University lecturer has ‘no legal right to be anti-Political Correctness’ after claims he was ‘hounded out’ by left-wing colleague

Telegraph

University lecturer has ‘no legal right to be anti-PC’ after claims he was ‘hounded out’ by left-wing colleagues

Dr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln UniversityDr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln University

12 JANUARY 2019 • 9:00PM

Auniversity lecturer does not have the right to be anti-PC, an employment judge has ruled, after he claimed that left-wing colleagues “hounded” him out.
Dr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln University. But after a series of spats with fellow academics he was repeatedly disciplined and eventually dismissed from his post.
As part of a claim for unfair dismissal, he told an employment tribunal how the university’s “discrimination” against him started in early 2015 when his career was “really taking off”.
Dr Dunn, who is the branch chairman for Ukip in Lincoln and stood as a candidate for the party in last year’s council elections, published a book titled Rethinking Unemployment and the Work Ethic.
In his book he explains that while benefit claimants generally want jobs, many remain on benefits because they are “too choosy” in the jobs they are willing to do.
He says that these arguments are unfashionable and so are rarely acknowledged by left-leaning social policy academics, which leads to government policies based on a flawed understanding of the issue.
Dr Dunn, 45, set up a Twitter account in January 2015 to promote his new book but was attacked when he posted an article summarising his academic research, with some labelling him a “Tory bigot”.
Andrew Dunn meets former Ukip leader Nigel Farage at the Ukip spring conference in Bolton 2017

Andrew Dunn meets former Ukip leader Nigel Farage at the Ukip spring conference in Bolton 2017

But rather than jump to his defence, or even just ignore the online abuse he faced, he was astonished to see his “left-wing” colleaguesjoin in.
Sue Bond-Taylor, another Lincoln University lecturer in social policy, contacted the abuser on Twitter and urged him not to “discount the whole team off the back of the work of one member of staff”.
Meanwhile Dr Dunn felt that Liam McCann, now the acting deputy head of Lincoln’s school of social and political sciences, appeared to “sneer” at him and question why his work was worthy of funding.
“Insults, swearing and rudeness are commonplace on Twitter, but what happened involving [my colleagues] shocked me as I have never seen anyone behave in such a rude and disrespectful way towards a word colleague in view of the public on a social media site,” Dr Dunn told the tribunal.
He complained about the incident to his line manager and the university launched an inquiry which found that Dr Dunn, along with his colleagues, had all breached the institution’s “respect” policies.
He said that by finding him equally at fault with his colleagues “the inescapable conclusion” is that he had been discriminated against due to his “political philosophical beliefs”.
Over the next two years he had several other disputes over social policy with academic colleagues and students, he was eventually dismissed in August 2017.
Dr Dunn’s claim that he was discriminated against for his anti-PC beliefs was thrown out by the Judge Blackwell last month, who ruled that: “The belief that the tendency to favour what is palatable in social policy discussions over the truth (in colloquial terms this tendency is known as political correctness) is not a philosophical belief that has the protection of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.”
A Lincoln University spokesman said: “The claims by a former employee made in this case were dismissed by a tribunal panel. We welcome diversity of opinion and debate on our campus while treating staff, students and visitors with dignity and respect.”

Telegraph 

 Teaching children boys have periods too is not education, it’s ‘mythinformation’  

17 DECEMBER 2018 • 6:30PM

Children and their identity has become a hot topic in the classroom Children and their identity has become a hot topic in the classroom  CREDIT: NA/GETTY

That’s it: my daughter’s getting home-schooled. It’s either that or risk having a 7 year-old earnestly assure me at pick-up time that “boys have periods too, you know.” And now that Brighton & Hove City Council have officially approved plans to teach children that “all genders” can menstruate, it won’t be long until British kids are being taught that girls have testes, Paris is the capital of Romania – and 2 + 2 = 5.
It’s a victory for transgender rights campaigners, but also for Dr Seuss, who may as well be running the show for all the sense our green-eggs-and-ham world now makes. And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for menstruation being inclusive (you can have it chaps, be my guest) but there’s a teensy-weensy problem here called ‘biology’. And I know all that’s semantics and we’re living in an emotion-governed universe where even the leader of the free world shows a total disdain for facts, but they sort of do matter. And schools are the one place you’d hope would understand that.
When I wrote about the hijacking of childhood by the trans lobby last month – and lamented the knee-jerk reactions of an education system too scared to question its agenda – the reader response was the greatest and most impassioned I’ve had in thirteen years at this paper. The letters and emails came from men and women young and old, gay, straight and trans – and almost all zoomed in on the following quote from Dr Godfrey-Faussett.
Are we encouraging our children to question biological truths?

