Category: Human Rights

Posted on

University Of Western Ontario’s Vaccine Passport System Upheld

An Ontario Superior Court recently ruled that the University of Western Ontario has the right to implement its “vaccine passport” system, and to collect such information. The Judge (to summarize) said that it’s not coercion, but just a choice that people make.

[69] In seeking to justify their request for a permanent injunction, the applicants emphasize what they characterize as the “coercive” nature of the Policy in forcing disclosure of their otherwise private health information. They raise concerns about the danger of losing their academic year if they do not provide their private information by way of proof of vaccination. They raise additional concerns of the fairness of this coercion, given the late timing of Western’s announcement of the continuation of the Policy, after tuition was due and the students had made living arrangements and other financial commitments for the year.

[70] I acknowledge the applicants’ frustration; however, observe that the previous version of the Policy that applied to the 2021-2022 academic terms did notify the university community that the Policy was set to expire on September 7, 2022, and that it would be reviewed by no later than September 1, 2022. There was, in fact, a vaccine mandate and personal information collection policy in place before the ostensible “surprise” of Western’s announcement of the revised Policy on August 22, 2022.

[71] I do not agree with the applicants’ characterization of the Policy as being “coercive” in nature. I do not accept the Policy will “force” members of the university community to disclose their personal information. The Policy forces individuals to choose between two alternatives, even if they like neither option. The choice is the individual’s to make. Each choice comes with its own consequences. That is the nature of choices: Seneca College, at para. 75; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 et a. v. Toronto Transit Commission and National Organized Workers Union v. Sinai Health System, 2021 ONCA 7658 at para. 77.

[72] I am also not persuaded that a disposal order is warranted in the circumstances. Again, the relief sought is broad. The applicants did not provide any authority in support of this relief. The applicants confirmed on the hearing of the application that they want all proof of vaccine information collected by Western to be destroyed. The court does not comprehend any reasonable basis for such a broad order. Among other issues, proof of vaccine information in the 2021-2022 year was collected pursuant to the province’s mandate.

Seriously, why do people bother? Why not just leave the schools altogether? Are the tens of thousands in non-dischargeable student loan debt really worth it?

A curious bit of information about the Judge Kelly Tranquilli: apparently she’s donated to the Liberal Party of Canada several times in recent years. Or, at least there is someone in London with that same name. It’s not much, only about $1,400 in total. Still, worth a look.

As for UWO receiving money, there are many sources, including several millions in “foreign” contributions. This is according to the Federal Lobby Registry. Interesting details shown.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AMOUNT MORE COMING?

Canada Foundation for Innovation $7,581,000.00 YES
Canada Research Chairs $7,339,000.00 YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) $28,885,000.00 YES
City of London $28,885,000.00 NO
Foreign $4,209,000.00 YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) $29,038,000.00 YES
Other Federal $35,699,000.00 YES
Other Provinces $35,699,000.00 YES
Province of Ontario $318,799,000.00 YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) $9,292,000.00 YES

UWO gets financial contributions from all areas of government. Also, there are other areas which this institution is able to profit.

Revenue Until April 2021
Receipted donations $23,391,977.00 (1.74%)
Non-receipted donations $7,913,117.00 (0.59%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,860,861.00 (0.66%)
Government funding $458,914,000.00 (34.17%)
All other revenue $844,026,000.00 (62.84%)
Total revenue: $1,343,105,955.00

Expenses Until April 2021
Charitable programs $1,068,203,541.00 (96.31%)
Management and administration $30,830,509.00 (2.78%)
Fundraising $10,090,630.00 (0.91%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,109,124,680.00

Revenue Until April 2020
Receipted donations $5,737,520.00 (0.47%)
Non-receipted donations $29,464,401.00 (2.44%)
Gifts from other registered charities $4,705,436.00 (0.39%)
Government funding $436,669,000.00 (36.14%)
All other revenue $731,737,519.00 (60.56%)
Total revenue: $1,208,313,876.00

Revenue Until April 2019
Receipted donations $11,119,427.00 (0.87%)
Non-receipted donations $17,837,610.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $5,854,513.00 (0.46%)
Government funding $467,184,000.00 (36.63%)
All other revenue $773,266,199.00 (60.64%)
Total revenue: $1,275,261,749.00

Worth pointing out: the top 10 highest paid employees receive in excess of $300,000 each. Good to know tuition dollars are being well spent.

The University of Western Ontario is also a registered charity, meaning it’s receiving all sorts of tax benefits at the expense of the public. Regular readers of this site won’t be surprised in the least.

