Fior Hernandez presents a special report on a Christian school in Alberta, Canada that has been restricted from using Scripture. – See more at: http://www.trunews.com/listen/#sthash.OjV6QW2O.dpuf
Ontario passes ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing gov’t to take kids from Christian homes
Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
TORONTO, June 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne Liberals have passed what critics describe as “totalitarian” Bill 89 by a vote of 63 to 23 on the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer.
Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.
Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.
It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”
At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.
“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.
“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”
“Disappointed as I am with this result, I am not surprised,” commented Tanya Granic Allen, president of Parents As First Educators (PAFE). “The Kathleen Wynne Liberals have for years been pursuing their anti-parent and anti-family agenda and Bill 89 is the latest installment.”
Conservative MPPs present at Queen’s Park for the vote opposed the bill, which was in stark contrast to their position at second reading in March, when 83 of Ontario’s 107 MPPs passed Bill 89 unanimously.
The Conservatives who voted June 1 against Bill 89 included Monte McNaughton, Jeff Yurek, Bob Bailey, Gila Martow, Todd Smith, Michael Harris, and Steve Clark.
PC leader Patrick Brown was not in the house for the vote.
Trillium Party MPP Jack MacLaren also voted against the bill.
A source present at a Tory caucus meeting two weeks ago told LifeSiteNews the Conservative members were swayed by “three or four” MPPs who said they could not in conscience vote for what the source described as a bill that is “fundamentally and morally wrong.”
The PC caucus, now at 28 members, thereupon decided to vote as a block against Bill 89, according to the source.
Fonseca lauded those PC MPPs who “came to their senses, stopped listening to that propagandist for Kathleen Wynne’s policies, and I do mean Patrick Brown, and chose to finally vote against tyranny.”
“And thank God they did, because it serves as a symbol of resistance,” he said.
“CLC had been directly lobbying MPPs to oppose the bill, and we believe that may have been a factor in why the PCs ended up voting en masse against it.”
Parents As First Educators and the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) have also been at the forefront of relentless lobbying against the bill.
But despite these efforts, no Liberal broke ranks to vote on behalf of concerned parents, and a number of New Democratic Party MPPs voted for the bill as well.
Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.
But while the former law said the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 adds “including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services,” according to an ARPA analysis.
“The implication is that intervention should not be presumed to be more disruptive than non-intervention,” the ARPA report adds.
Statements by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau clearly signaled the pro-LGBTQ, gender ideology Liberal agenda, critics warned.
Coteau, who introduced the bill, told QP Briefing he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.
“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” he said.
“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”
Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity’, if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.
“We already see similar tyranny happening in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where the main child protection service there, Barnevernet, has been involved in numerous high profile seizures of children from traditionally-principled families,” he added.
Fonseca pointed out the Liberal bill gives legal cover for government workers to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children.
“Even before Bill 89 was passed, but immediately after its introduction in December, I learned of several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption on account of their deeply held religious beliefs about traditional marriage and human sexuality,” he told LifeSiteNews.
This reveals the “stunning hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry” of the left, Fonseca said.
The Ontario court in 1995 ruled “for the first time in Canadian history that it was ‘discriminatory’ of the Child and Family Services Act to not allow homosexual couples to bring a joint application for adoption.”
But the “same activists who cried discrimination in 1995 [are] now actively legislating the same discrimination upon Bible-believing Christians, by banning them from having children through adoption,” Fonseca said.
“Will the left never feel ashamed of its hypocrisy?”
Fonseca also issued a plea to Christian leaders, particularly the Catholic bishops.
“Why has the most powerful spiritual body in this province, the Catholic hierarchy, not lifted a finger nor raised a voice to oppose this tyranny against Christian families, and those from other faiths?” Fonseca questioned.
“The lack of spiritual leadership is killing us. Every single time that Liberals, either federally or provincially, roll out the LGBT juggernaut to take away our rights, or to demonize us as bigots, we hear nothing but silence from the Church. This has to stop.”