Are we encouraging our children to question biological truths? CREDIT: NA/GETTY

Reacting to the revelation that in one British school where a whopping 17 pupils were changing gender almost all had turned out to be autistic, the British Chartered Psychologist described what was going on as “state-sanctioned child abuse.”
It’s worth noting that not one of the Telegraph readers who wrote to me dismissed this as hyperbole. Not even those who admitted to having spent “a lifetime trapped in the wrong body” and were “grateful” for the medical advances that meant people no longer had to. Because much as the trans lobby likes to muddy the argument by declaring us all ‘transphobic’, that simply isn’t true.
Let people decide what’s right for them when they’re adults, was the general consensus. And I’d hope most fair-minded people would understand that the whole different strokes conversation does need to be had with kids. Certainly we’d all agree with the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health’s statement that “it’s helpful to children to learn the meaning of terms such as lesbian, gay and bisexual.” But at the right time.
Every parent knows how crucial timing is. And if anyone tries to tell me that primary school children are of sound and rational mind I shall point them in the direction of my daughter, who currently identifies so vehemently with a superheroine ladybird named Ladybug that she’d have the vile synthentic, highly flammable red and black-spotted onesie she refuses to take off surgically adhered to her body given half a chance.
Will she still be wearing that onesie next month though? Next week would be pushing it. But we’re not allowed to talk about fads. Fads are belittling to these fiercely progressive little humans whose innate, superior knowledge can’t be questioned.
Anna Friel playing the mother of a transgender child in Butterfly which was on earlier this year

Anna Friel playing the mother of a transgender child in Butterfly which was on earlier this yearCREDIT: ITV/ITV 

For Dr Godfrey-Faussett, who has worked extensively with children in schools and knows how forcibly the trans narrative is being pushed (from the reading of books like Michael Hall’s ‘Red: A Crayon’s Story’, about a blue crayon mistakenly labelled red who is suffering an identity crisis, and Sara Savage’s Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl to primary school children to the instant dismissal of teachers accidentally using the ‘wrong’ pronoun with a child suffering from gender dysphoria) it’s that lack of any questioning that’s most dangerous.
Teachers certainly aren’t allowed to question, since that’s seen as making a judgment, and in her psychological and counselling field, this stance has been taken still further: “A lot of the accredited bodies are recommendations to us as mental health practitioners. So if an individual comes to us with questions about their sexuality or gender, we are strongly advised to affirm it as opposed to help them question or explore what may be underlying it. This in my opinion challenges what I see as at the heart of therapy.”
Children, on the other hand, are being encouraged to question everything, from their very essence to their physical shape and, now, even the workings of their bodies. But telling children that boys can menstruate is not education, it’s mythinformation, pure and simple.
  

Telegraph 

Banning ‘harmful’ adverts? Rage, rage against the dying of common sense

15 DECEMBER 2018 • 5:58PM

Save
A happy housewife cooks on her new pink range, with a pot on the cooktop and a pumpkin pie in the oven, 1957.The Advertising Standards Agency has announced it will ban adverts that contain gender stereotypes. CREDIT: GRAPHICA ARTIS/HULTON ARCHIVE

It hardly matters how the country votes, it always seems to be governed by the Left. Diversity audits, the regulatory state, endless restrictions on choice and speech, yes some of this is the result of political decisions, made by Tory MPs desperate not to be thought Right-wing by their smart London friends. But more often it emerges out of that tangled web of quangos, agencies, authorities, committees, and “co-regulators”, run by an unaccountable Blairite technocracy that is as addicted to social engineering as it is divorced from the mainstream of opinion and impossible to replace.
Thus last week we discover that the advertising regulator will ban adverts containing “gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence”. I have some sympathy with those who dislike advertising that portrays men or women in outdated roles – mothers doing all the housework, or fathers being poor parents. But harmful? It assumes that viewers – gullible, malleable and weak – make life choices based on the partial narrative of a 30 second advert. And there is already a mechanism for expressing “widespread offence”: not buying the products being marketed, or complaining to the company itself.
But the regulators, the Committee of Advertising Practice which writes the rules and the Advertising Standards Authority which polices them, conform to O’Sullivan’s law: any organisation that is not explicitly Right-wing will become Left-wing over time. Most people accept that these bodies have a role in stopping advertising which wilfully misleads or hoodwinks the public, or in ensuring that inappropriate content is not broadcast to children. But should they be acting like philosopher-kings, determining what is good or bad for adults?
The regulation of corporate speech has become a veiled attack on free speech itself. Ludicrously, an advert for Costa Coffee was banned for urging customers to buy a bacon roll rather than an avocado because it “discouraged the selection of avocados”, and the coffee chain was told not to in future “condone or encourage poor nutritional habits”, a recipe for misery if there ever was one. An advert for Ford was banned, meanwhile, for apparently encouraging dangerous motoring when it contrasted the aspiration and freedom of driving a Mustang with life’s quotidian frustrations, set against a reading of Dylan Thomas’s poem Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.
There is a unifying worldview behind these disparate examples: that people do not have the wit or the ability to make up their own minds. We are feeble victims who need to be prevented from making bad decisions and protected from irresponsible corporate power. We are, in effect, children. And if we look back in a decade or so and wonder how a nation of sophisticated consumers ended up with a far-Left Corbyn government, part of the blame should be shouldered by the irresponsible bodies that implicitly endorsed his own infantilising agenda. Rage, rage against the dying of the light, and the technocrats who extinguished freedom.     
  Note: While there will be difference sin the learning  ability involved in learning to read ,  the idea that there is a specific mental disorder which makes reading abnormally difficult to going on impossible to read has always been suspect because of the ability of some schools, including those in poor areas ,  to achieve nigh on 100% of their pupils reading fluently. RH 
Telegraph 

Dyslexia no longer being diagnosed by councils who called the disorder ‘scientifically questionable’

Save
Roughly 10 to 15 per cent of children are thought to be dyslexicRoughly 10 to 15 per cent of children are thought to be dyslexic CREDIT: IAN HOOTON

11 JANUARY 2019 • 11:00PM

 
Dyslexia is no longer being diagnosed by councils who claimed the disorder was “scientifically questionable”.
Children across Warwickshire and Staffordshire now have little or not access to taxpayer-funded assessments, as officials “embraced a policy of not differentiating” between dyslexics and others who simply struggle to read.
However, experts have criticised the argument as merely a smokescreen for cuts.
It follows criticism directed at both local authorities in the House of Lords last October for a co-authored document arguing that “a diagnosis of dyslexia does not provide any additional information that is useful for addressing the difficulties nor does it predict the rate of progress”.
 
