New totalitarian rainbow law in Canada has decreed that parents who disagree with their child changing gender are guilty of “abuse” and could face having the state remove their child by force.
I kid you not.
Parents who are concerned that transitioning is not in their child's best interests are automatically classified as “abusive”, according to Ontario’s Minister of Children and Youth Services Michael Coteau.
The Province of Ontario last week passed Bill 89 which gives the state the power to take children from the homes of “abusive” parents who believe in the biological, scientific and common-sense view of gender.
Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, has warned Christians to “wake-up”.
Folks, this is serious.
This is Australia’s “Safe Schools” program on steroids and it is where gender fluid theory logically takes public policy.
But it is not just Canada that is affected by this creeping totalitarianism.
A NSW Department of Education and Communities Legal Issues Bulletin, dating back to late 2014, implies that teachers have a “mandatory” duty to report parents who do not affirm their children changing their gender.
We are not aware if this has been tested or not but if gender fluid theory continues to gain traction in our schools and public policy, it will only be a matter of time before parents here are punished for believing their boys are boys and their girls are girls.
The “Safe Schools” debate over the past few years has seen politicians paralysed by political correctness, unwilling to stand up to the harmful pseudo-science coming out of the likes of La Trobe University in Melbourne, the academic body that gave us the “Safe Schools” program.
No one of course wants to see any child harmed or bullied. But parents have the right to push back on gender theory which tells children their gender is fluid – a lie in biology and in science.
As leading University of Western Sydney paediatrician Dr John Whitehall has been telling a series of ACL meetings around the country, putting children on the transgender escalator towards harmful puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgery is not in their best interests.
Our Melbourne meeting last month was attended by masked protestors who physically blocked 70 people from entering our venue in Carlton while Victoria Police stood by helpless to uphold the law.
Rainbow activists will not tolerate free speech and freedom of assembly. Lawlessness has become the norm when these thugs turn up.
The push towards teaching children that their gender is fluid has of course flowed from the same-sex marriage debate and flies under the same rainbow political flag.
It is the logical next step after removing the gender diversity requirement from marriage law and was the next thing rainbow activists pivoted to in the US and Canada, after unelected judges decreed that same-sex marriage was the law of the land.
Australia’s rainbow political activists, thinking they had won the same-sex marriage debate, pivoted too early and Australians are slowly starting to wake up to the consequences.
Three years ago, the “Safe Schools” debate was not on our radar. Who would have thought the government would ever fund a program that instructed girls in binding their breasts and boys tucking their penises and suggesting sex-change surgery to children “with or without parental consent”?
Our Queens’ Birthday honours list recognised Qantas CEO Alan Joyce for his promotion of LGBTIQ issues.
Most people don’t know that the rainbow flag he had painted on a Qantas Airbus A330 represents teaching children their gender is fluid along with removing the gender diversity requirement from the Marriage Act.
No one has called out Joyce’s hypocrisy in signing a code-sharing agreement with Emirates, the United Arab Emirates’ government-subsidised airline where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death.
He would be worthy of an award if he had the courage to stand up to the injustices gay people face in his partner airline’s home country.
Next month I will have been with ACL for 10 years. When I joined in 2007, I had no idea that so much of our time would be taken up defending something as basic as marriage and the social justice environment it creates for children.
We did not go looking for this debate – others, like Joyce, have been driving the political agenda.
But we knew that the consequences of redefining marriage were massive and we have tried to warn people all along the way.
The longer this debate runs, the more people are beginning to see.
The reason we need to have a people’s vote or plebiscite is so that all Australians can weigh up the consequences of removing the gender diversity requirement from the Marriage Act.
If we lose this debate, it is not alarmist to predict that some Australian parents will one day have authorities storm their homes and remove their children.