An unrepresentative liberal Government in Ontario is hellbent on enforcing its “progressive” agenda on childcare, education and sexuality. Dismissing criticisms as “far Right” simply won’t wash: the creeping tyranny of State over family is there to be observed for those with eyes to see it.
I’ve always thought of Canadians as folks with considerably more common sense and wit than metropolitan Americans. Now, a new (and utterly potty) law in Ontario is giving me grave doubts. It looks like Canada might be going mad too.
The so-called Bill 89 would allow State officials (primarily social workers) to remove kids from their home if their parents oppose transgender verdicts by disagreeing with officialdom about the gender imbalance of one of their children. Fine, the Act is largely applicable to fostering and adoption, but this is not an area any government in a free society should be messing about in.
Ontario has form when it comes to transgender virtue-signalling. The latest lead-boots stomp into family life is called 89 because it was preceded after 2012 by 13, 77 and 28. These at first made “transgender expression” a human right (I don’t believe in human rights, but fair enough, one’s XY mixture is nothing to do with anyone else) and then Bill 13 demanded schools combat “homophobia” and “transphobia.” Bill 77 prohibited certain therapies for infants with gender dysphoria (against strong opposition from specialist psychiatrists) and 28 removed the terms “mother” and “father” from Ontario law.
Ah, the smell of ideology in the mornings.
The thing to note here is how quickly free expression of one’s “real” gender moved on to censoring free speech among schoolchildren about homosexuality, then to the removal of 50,000 year-old parenting nomenclature, and finally to kidnapping any offspring of ‘genetically involved adults’ daring to disagree with half-baked social mores.
“Haven’t these loons got more important things to do?” would be the standard redneck response to such examples of “liberal” governance, but that is to miss the point here.
This isn’t just legislation over-obsessed with minorities, it’s also lawmaking by minorities to bully we earthlings into submission…. pc pillocks whom, I might add, have a track record of being spectacularly misguided, alongside a penchant for totalitarian terms like “correct”, “approved”, “settled” and “progressive”.
Predictably, libertarian opposition to Bill 89 has been dubbed ‘the far Right freaking out’, and State sponsors of the new Law have rushed to say kids will not be removed from foster homes. As I will try to show, this is misleading; and given the Ontario history of ramming wedges under doors, it is natural to suspect that Bill 89 will be followed by a thicker version not too far down the line.
I think it would be helpful at this point to take a closer look at those behind this archetypally assumptive legislation.
We could do worse than start at Michael Coteau, Ontario’s Minister of Children and Youth Services. Coteau has been quoted as saying ” it could be considered abuse when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no”. Fascinating. The kid’s in care, Monsieur Coteau: he’s probably more than a little screwed up, and he’s ten years at least away from getting the vote. Why are we assuming that an alienated infant knows better?
But there’s more. Coteau told the media that denying a child’s gender identity would be akin to “a child in care being told not to believe in Jesus Christ”. Denying the divinity of the Nazarene is now abuse, then.
The simplistic nature of that analogy is beyond belief, but Coteau’s régime really gets down to business on the next bit of self-burial. “The Law will not allow the State to remove children from the home” says a spokesperson at the Advocate’s Office, but then goes on to say that it will if:
- it is part of “a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm”
- if a child is suffering “serious psychological effects”.
From, for example, being told that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God. On the one hand, the Advocate General says “will not allow” and in the same interview admits that “child welfare agencies may intervene”. So that’s alright. Oh, and the final result will be down to a judge. Who might be a Harriet Harman believer in the rainbow of sexual experience, or a fan of discredited behavioural doctrine, false memory syndrome and other well-known forms of “settled science”.
The Premier of Ontario is Kathleen Wynne (left). For many years, she was married to Phil Cowperthwaite, with whom she had three children. Then she decided at age 37 that she was a lesbian, and now lives with her second spouse Jane Rounthwaite. So much for settled science. In 2001, Wynne helped pass a measure encouraging public schools to purchase teaching materials reflecting the presence of gay and lesbian parents in Canadian society.
She has consistently stated that she would like to advance more LGBT related issues, with particular reference to the Catholic Church (good luck with that one). In February 2015, her government introduced changes to the sex education curriculum that were so minority-centric, controversy and criticism across the political spectrum and among parents reached the point where some schools were empty after parents pulled their children out in protest. The measures were not withdrawn.
Under her tutelage, Ontario province’s government debt has risen to $300 billion, and is projected to rise to $350 billion by 2020-21. In 2015, her approval rate fell to 18%. In March this year it stood at 12%.
No matter what Michael Coteau and the Advocate’s Office say, Bill 89 gives a ludicrously sweeping definition of “best interests of the child”. It includes the kid’s physical, emotional, mental and developmental needs, as well as the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
It is effectively a Nazi-style Enabling Act, and genuinely does make every parent, sorry, genetically involved adult open to removal of a child. And if you think my description alarmist, the regulations do not cater for any public debate or approval by the legislature.
Oh dear, all the tell-tale signs are there: inflexible ideology, intolerance of opposition, the triumph of assertion over social anthropology, an obsession with unrepresentative minorities, growing debt and falling ratings.
The defining nature of the LibLeft persuasion is blind belief and refusal to learn. Exactly this sort of legislation led to Britain’s notorious Secret Courts – Star Chambers that took decades to remove, resulted in hundreds of paedophile abuse cases, and still live on in a diluted form as safe harbours for serial abusers.
Yes, this is a Canadian issue and no, you shouldn’t ignore it. Rather, it should be added to a list that gets longer and longer every year: the unelected European Commission, the eurogroupe’s insane austerity policies, Osborne’s doomed promise to cut the British deficit and debt, May and Green’s cold rigidity in rejecting the pleas of defrauded Waspi women, the ECB’s destruction of Greece, the brutish behaviour of Spanish police in Catalonia, the Remainer blind eyes about eurozone fascism, Labour’s unwillingness to criticise Antifa and the global media scaremongering about Brexit.
It all adds up to more social discord, more minority dictatorship, more politicians working for extremists in all the sizes and colours, less thought being applied by educationally dumbed-down electorates….and above all, less liberty and democracy for the great majority of us.
State demands on our families, our communities, our incomes and even our opinions have increased, are increasing, and should be diminished.
Jeremy Bentham must be spinning in his glass case. We are staring down the barrel of the Greatest Dissatisfaction of the Greatest Number – and it’s all down to divisive, dumb-arsed ideology.