The guidance has since been withdrawn pending the outcome of a consultation.
However, The Daily Telegraph has spoken to experts and support groups in both counties who described the help available to dyslexic children as the “worst in 30 years”.
A major programme of in-school support in Staffordshire was cut last September, while parents in Warwickshire have reported being told by schools that dyslexia is no longer recognised.
It comes as Birmingham City Council, England’s largest local authority, said it was reviewing its special educational needs policy after two of its psychologists attended a conference at Durham University in September organised by scientists who questions the existence of dyslexia.
Meanwhile the British Dyslexia Association last night said it was “deeply concerned” by reports that at least 80 local authorities are planning to send representatives to a major conference at University College London this month staged by the same group.
Senior educational psychologists from both Warwickshire and Staffordshire county councils are billed as keynote speakers at the event.
Helen Boden, the BDA’s chief executive, said: “If you don’t test for dyslexia you’re effectively shutting the door for people applying for support.
“We risk losing a huge amount of talent – people’s lives are being messed about.”
“There is a major issue around costs.”
Both Warwickshire and Staffordshire county council’s last night insisted that they “do recognise dyslexia”.
However, a spokesman for Warwickshire said their approach “encourages teachers to identify and support all literacy difficulties as soon as a potential issue is identified rather than wait for a formal dyslexia diagnosis”, while a cabinet member for Staffordshire said: “The early support for all children with literacy difficulties does not discriminate by underlying cause.”
The comments follow the withdrawal of council-funded in-school special needs support in Staffordshire by services contractor Entrust, which is joint-owned by the council and Capita, leaving schools to use their own budgets to buy in specialist help.
The Daily Telegraph has seen an email from the company which said the decision had been made by local officials “due to financial pressures”.
Julie Cappleman-Morgan, co-founder of the Tamworth dyslexia support group Dig-iT, said: “Basically services have been decommissioned at a local level and people’s life chances have being massively hurt.”
Show more
Lesley Hill, who helps run the North Warwickshire and Coventry Dyslexia Association, said: “Availability is the worst it’s been here for 30 years.”
A diagnosis of dyslexia should allow council-funded support which could include extra literacy lessons, a laptop and specialist voice-recognition or text-reading software.
Last year Matt Hancock, the Health and Social Care Secretary, revealed he was dyslexic and that his career could have been “very different” had he not been given a spell-checker in school.
The 40-year-old later graduated with a first in Politics Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University.
However, Professor Julian Elliott, who is organising this month’s London conference, said: “If you’re testing for dyslexia, small numbers of kids get identified and prioritised but massive numbers with similar sorts of problems do not get helped.
“What a lot of services are trying to do are to find ways that would identify – rather than having a small number of children identified as dyslexic under very spurious criteria, they’re trying to find ways to identify all children who are struggling to read in local authorities.
“This could become a major move.”
Councillor Philip White, Cabinet Member, said: ” Staffordshire advocates early identification and evidence based intervention for all children experiencing literacy difficulties to ensure fair access to available resources and effective support.
“Children who do not make expected progress over time meet the BPS  1999 definition of dyslexia. This descriptor is accepted in Staffordshire.”
Meanwhile a Warwickshire County Council spokesman said: “We wish to state categorically that the council does recognise dyslexia along with many other special educational needs.
“The approach in Warwickshire encourages teachers to identify and support all literacy difficulties as soon as a potential issue is identified rather than wait for a formal dyslexia diagnosis.

“In this way pupils are supported at the earliest opportunity with appropriate support.”

Telegraph

Who’s the daddy? The truth about Britain’s paternity test problem

Richard Mason, the co-founder of Moneysupermarket, who discovered three sons from his marriage were not his Richard Mason, the co-founder of Moneysupermarket, who discovered three sons from his marriage were not his  CREDIT: HUW EVANS

10 JANUARY 2019 • 7:00AM

When millionaire Richard Mason made the shock discovery he was not, in fact, the father of his three sons, he was quick to call lawyer Roger Terrell.
The farmer’s son has become a sought-after expert in the murky world of paternity fraud – and business is booming.
“Richard wasn’t in a very good place,” Terrell says of his client, who is the co-founder of the price comparison website Moneysupermarket.com. “Psychologically the impact of this is severe.”
Earlier this week Mason, 55, revealed his personal torment in a newspaper interview. He said that following a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in 2016, he had been told most sufferers of the condition are infertile – and thus that it was extremely unlikely he would have been able to father his three sons, aged 23 and 19-year-old twins.
He confronted his ex-wife Kate, who eventually admitted she had engaged in an on-off affair with a colleague during their 20-year marriage, which ended in 2006.
Terrell represented Mason as he attempted to claw back a £4 million cash sum paid as part of his divorce settlement in 2008, while also pursuing his ex-wife for paternity fraud.
Richard Mason with his ex wife and the three sons he has discovered are not his

Richard Mason with his ex wife and the three sons he has discovered are not his CREDIT: KEVIN HOLT