As for CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, at least 2 groups within UWP received the benefit. Perhaps why there was little interest in protecting students from vaccine mandates. And being a “registered charity”, UWO would also have been eligible for lockdown and rental subsidies.

Things are never quite as they seem.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.pdf
(3) https://elections.ca
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=6219&regId=923198&blnk=1
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+western+ontario&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108162587RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

Posted on

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

While most lockdown related lawsuits and human rights complaints aim at removing these infringements on human rights, others demand that they be reinstated. Here is another such case.

A Calgary man has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the federal government’s decision to lift mask requirements on airplanes.

The decision, announced Monday, is part of a bundle of changes that come into effect Oct. 1. At that point, travellers will also no longer be required to wear masks on trains, provide proof of vaccination or submit public health information with the ArriveCan app.

“I was frankly dismayed when I heard the news,” said Dr. David Keegan, a family doctor who has a cardiopulmonary condition.

Keegan said that while airplanes do have filtration systems, they don’t completely eliminate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, especially if people are unmasked.

To be clear, nothing prevents, or will prevent this man from wearing a mask when he travels. Instead, his “human rights” complaint is to demand that everyone else be forced to.

He’s also insisting that others play along with his delusions about there being a virus in the first place. Pretty scary that these people are in positions of influence.

Interestingly, the CBC article covering the story, and related reprints, don’t mention that Keegan is a University of Calgary Professor. Did they not want this connection to be made public?

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta only lists a single David Keegan as having a license in that Province. So, it seems unlikely to be a duplicate, or a coincidence. Of course, we don’t want the wrong person to get mocked.

On Keegan’s Twitter profile, it turns out that his pinned tweet is the announcement that he’s filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This guy isn’t trying to hide the fact that he’s attempting to take people’s freedoms away. Amazingly, the idiots replying are cheering him on as some kind of a hero.

Keegan’s LinkedIn profile describes him as “Family Doc and Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Performance (Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary); Academic Family Physician”. He’s much more than just an employee, but an Associate Dean as well. (Archive here).

The University of Calgary has been very active in lobbying the various levels of Government for more money, and it shows. The school is routinely getting many millions in taxpayer handouts.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AMOUNT MORE COMING?

Canada Foundation for Innovation $7,898,000.00 YES
Canada Research Chairs $8,126,000.00 YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) $50,044,000.00 YES
Foreign $34,573,000.00 YES
Health Canada (HC) $707,000.00 YES
Municipal $3,823,000.00 YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) $30,820,000.00 YES
Other Federal $43,087,000.00 YES
Other Provinces $10,102,000.00 YES
Provincial $692,013,000.00 YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) $12,616,000.00 YES

Have to wonder about that $34.5 million in “foreign” funding.

Interestingly, although the University of Calgary itself isn’t listed as having received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, or CEWS, the Pentecostal Ministries have. It’s no surprise that UCalgary is structured as a registered charity. In fact, a search flags 3 charities connected to this school. This is just another way to get money from the public.

Revenue Until March 2021
Receipted donations $43,667,964.00 (2.93%)
Non-receipted donations $154,181,263.00 (10.34%)
Gifts from other registered charities $47,805,468.00 (3.21%)
Government funding $794,689,349.00 (53.30%)
All other revenue $450,709,554.00 (30.23%)
Total revenue: $1,491,053,598.00

Expenses Until March 2021
Charitable programs $1,252,850,843.00 (89.28%)
Management and administration $128,575,275.00 (9.16%)
Fundraising $21,825,347.00 (1.56%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,403,251,465.00

Revenue Until March 2020
Receipted donations $70,957,295.00 (4.48%)
Non-receipted donations $184,837,402.00 (11.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $36,304,564.00 (2.29%)
Government funding $806,786,736.00 (50.98%)
All other revenue $483,768,203.00 (30.57%)
Total revenue: $1,582,654,200.00

Expenses Until March 2020
Charitable programs $1,321,469,784.00 (88.08%)
Management and administration $153,149,342.00 (10.21%)
Fundraising $25,419,521.00 (1.69%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $347,506.00 (0.02%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,500,386,153.00

This “charity” has been taking in approximately $1.5 billion annually as of late. Of course, the public has to subsidize the donations made.

SCHOOL DATE AMOUNT
University of Calgary April 2011 $100,000
University of Calgary March 2012 $100,000
University of Calgary October 2017 $320,729

The school has also received some donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years. In fairness though, others have taken much more. See this from 2017.

