is no better means than a .44 strapped to your hip.

That leads me to the police. They could have stopped this witch hunt in its tracks by telling the principal that a drawing of a gun does not give them probable cause to arrest and strip search anyone. It does not give them cause to enter into anyone’s house and search it. They should have chastised the principal and the Family and Children’s Services personnel and directed them to stop wasting their time. But, unfortunately the police in this country have been led to believe, erroneously that they are the only ones who should be entrusted with guns. They believe, erroneously that they have an exclusive monopoly on their possession and use and that any civilian in possession of one is a danger to their children and the public.

As the police were taking Mr. Sansone into custody Family and Children’s Services were taking the children into their custody. And these are the villains we must watch the closest. While the police eventually let Mr. Sansone go with an apology, these were the words from Alison Scott, the executive director of Family and Children’s Services “We’re still investigating this one,” The parents should move out of town now that Family and Children’s Services have their eyes on their children.

Superintendent of Education, Gregg Bereznick’s comment about how teachers are “co-parents” has perhaps riled up people the most in this sordid affair. An educator definitely acts in loco parentis or in place of the parents as any adult does who is given temporary charge over a child while the parent is away, such as a baby-sitter. But in loco parentis does not mean that an educator can indoctrinate the child in contrast to a parent’s wishes. In loco parentis is restricted by the nature of the relationship between the parent and the adult given temporary charge of the child. In this case a teacher’s responsibility is to teach the child and not attempt to ferret out dirt on the parents so that the state can arrest them. Co-parenting implies an equal responsibility in the upbringing of the child. This is not the case. It doesn’t even come close to the case and any notion that a teacher might have that he or she is a co-parent of their student must be dismissed here and now and once and for all.

The raisson d’etre of the state education system is the political indoctrination of children. This case illustrates that purpose perfectly. My advice to any parent with a child in public school is to get their children out of there as soon as possible. If not, then I would strongly suggest that when your child returns home you ask them about their teachers and what they have learned and that you de-program them. At the very least teach them to be free thinkers and to suspect that anything a teacher tells them to be true is probably incorrect and that they must prove for themselves that it is correct.

Finally, to the biggest villain of them all, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Although if Tim Hudak and the Conservatives, or Andrea Horvath and the New Democrats were in power I would addressing this to them as well because they are three peas in an intellectual pod. Get out of our children’s minds. Stop filling their heads with lies. Abolish the School Boards, put every public school up for sale and let parents have a choice in where they send their children and their tuition. Dismantle this indoctrination machine called the Public Education System and let Ontario children grow up unencumbered by your anti-intellectual, anti-reason, garbage spewed at them every day in the classroom.

(Originally aired on Just Right #239, March 1, 2012)

May 192011
 

Monty Python God 168x100And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

Jerry Falwell came to prominence in 1979 with the creation of the so-called “Moral Majority.”  A group of evangelical Christians whose aim it was to influence the politics of the United States in such a way as to have society conform to their notion of what was moral.

The target of this group was the Republican Party and in 1980 it was credited by some with getting Ronald Reagan elected President.

The one defining characteristic of evangelicals that is crucial to understanding how they influence, not only the conservative right wing in the United States but also the newly created Conservative Party in Canada is their literal interpretation of the Bible as the word of their Abrahamic God.  Evangelicals believe that their God created the Earth in seven days.  They believe in Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and they believe that the world is about 6,000 years old.  Most importantly they believe that everybody must be “saved” by recognizing Jesus as their personal “savior.”  To this end they have become involved politically in an attempt to change the laws of the US and Canada to lead the population out of their “sinful” ways and into a path more “moral” whether we choose it or not.

I have written before about how alike the Conservatives are to the Liberals in their economic policies. They are both socialists.  Up until the early 1990s there was little difference between the two spectra of the left wing; Conservatives were interchangeable with Liberals.  With the alienation of Western Canada by the Mulroney Conservatives in the 1980s we have seen an attempt by the evangelicals to infiltrate the halls of Parliament Hill through the creation of the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance (for which I ran for as a candidate) and now the Conservative Party of Canada.

On many of the issues of personal behavior we can see a clear difference between the new Conservatives and the Liberals.  Examine this list of issues and consider how a Conservative might approach the issue versus a Liberal.

  • Abortion
  • Suicide
  • Assisted Suicide
  • Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  • Pornography
  • Drugs
  • Prostitution
  • Homosexuality
  • Gay “Marriage”
  • The Death Penalty
  • Sunday shopping laws
  • Human Cloning (if such a thing were possible). and
  • The teaching of creationism in schools

Evangelicals, believing that your body, being a gift from their God, belongs to their God and that you should have no choice in tampering with their God’s creation.  You cannot take your own life, you cannot adulterate your mind with drugs, you cannot tamper with natural reproduction etc.

A liberal, on the other hand, is more prone to allowing us a choice when it comes to our actions.  This difference is due, in part, I believe from their religious beliefs, if they exist, of Liberals versus the religious beliefs of Conservatives (at least contemporary Conservatives).  The following comparison of the professed religions of party leaders should illustrate what I’m talking about:

Liberal Leaders:

  • Louis St. Laurent – RC
  • Lester B. Pearson –United Church (which does not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible)
  • Pierre Trudeau – RC
  • John Turner – RC
  • Jean Chrétien – RC
  • Stephane Dion – RC
  • Paul Martin – RC
  • Michael Ignatieff – Russian Orthodox

Here are the professed religious beliefs of some recent conservative Leaders

  • Joe Clark – RC
  • Brian Mulroney – RC (which brings us to 1988)
  • Preston Manning = Christian and Missionary Alliance
  • Stockwell Day = Pentecostal
  • Stephen Harper = Christian and Missionary Alliance

All three of the past conservative leaders since 1988 profess religions which are evangelical.

It should come as little surprise that the majority of Liberal leaders were Catholics.  The Catholic believes that in order for an action to be moral the person must have made the action freely without compulsion.  He must have had a choice.  This tenant of Catholicism is partially responsible, I believe, for the relaxing of personal behavior legislation beginning with Trudeau.  For example the abolishment of the death penalty which occurred under Trudeau but was attempted to be brought back in by the Conservatives under Mulroney.  But Mulroney being a Catholic himself allowed a free vote and the attempt by the more evangelical Conservatives failed.

From the rise of the political evangelical movement in Canada beginning in 1987 to the recent majority government of evangelical Stephen Harper Canadians can expect, at the very least, a continuation of restrictions on personal freedom such as our repressive drug laws.  We can expect some private member’s bills in the next five years attempting to roll back the clock on legislation which had gotten the government out of the bedrooms of Canadians.  Look forward to a renewed effort to censor adult content on television, look forward to a crack down on prostitution and teenagers smoking pot.

Thankfully since many of the newly elected Conservatives are not of the evangelical persuasion the likelihood of these motions passing are slim.  Especially given that Harper, evangelical or not, who no doubt wishes to be reelected will not give his support to this Conservative hidden agenda.  The genie of personal freedom has slowly been let out of the bottle, thanks mostly in part to the courts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to put it back in will mean that the Party that does so will be quickly relegated to the left side of the house.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #200, May 19, 2011)