Mrs Mason agreed at the end of November to settle matters with a payment of £250,000 – on the condition the biological father remained anonymous. Terrell believes the move may have been prompted by a desire to stop the identity being disclosed in court. In recent days Mason has suggested he will write a book about his ordeal and offer up a £5,000 reward to reveal the identity of the biological father of his sons.
Sensational it may seem but for Terrell, who established his solicitor’s firm in Peterborough in 1988, such stories are becoming routine work – albeit usually without such eye-watering sums at stake. He regularly receives enquiries from fathers as far and wide as Canada to New Zealand, as well as Britain: in total, the 64-year-old estimates he has handled more than 50 paternity fraud cases, 20 of which have gone to court.
“I’ve done these cases for senior partners in London legal firms, for doctors, for archaeologists, all sorts of sophisticated people,” he says. “Paternity fraud doesn’t discriminate.”
Certainly those in the business say such cases are far from refined to the sofas of trashy daytime television; this is a deceit that spans the class divide. Indeed until 1948 the Home Secretary was required to be present at the birth of a member of the Royal family, which Terrell says was to ensure the child was a genuine descendant of the monarch, and not an imposter being sneaked in.
Roger Terrell

Roger Terrell

Attempts to quantify the scale of Britain’s illicit fecundity are, as you might expect, vague. In 2016 a research project undertaken by scientists from KU Leuven University in Belgium suggested up to two per cent of British fathers may be victims of paternity fraud, adding that given a lack of hard evidence, prior scientific studies – some of which put that figure as high as 10 per cent –  may have been overestimates.
Anecdotally, though, the numbers are on the rise. British testing firm DNA Clinics analysed 5,000 results selected randomly from between January 2014 and June 2016, and discovered 51 per cent of English men had been ruled out as being the paternal father of children they had been tested for a genetic link to.
This increase in cuckolded men discovering they have been deceived is, according to Terrell and other legal experts in the field, due to home DNA testing kits being “much more prevalent,” he explains. Now widely available online for under £100, it means we have more conclusive genetic evidence about where we came from than ever before.
“DNA testing is much more prevalent, much cheaper and that is why these cases will increase,” he says.
Prior to Richard Mason, Terrell’s most high profile case was a client called Richard Rodwell. In 2013, the then 46-year-old factory manager made headlines after being awarded £25,000 in damages against his former wife after DNA tests revealed their 20-year-old daughter and her 18-year-old brother were not his biological children. Following his 2005 divorce, Rodwell paid out £15,600 in maintenance for the children before finding out they were not his.
When they discovered the truth, they cut all ties with him. He spoke of suffering from depression in the fallout and feeling as if he had endured a bereavement; whatever money he had secured following the legal battle, he said, could never expunge the grief.
Another client, Andy Phillips from Telford, Shropshire, received a £19,000 out of court legal settlement after discovering he had for years been paying child maintenance to a son that was not his. He said at the time he would never be able to forgive his former partner for the hurt.
Having seen the impact of such cases at first-hand Terrell believes paternity fraud should be made a criminal offence, but admits “the police will not pursue criminal prosecutions”.
To add insult to injury, there is little legal assistance available to those who have been deceived attempting to claw back child maintenance. In 2015 an unidentified university lecturer known only as Mr X in court was awarded compensation after it was ruled he had been a victim of “clear deceit and fraud” at the hands of his ex-wife, a successful businesswoman, who tricked him into believing the baby she conceived through IVF at a clinic in Spain was his child.
Richard Rodwell who discovered his two children were fathered by another man

Richard Rodwell who discovered his two children were fathered by another man CREDIT: DAVID CRUMP

But, because of legal precedent, the woman was not required to hand back the £60,000 in child maintenance she received after the couple split.
The close bonds forged raising a child mean other fathers simply cannot bring themselves to reveal the awful truth to their offspring.
Cheryl Grace, senior solicitor based at Stowe Family law in Leeds, currently has a client who has discovered his teenage daughter does not actually belong to him.
“He believed all the time she was his then his wife just turned round and said ‘she isn’t’,” Grace says.
Initially her client, whose marriage has since broken down, wanted to pursue a DNA test, but has since changed his mind.
“Now he has time to reflect he has realised he doesn’t want to risk ruining the relationship with his daughter,” she says, underlining that this really can happen to anyone.
“Human nature applies to us all,” she says. “It only takes a woman to get a bit tipsy at the Christmas party or be u

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.  Ronan Oger, a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party, had laid a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet called into question Oger’s fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the Bible’s account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn’t get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of Devyn Cousineau, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to LGBT causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was Dr. Willi Gutowski, a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he “has a particular interest in dissociative disorders.” No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. “Love and hate are both a choice of the will.” His expertise would have been crucial as Oger’s lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: “The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic.” Thus, the defence had but one witness — Bill Whatcott.

The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as Bill Whatcott argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion — in short, mental illness — as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two “X Chromosomes” — female; and X and a Y Chromosome — male. Apparently, if you’re born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls’ washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions, Devyn Cousineau  who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi for “misgendering” Oger by referring to him as “he”, instead of she.

CAFE has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14, Director Paul Fromm argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason — sexual identity, policies, history. Not all “discrimination” or advocacy of discrimination  is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.  Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as “she” or more awkwardly as “the complainant said in the complainant’s complaint” violated the Defence’s ability to be their authentic selves. “Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don’t believe or end up speaking in stilted 1984 Newspeak. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me ‘Emperor,'” he said.

CAFE argued Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet was not about “hate”. Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-False Creek, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet did not advocate “hate” much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.