MPPs who voted against Bill 89:
PC Party: Ted Arnott; Bob Bailey; Toby Barrett; Steve Clark; Lorne Coe; Vic Fedeli; Ernie Hardeman; Michael Harris; Lisa MacLeod; Gila Martow; Jim McDonell; Monte McNaughton; Julia Munro; Rick Nicholls; Sam Oosterhoff; Randy Pettapiece; Todd Smith; Lisa Thompson; Bill Walker; Jim Wilson; John Yakabuski; Jeff Yurek.
Trillium Party: Jack MacLaren
PC MPPs absent for vote:
Patrick Brown, Raymond Cho, Randy Hillier; Sylvia Jones; Norm Miller; Laurie Scott.
MPPs who voted for Bill 89:
Liberal Party: Laura Albanese; Granville Anderson; Yvan Baker; Chris Ballard; Lorenzo Berardinetti; James Bradley; Michael Chan; Bob Chiarelli; Mike Colle; Michael Coteau; Grant Crack; Steven Del Duca; Bob Delaney; Nathalie Des Rosiers; Vic Dhillon; Joe Dickson; Han Dong; Brad Duguid; Kevin Daniel Flynn; John Fraser; Jennifer French; Ann Hoggarth; Eric Hoskins; Mitzie Hunter; Helena Jaczek; Sophie Kiwala; Marie-France Lalonde; Jeff Leal; Tracy MacCharles; Harinder Malhi; Amrit Mangat; Cristina Martins; Deborah Matthews; Bill Mauro; Kathryn McGarry; Eleanor McMahon; Ted McMeekin; Peter Milczyn; Reza Moridi; Glen Murray; Indira Naidoo-Harris; Yasir Naqvi; Arthur Potts; Shafiq Qaadri; Lou Rinaldi; Liz Sandals; Charles Sousa; Harinder Takhar; Glenn Thibeault; Daiene Vernile; Soo Wong; Kathleen Wynne; David Zimmer.
ND Party: Gilles Bisson; Sarah Campbell; Catherine Fife; France Gélinas; Percy Hatfield; Paul Miller; Peggy Sattler; Peter Tabuns; Monique Taylor; John Vanthof.
Canadian Officials Promote Bill Forcing Catholic Schools To Launch Gay Clubs
Pope says we need to form a relationship with the Muslim faith. If both joined there would be 2 billion people in his new religion. I sense it a start to One World Religion.
Catholic school funding in Saskatchewan
YORKTON, Sask. — The Saskatchewan government doesn’t have the legal right to give Catholic schools funding for students who aren’t Catholic, a judge ruled Thursday.
Justice Donald Layh’s ruling stems from a lawsuit over the province’s policy of funding separate schools based solely on student enrolment without regard to the religious affiliation of the students.
The dispute involved the public Good Spirit School Division, the Christ the Teacher Catholic Separate School Division and the provincial government.
In 2004, Yorkdale School Division, now Good Spirit School Division, closed down its kindergarten-to-Grade 8 school in the town of Theodore because of declining enrolment. The division planned to bus students to the community of Springside, located 30 kilometres away.
In response, a local group created its own Catholic school division and opened St. Theodore Roman Catholic School. That prompted Good Spirit School Division to launch a lawsuit claiming the creation of the new school division was not to serve Catholics in the community, but rather to prevent the students from being bussed to a neighbouring town.
Layh’s ruling noted there is a growing number of non-Catholic students attending Catholic schools in the province.
He said provincial government funding of non-minority faith students attending separate schools infringes on religious neutrality and equality rights.
He said his judgment will cause significant repercussions in the province but says his ruling won’t have to be enforced until June 30 of next year.
The Saskatchewan government declined to comment on the ruling, saying it had to review the decision first.
Catholic schools in Ontario, Canada will no longer be permitted to teach Catholic doctrine regarding to homosexuality. Glenn Murray, an openly gay member of Provincial Parliament, rebuked Ontario’s Catholic bishops for refusing to launch “gay clubs” in Catholic schools.