While the CBC reports this as a “Calgary doctor”, let’s be clear: this is an Associate Dean at the University of Calgary. While he may have his own interests in doing this, can we really separate personal and professional lives?

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-keegan-human-rights-complaint-mask-mandate-airplane-1.6598062
(2) https://search.cpsa.ca/PhysicianProfile?e=9fd5d2c3-3bcc-43ad-9b7c-e45ba9e7c429&i=0
(3) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan
(4) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan/status/1574523390253477888
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-keegan-61707473/
(6) David Keegan _ LinkedIn Profile
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5009&regId=926282&blnk=1
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+of+calgary&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108102864RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(10) https://gatesfoundation.org
(11) https://ucalgary.ca/news/gates-foundation-interested-one-health-research-approach-ucalgary

Posted on

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1

Posted on

Hearing On Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”

Canadians have filed several court challenges related to travel restrictions going on since 2020. It appears that 4 cases were consolidated, given their related and overlapping issues. The primary issues revolved around Section 6 of the Charter, Mobility Rights.

  • T-1991-21: Karl Harrison/Shaun Rickard
  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford et al.
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier

Although the circumstances of each challenge differ, all of them are concerned with Canadians being able to travel and move freely within the country.

Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
Marginal note: Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

However, Section 1 of the Charter has shown just how worthless this document really is. Far from the requirement that limitations be demonstrably justified, Judges have seen fit to uphold these violations based on the flimsiest of justifications.

Instead, it’s been replaced with blindly trusting the experts.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That being said, the Feds probably aren’t interested in having to justify these restrictions in court, so they came up with another option. Their lawyers filed a motion to strike the case for “mootness”. Plainly put, the argument is that since the restrictions have been lifted (as in, the orders expired), there’s nothing for a Judge to look at.

This is disingenuous for a few reasons. First, even if there are no active restrictions, it doesn’t erase any harm or violation of Constitutional rights. This comes across as a cop-out to avoid taking any responsibilities.

Second, various officials have made it clear they “won’t hesitate to bring back” various restrictions and martial law measures. So, while these may be “suspended” for the time being, it doesn’t mean that they won’t come back in some form.

We’ll have to see what comes of this, but it would be unfortunate to allow this kind of stunt to circumvent people getting their day in court.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(3) T-1991-21 Doc 51 MOTION RECORD in response to Motion Doc. No. 44
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

Posted on

B.C. Supreme Court Throws Out 4 Cases Involving Vaccine Passports

The British Columbia Supreme Court handed down 4 related rulings this week, each against freedom and bodily autonomy in the Province. All had to do with the so-called “vaccine passports” that were brought here in September 2021.

The decisions all came from Chief Justice Hinkson. The impression one can get is that there was little interest in preserving the rights of the petitioners. It’s pretty scary how the “trust the experts” mantra can trump actual rights. There was apparently no real issue with limiting people’s personal and social lives in order to coerce them into taking an unknown concoction.

The Vancouver Sun did a decent job of covering the rulings.

Kassian v. British Columbia, the Canadian Constitution Foundation was granted public interest standing. The petitioners were seeking exemptions to the vaccine passport system. However, the petitioners undercut their own arguments (paragraph 52), since they support the passes in general, but simply want proper exemptions to be built in. The Court said these proceedings were premature, as not all options had been exhausted.

Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), was primarily aimed at the Food and Liquor Serving Premises Order” and “the Gatherings and Events Order. It was noted that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. gave guidelines to strictly limit exemptions. Ultimately, it was decided that there were other remedies available (such as seeking exemptions), and that going to Court shouldn’t be the first option.

Maddock v. British Columbia, challenged the Food and Liquor Serving Premises (December 22, 2021), and the Gatherings and Events & Food and Liquor Serving Premises Orders. Apparently it wasn’t enough to simply refuse a vaccine or not to be interested in it. The Judge decided that Bonnie Henry acted within her authority, and declined to vary the Orders.

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. British Columbia, the court found that refusing to let people participate in “discretionary activities”, and didn’t violate human rights. Specifically, this referred to the Food and Liquor Serving Premises Order (“FLSP Order”) and the Gathering and Events Order (“G&E Order”). Bonnie Henry, the unelected BCPHO, was within her rights making such orders. CSASPP was denied public interest standing, while its Executive Director, Kipling Warner, was granted private interest standing.

Do read the decisions above. The commentary provided doesn’t really do justice, given how long the reasons are.

On the bright side, these petitioners at least got their day in court. Some constitutional rights lawyers struggle to form coherent sentences and arguments.