The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi’s masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:

2              Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3              Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4              What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5              If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6              Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7              The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8              Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christophobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9              Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10           Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.”

11           Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12           These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13           The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

22           The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights. [The Tribunal reserved judgement.]

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

1        Although Whatcott described himself as a Christian activist, there are no doubt a handful of people who view him as a prophet of God, urging repentance from sexual immorality, and preaching that salvation is within reach of everyone.

2        Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3        Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4        What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5        If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6        Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7        The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8        Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christphobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9        Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10      Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.” Para. 52.

11      Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12      These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13      The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

14      Unfortunately, the legislation does not provide for a representative jury of Canada’s diverse population to decide the issue of “likely to expose.” As well the legislation does not provide a threshold subjective test added to the objective test, to filter out weak claims where there is no actual proof of causation or harm. Instead the panel is left to make a finding derived from three different versions of an objective test known only in the minds of the individual panel members.

15      Oger relies upon an analogy to bolster the argument that it is unlawful to campaign against the election of a black candidate on the basis that no black individual merits election on racial grounds. With respect, that is not the proper analogy. Recently in Spokane Washington a black activist woman and professor was outed by her own mother, who disclosed that her daughter was 100% white and lying about her racial identity. Black people were universally outraged, as this “poser” misappropriated racial identity to benefit from affirmative action, and deceived many supporters. Her lies left a bitter trail of hurt, degrading the progress the black community strived mightily to achieve.

16      The correct analogy in the case at bar is that same person who runs for office as a “black” candidate, but is genetically 100% white. If her own mother handed out a flyer claiming that her daughter was morally unfit for public office, this would not be received as hateful, but welcomed as the truth. People hunger for honest politicians, for deceit in one subject area may lead to deceit in other, much more important matters.

17      Oger admitted that some women feminists oppose transgender women. Oger identified Megan Murphy, who operates the publication, the Feminist Current, as one such individual. These women resent the sexual misappropriation claimed by transgender women. This is an ongoing hot political issue.

18      Oger’s ambition is to become the first transgender woman to be elected to the BC legislature. It is no different than the calling card of Hilary Clinton, who urged voters to elect her as the first female President of the United States. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed a cabinet that implemented affirmative action for women and diverse representatives of different races and cultures.

19      Canadian politics is rife with playing whatever “card” a politician possesses to gain political success. Oger follows this tradition by putting transgender identity into the NDP toolbox to promote the legal, social, and political agenda of Oger’s passion, namely the legislative reform and enforcement of transgender rights. What Oger did not anticipate, was that transgenderism, like abortion is a moral issue that just will not disappear. Making transgenderism legal, does not make it moral.

20      A political debate about morality, rooted in Christian morality that adheres to scripture, is not within the scope of hate. Genocide occurred in Rwanda when the dominant majority urged for the killing of the minority, by labeling them cockroaches that needed to be exterminated. That is hate speech. Today in South Africa, a political party seeking the seizure of land from white farmers, openly promotes the killing the white farmers. That is hate speech too. Whatcott’s flyer does not meet the legal test for hate speech.

21      Whatcott’s political and moral attack could have been easily handled by revealing the truth. Oger could have said he was born a male, raised as a boy, and made the life changing decision to identify as a transgender woman. Oger then could take the advantage by noting that the law registers Oger’s identity as a woman. Oger could then say it is unfair to be put into such a position to reveal personal and private information. The sympathy generated by Oger would have resulted in Oger’s election, for Oger could then claim to be completely truthful and a morally fit candidate for public office. Whatott’s flyer might then have resulted in fruitful search for the truth, a cherished value.

22      The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights.

23      The Tribunal is urged to apply Justice Harlan Stone’s footnote 4 from Carolene Products, 304 US 144 (1938), because s. 7 of the Human Rights Code does not protect a discrete and insular minority, namely Whatcott, nor flyers distributed in the course of political and moral debate in the political process. Human rights legislation that ordinarily is accorded the presumption of constitutionality, in the context of this case, must be subject to the equivalent of strict scrutiny.

24      Footnote 4 states:

          There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation….

Nor need we inquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious… or nations… or racial minorities…: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry…. [Italics added]

25      Finally, Whatcott contends that the abandonment of truth-seeking in the context of this hearing is an affront to the fundamental principles of justice found within s. 7 of the Charter. Whatcott’s security of the person and liberty is infringed, when truth is held to be irrelevant. No one may be deprived of liberty or security of the person in contravention of the fundamental principles of justice, which includes the search for truth as an integral part of any judicial or quasi-judicial administrative law proceeding.

26 Truth is absent in this case. Even if the entire content of the flyer is the truth, this Tribunal has already ruled those facts are completely irrelevant. Credibility is not allowed to be tested on cross-examination. All this makes the oath to tell the truth administered to witnesses irrelevant, since all that ultimately matters is the document and the Tribunal’s application of the “objective” test directed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

27      In Bracken, the Town Council was deeply offended to be called liars and communists in an impolite and unrestrained manner. However the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conduct of Bracken to be lawful, citing the following passage from Cusson v. Quan, 2009 SCC 62, at para. 125 as the final word on this topic:

“(d)emocracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those … who exercise power and authority in our society … Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy.”

Dated at Victoria, BC, this 16th day of December, 2018

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Persecution of British Yellow Vests

Persecution of British Yellow Vests
/19
In the past few hours the have: – Had their social media accounts banned – Had their PayPal account removed – Had ‘journalists’ show up at their elderly parents houses – Had lies spread about them on national TV and in the media Tell me there’s no establishment.

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:19 am

Image
A freak marching with a pride flag poll inserted in his rectum. The Liberal Party and Toronto Police believe it is an indictable offence worthy of a Canada wide arrest warrant and substantial jail time if one dares to deliver flyers criticizing parades that celebrate behaviours such as this. The Liberal Parties of Canada and Ontario believe in forcing taxpayers to pay for this and punishing taxpayers who speak out against this.

Image
Mr. Ronan Oger, Vice President of the BC NDP (right), posing with a lesbian wearing an obscene t-shirt (left). The BC Attorney General and BC Human Rights Tribunal believes it is illegal to criticize Mr. Oger and call him a biological male when he chooses to run for political office.

Dear Friends,

Please pray for my lawyers Daniel Santoro who will be present in College Park Court House in Toronto on Thursday, January 10th, and Dr. Lugosi who is also working on the case and who might be appearing via teleconference for the Judicial Pre-trial Conference. This court case on January 10th is in relation to the “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” charge I am facing for daring to disguise myself as a “gay” zombie and going into the Toronto Shame Parade, to deliver Gospel condoms (no condom, lots of Gospel) AKA “Zombie Safe Sex packages,” to the publicly funded parade.

To read about our courageous and very creative, covert ministry in the Toronto Shame Parade where guys like the one with a pride flag shoved in his butt were running around courtesy of your tax dollar go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526

Here is an accurate article which describes what happens to you when you dare to put out flyers criticizing tax funded parades that celebrate guys like the one in the picture above running around with a pride flag pole stuck in his bum: http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/28/can … sexuality/

The $104 million lawsuit’s Norwich order that I reveal my friends and supporters identities is being heard this week I think in the Ontario Court of Appeal. My understanding is I might be ordered to reveal my friend’s identities this week as our side’s work on the appeal is incomplete. Anyways, I remain committed to going to prison idefinitely and losing whatever assets they want to take, rather than jeopradize my friends (some of them have young families and could stand to lose their homes and retireent savings), and their “crimes” are literally making Gospel condoms for 1 hour or giving me $50 to help deliver the Gospel condoms in the parade.

The BCHRT Tribunal decision for correctly gendering the NDP transvestite politician and telling voters to not vote for him is likely coming very soon. Of course in all of this my wife, children, and me continue to have to survive.

For those who would like to support us you can do so here: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Matthew 6:19-21

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

3.1KSHARES

An important warning for Canada.

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitled “Environmentalism is new communism”. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states “communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

Klaus understands communist propaganda very well – he should. Most of us who lived and suffered under communism can instantly recognize any signs of communist ideology, no matter how slight or subtle. Since I received my own vaccination of communist propaganda, during the first 27 years of my life, I too am immune to this disease. If someone is trying to ‘save me’ against my will, I’m instantly wary and ready to fight back – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English!  If you think I’m paranoid, or that communism in North America is far-fetched, then good luck to you – I hope you enjoy what’s coming your way:

“You [North] Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Nikita Khrushchev  (1960)

Communism can be characterized by a single word: deception. Communists never disclose their real intentions. They are fraudsters who employ different identities, names and slogans, all for one goal: totalitarian enslavement. Since 1970, the goal of the Communist Party USA has been to subvert environmentalism and use it to advance their agenda. In 1972, Gus Hall, then chairman of the Communist Party USA, stipulated in his book “Ecology”:

Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible …This is true in the struggle to save the environment … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements. What is new, is that knowledge of [a] point-of-no-return gives this struggle an unusual urgency.

This idea was incorporated into the US Green Party program in 1989 (the same year soviet communism collapsed), in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet”:

This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …

First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.”

Do you think the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is promoting science rather than socialism?  Read the following admission from the co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III, during an interview in 2010 with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

“We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy … We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the world’s wealth.”

Do I have your attention? Then let me describe to you how communist propaganda and methodology work.  There are 3 main stages:

1.      Polarization  (KGB term: “demoralization”)

2.      Destabilization

3.      Revolution

Stage 1:          Polarization – Divide and Conquer

In order to win power, communists first polarize their target society. The notion of injusticeis introduced. One group of people – poor workers – are made to feel victimized by a second group, to the point that they demand civil discourse. Who are these people that supposedly victimize poor workers? Here’s a clue:

Communists don’t care about poor people, they just hate rich ones”  – George Orwell

The one thing a communist cannot abide is a wealthy person. For communists, the rich are owners of private businesses, especially successful ones. They are loathed and demonized as heartless, spiteful monsters who exploit their employees and don’t care about their welfare. The rich are public enemy #1 – they don’t care about people or the environment; they care only about profit and wealth. Dare to disagree?  Then you are a “denier” and “imperialist traitor”, and after completion of stage 3, you will be physically liquidated.

“We must hate. Hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”  – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

During the first stage, communists focus on altruistic people – people with big hearts, full of good intensions, who believe in doing good, for goodness’ sake. Why? Because idealistic people are usually naïve and easy to manipulate, especially via their emotions.  Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots”.

Stage 2:          Destabilization

During the second stage the basic values of society are targeted for change. This always starts with education:

Give me your child for eight years, and [he or she] will be a communist forever” –  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Communism always uses teachers and the education system to impose its ideology and promote its values – through indoctrination. My own indoctrination started in elementary school. In grade four, we all had to become Young Pioneers. From that day, we were taught about the ‘imminent danger’ posed by capitalistic countries. The curriculum in school gradually but firmly established admiration for communism and loyalty to the communist party. We were constantly reminded of how we live in the “best political system in the world”, the “country with the best social justice and equality”.