In each of these challenges, the Government tried to use “mootness” as a defense. In other words, it was argued that since the orders were expired, the judge should not consider them.

Interestingly, none of these cases involve challenges to the Public Health Act itself. It’s been covered here before many times how the 2005 Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. Also, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, is a de-facto branch of the World Health Organization. The W.H.O. Constitution is something else that erodes national sovereignty.

In fairness, these reviews are limited in scope. But it would be nice to have these issues brought up at least once. Unfortunately, the depth of this scam, including lack of proof a virus exists, seems off limits to most challengers.

(1) https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/recent_judgments.aspx
(2) Kassian v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1603.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1603/2022bcsc1603.html
(3) Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1604.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1604/2022bcsc1604.html
(4) Maddock v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1605
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1605.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1605/2022bcsc1605.html
(5) CSASPP v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1606
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1606.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1606/2022bcsc1606.html
(6) https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-chief-judge-dismisses-four-challenges-to-covid-health-orders
(7) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

OLDER RULING
(A) Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248, BCSC 248
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/02/2021BCSC0248.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2021/2021bcsc512/2021bcsc512.html

Posted on

O.H.R.T./O.C.T. Okay Pushing Gender Ideology On Young Children

A recent ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has found that pushing gender ideology on children as young as 6 doesn’t amount to a violation of their rights.

It was also mentioned in the ruling that a complaint was filed with the O.C.T., who saw no issues in terms of professional standards of practice.

In some sense, this shouldn’t be a surprise. Considering that “human rights” now involve perpetuating this. Curiously, had the teacher said that there are only boys and girls, the H.R.T. would likely have taken that much more seriously.

Here are the events as described in the decision:

[16] P.B. described that in March 2018, on a Saturday morning at the breakfast table, when the family was having a conversation about family roles, N.B. told her parents that there were no such things as boys and girls. In response to her father’s statement that when she grew up she could be a mother, N.B. apparently said to her parents that she did not want to be a “mommy” when she grew up, and she wanted a dog instead. She apparently also told her parents that she knew that you can go to a doctor to change your body, if you don’t want to have a baby.

[17] In response to her parents’ query about these statements, N.B. told her parents that the statement about boys and girls, as well as about the role of a doctor in changing a person’s body was apparently made in her Grade 1 classroom in January, although N.B. did not mention it to her parents until March 2018.

[18] Also in March 2018, N.B. allegedly told her father on the way home from school one day that her teacher had said at some point that “there was no difference between boys and girls” and further that “boys can be girls and girls can be boys”.

[19] These statements regarding boys and girls, as cited by N.B.’s father J.B., as well as some of N.B.’s follow up comments about gender issues, coupled with her drawing of a gender spectrum on the white board in her bedroom, allegedly concerned P.B. sufficiently that she decided to “look into the matter and take some follow up action”.

Forget the “human rights” element for a moment. This shouldn’t be taught in schools at all, let alone to children who are barely out of kindergarten.

The document goes on a length about consistencies in the witnesses’ memories. However, this is beside the point, as the H.R.T. most likely would have thrown the case out regardless of how certain everyone was on their facts.

(Paragraph 105) The students are exposed to gender-spectrum-drawings, which was supposedly shocking and distressing by iteself.

(Paragraph 112) It was also admitted that complaints had been filed with the O.C.T., or Ontario College of Teachers. However, they were dismissed since none of this amounted to a failure of professional standards.

(Paragraph 133) the H.R.T. seems to play dumb with the claims of “cultural colonization” and a way of “reprogramming a child’s identity”. Apparently, confusing children doesn’t amount to violating their human rights in any way.

(Paragraph 139) There’s apparently a Gender Identity and Gender Expression Guide to Support Our Students. This document is based upon the Code, as well as the Human Rights Commission’s “Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression”. In other words, the so-called human rights were used as a justification to push gender ideology in the first place.

(Paragraph 143) The Grade 1 teacher admits that there is the motivation of acceptance, in not teaching that there are in fact real differences between boys and girls.

The decision goes on at length about how “gender expression” is now entrenched as a human right. Interestingly, girls and boys who are content with reality are forced to put up with such things. There’s no right to be protected from this ideology.

Throughout the ruling — and likely many others — physical and biological reality is substituted for “identity”, and for “expression”. Genuine truths don’t seem to matter if someone gets offended over this.

Ultimately, the case was thrown out. Pushing gender fluidity on young children wasn’t against the Human Rights Code. Apparently, it doesn’t go against the College of Teachers’ professional standards either.

Incidents like that are why more and more parents are looking at homeschooling.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.pdf