Our teachers participated in this process, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I remember teachers who actively reinforced communist indoctrination in schools.  They exploited a child’s emotional immaturity, lack of experience and knowledge –vulnerability – to impose their communist ideas, beliefs and values. They took advantage of their position of authority, of the natural trust that children place in teachers, to brainwash a young and vulnerable generation – to train the next generation of communists. Scare-mongering was a favorite tactic: “Embrace communism! Fear capitalism! Otherwise, your country will be overtaken by imperialists and you will be exploited! … Who is not with us is against us!”

If you think this can’t happen in Canada, then I have news for you: it’s been happening for some time, in both Canada and the US. The environmental cause was targeted years ago by communists as a catalyst for promoting socialism and paving the way for communism.

New communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as its agent of change, to completely alter the core values of western democracy and destabilize (demoralize) society.

As illustrated by the following excerpt from Captain Eco, written by Jonathon Porrit-Ellis Nadler and published in 1991, children are being indoctrinated in our schools, being made to believe that it’s their responsibility to ‘save the planet’:

“Your planet is in serious trouble – from pollution, toxic waste and the loss of forest, farmland and fresh water… Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they are little more than thieves. And they are stealing your future from under your noses.”

Some more examples:

·        In May 2012, a grade-3 class took to the streets of Toronto with signs, to protest the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The protest was organized by their teacher and a local community volunteer. Pure Marxist method.  Just like these kids, who marched in protest to “save the planet”, we too were made by our teachers to march with banners and signs to save our country from imperialists.

·        In 2011, in Laval, Quebec, a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a teddy-bear contest because a Ziploc was found in his lunch instead of a reusable container. How did this boy feel, after being ostracized and excluded from his peers? Maybe he felt punished for his parents’ action. What’s the next step?  Encourage children to report their own parents, who use Ziplocs instead of reusable containers – denunciation is common practice during communism.

·        In April 2018, an Edmonton father went to an elementary school to see his grade-4 daughter’s play. In the play, the children sabotaged a factory, in the name of climate-change, then went on to save Alberta from its “evil oil industry” and “greedy oil barons”. Textbook communist methodology – demonizing the private sector (oil industry) by representing them as “greedy oil barons”.

In some university lecture halls, professors are also trying to indoctrinate the new upcoming proletariat. Every time I see elite university students protesting capitalism and advocating socialism, I wonder if they realize that if they succeed, it will be their very last protest. In an interview recorded in 1984, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov described the consequences of ideological subversion (indoctrination). Here is a short excerpt:

A person who is demoralized (indoctrinated) is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him….even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures … even if I take him, by force, to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it … until he will receive a kick in his fat bottom.”

(Yuri Bezmenov – on “Useful Idiots” and the True Face of Communism)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ

The children currently attending our elementary schools will vote in 10-12 years. How many of these children are being (or have already been) brainwashed into believing that in order to “save the planet”, they must vote for a government that will stop “destroying the planet”, by eliminating private ownership and taking control of production?

“The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next

Abraham Lincoln

If you believe warm, cuddly socialism leads to utopian communism, in which equality and social justice prevail, then allow me to impart some insights about the ‘social justice’ delivered to us by communists. You deserve to know a little about the substance in which you will have to swim, before you dive into the cesspool called communism.

Stage 3:          Revolution

After gaining the support of a majority, communists call for a democratic election. If they win it, they seize power and abolish democratic elections altogether. At this point, members of opposition parties, along with all other opponents deemed to be a potential threat, are ‘physically liquidated’. (In case you aren’t familiar with this quaint communist phrase, it means executed). Private businesses are immediately seized and confiscated – nationalized. Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements. All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology, or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways. A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is now formed. (No hypocrisy here! After all those angry claims of exploitation by a privileged elite, what’s the first thing communists do once they gain power?) Leaders of every key institution or organization: company, hospital, police, school, etc. are now replaced by an official member of the communist party. Competence, ability or fitness for the job is no longer relevant or required; the only prerequisite is loyalty to the party.

Economic Consequences of Communism:

Do you think communism failed because of oppression?  No. You can brainwash and threaten people, keep them dangling like puppets, until the supply of goods starts to disappear.   Economic reality always prevails.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other’s people money.” – Margaret Thatcher

 The economic consequences of communism are always the same – poverty, and this one comes with an ironclad guarantee – a lifetime warranty. People always spend their own money more carefully than someone else’s. Capitalism is about efficiency. Private businesses must spend their capital very carefully. They cannot afford to make investments in their business, unless they are sure it will be worth it. A mistake could result in an increased price for their product, reduced cash-flow, loss of competitiveness, eventual bankruptcy.

In a centrally planned economy, all production is controlled by government. The revenue required to operate the government and the economy is obtained through taxation. Because a centrally planned economy is not subject to the laws of supply and demand, financial goals become meaningless, since there are no penalties for not achieving them.  Thus, long-term government plans are never fulfilled and financial goals are replaced by imaginary production quotas. The result is profligate waste and inefficiency on a monumental scale. Communism institutes mandatory employment with pre-determined duties and salaries. The problem is lack of goods and services. Even if you have money, you will have few opportunities to spend it for your own benefit.

Both socialism and communism believe in the abolishment of private business; economic resources may be ‘publicly owned’, but they are controlled by government. Communism is implemented in two stages. During the first stage (socialism), wealth is distributed to people according to their productivity. During the second stage (communism), wealth is distributed according to individual need, but it is the government who decides what those needs are, and if they even matter, not the individual. Remember the key word: deception? Socialism equals communism. Any political party or organization that advocates socialism is advocating communism. If you think socialism cares about democracy or freedom, then reread “Stage 3: Revolution” above.

Life under Communism:

What is life under communism like? In the Eastern Bloc countries, shortages of basic goods began in the 1980s. People had to get up at 3 AM in order to stand in line for basic necessities: bread, milk, meat, eggs, toilet paper, oil, et cetera. You could stand in line for hours and not even get a chance to buy something, once products ran out.

Other appealing aspects:

·        Want an apartment? You can’t buy one; real-estate markets don’t exist. You’ll probably get one (eventually) for free, but the government will decide the size, type, location, as well as your position in the queue, which may take years.

·        Want a car?  You must first submit an application, or buy a permit, to buy a car from the government, then wait in line, for years. The wait time might be 2-3 years, or it could be as long as 7-10 years.

·        Want to use some recreational facilities (government built, of course) for your vacation? You need to be approved by a labor union, and wait.

·        Want day-care for your child? Submit an application, and wait.

·        Want a garage for your car? Submit an application, and wait. I submitted an application for a garage in 1988. When I left Slovakia in 1997, I still had not received a response.

Sound idyllic? But here’s the best part: there’s no guarantee you will ever receive an apartment, car, garage, daycare, recreation, or anything else you might want. If there is anyrecord (ever) of your non-compliance with communist ideology, you will receive nothing. As one communist leader informed me, after I refused to become member of a socialist party: “Forget about an apartment, forget about day-care, forget about a salary raise, forget about any benefits.”   Communism results in the poverty of an entire society. By comparison, free-market capitalism has lifted the highest number of people out of poverty in human history.

Corruption under Communism:

Because of lack of goods and services, corruption and bribery become endemic under communism. Of course, corruption also exists in capitalist countries, but communism elevates it to a completely different (systemic) level.

 “It’s not what you know, but who you know.”

To function, in order to survive, you must have a network of connections, and pay bribes, for everything:

·        Education may be for free, but there’s no guarantee you’ll ever get into your desired school’s program, even if you have top marks. The state might have different plans for you, or for your child. But with good connections, and the timely delivery of a valuable gift to the school principal or party leader, anything is possible.

·        Health care may be for free, but if you want your doctor to be sober for your surgery, better pay up. Paying bribes to doctors in cash or gold was common in the Eastern Bloc. I was even told how much I must pay by the doctor himself.

·        Police are a special case: corrupt, enjoying their power immensely.  Did you speed? Your choice is between a lesser bribe and much more expensive ticket. No court, no argument, no place to complain.

·        Need anything from government employees? Good luck. Communists invented stamps of different sizes and shapes. To get your document (or permit) stamped, you must pay a bribe.

·        Want a new book, new clothes, or a better piece of meat? Better know the saleswoman and be really nice to her.

·        Your car has broken down and needs repair? Oh dear, now you’re in real trouble. Leaving a car in a repair shop entails the risk of good (functioning) components in your car being secretly replaced by inferior (or non-functioning) ones. The good components will be sold or exchanged for other goods. This is how exchange markets work under communism.

Due to lack of goods, everyone steals. We used to say: “Who is not stealing from the State is robbing his own family”. Without connections, you will remain in a queue for a very long time.

And finally, here’s a truly delicious irony for you. Do you think communists care about the environment? I remember hills near chemical plants laid bare, denuded of vegetation by polluted air and acid rain from towns where heavy metals were produced, places where aluminum had poisoned the ground-water, cities where the haze from industrial smog was so thick you couldn’t see through it, and it hung there for months, places where noxious compounds in the air forced residents to wear face-masks. Naturally, there were environmental laws, all conveniently ignored, in the name of glorious socialism.

The worst part is fear, of being arrested, of being tortured, of dying as a political prisoner in a prison, labour camp or uranium mine (slow death from radiation poisoning), incarceration in an insane asylum (you have to be crazy to oppose the regime), or of the same thing happening to someone you love. Fear is the primary tool for keeping people silent and obedient. Those who do not comply are interrogated, tortured, intimidated, put under surveillance as MUKL (destined for liquidation) by the Secret Police, or just killed (quicker and much easier). Those political prostitutes called informers are everywhere, especially universities. They’ll report everything you do or say. Forget about freedom, of action, speech or even thought. The Party controls everything, and you voted for them, didn’t you?

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. Those who have known freedom, then lost it, have never known it again”  – Ronald Reagan

How many people have been murdered in capitalist countries for not being supporters of capitalism? How many have been murdered by a capitalist state for being anti-capitalist?  If we turn the questions around and ask how many have been murdered in communist countries, the answer is between 80 to 100 million, globally.

We are currently in the second stage (destabilization) of the new green communism.  

Are we so gullible that we can be taken without one shot, as Khrushchev predicted? Have we all taken our (many) freedoms for granted? Are we prepared to gullibly give up those freedoms to those advocating ‘socialism’, or are we prepared to resist the tide of radical leftism? Socialism equals communism – and after reading this article, I hope you have no illusions about what it is or where it leads.

Canadians will soon have the chance to demonstrate if, and how much, they treasure their freedom.

Good luck, Canada!

Zuzana Janosova – den Boer