“I have to say to the bishops: ‘You’re not allowed to do that anymore,’” said Mr. Murray, who serves as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. “I would never say to you that anything that goes on in your family with the person you love—can you imagine me describing a husband-and-wife relationship as inherently depraved?” he added.
Mr. Murrays comments, made during a debate over Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act, “amount to a declaration of war against the Catholic Church and all people who support traditional moral values,” said Suresh Dominic of Campaign Life Catholics.
“We’ve been saying all along that McGuinty wants to dictate what the Church can teach in its schools and here it is straight from the government’s mouth.”
As part of an “anti-bullying” effort, Ontario’s New Democratic Party intends to force the Catholic Church into naming clubs in its schools “gay-straight alliances.” Catholic bishops and over 2,000 concerned parents and pro-family advocates have protested the bill and called for its defeat.
The current Minister of Education Laurel Broten has referred to Bill 13’s opponents as “homophobic.”
However, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada states that Bill 13 threatens to undermine religious and parental freedom, and the group warned Premier Dalton McGuinty, “Should your government fail to make the necessary amendments to Bill 13 to ensure its constitutionality, we share the opinion of several Canadian constitutional law lawyers that Bill 13 will be setting up the province of Ontario to likely face years of expensive, taxpayer funded litigation.”
Critics say that Bill 13 threatens to undermine religious and parental freedom by bowing to the pressure of homosexual activists. A crowd of concerned parents estimated at 2,000 from a wide range of ethnic and faith backgrounds rallied last week outside Ontario’s legislature to protest the proposed bill.
While the EFC believes that “no child should be bullied, marginalized or suffer discrimination for any reason,” they argue that Bill 13 falls short in many ways.
They take issue with the bill’s definition of bullying, which they say includes ambiguous concepts such as “ought to know”, “likely to cause”, and “real or perceived power imbalance”.
The EFC says it is “troubling” to state that “the pupil ought to know” something, since every child “varies greatly in his or her level of development, understanding and maturity.” They wonder who will determine what a child ought to have known.
Likewise they see the term “likely to cause” as “vague language [that] is troubling” since “children develop at different rates and parents can attest to the fact that children, depending on their age, may differ greatly in their ability to foresee the consequences of certain words or actions.”
The EFC is also concerned with the term “a real or perceived power imbalance”, wondering who perceives the power imbalance and from whose perspective. They wonder if power imbalances are consistent, and if they do change from day to day, who accounts for the change.
“Parents of a faith background are concerned that certain religious beliefs or religious texts on sexuality and marriage may be captured by the vague language ‘likely to cause’”, wrote the EFC.
“Does Bill 13 take into consideration freedoms of religion and expression? This concern is heightened, firstly, given the special consideration that Bill 13 places on ‘incidents based on homophobia’ without defining the term ‘homophobia’”.
The EFC is recommending that Bill 13 be “amended to remove the ambiguous language that may capture behaviours that are not bullying behaviours or are expression protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Prior to writing the open letter, the EFC had compiled a review of recent statistics on bullying in Canadian schools. In By the Numbers: Rates and Risk Factors for Bullying: A Brief Examination of Canadian Bullying Statistics, the EFC provided an up-to-date overview of bullying trends, the existing data on the frequency of bullying incidents, and an analysis of risk factors for bullying.
The review uncovered that a number of factors increase a student’s risk of being bullied, including “appearance, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, grades, and socioeconomic status.”
“While some have asserted that the primary reason for bullying may be a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation, the data demonstrates that bullying behaviours target a number of distinctive factors among children,” the authors of the review point out.
According to one study in Toronto which surveyed 105,000 students, the most common kind of bullying identified was based on body image. The second most common kind was based on grades or marks.
“While we might think from the media coverage that children are most often bullied for reasons relating to sexual orientation or gender identity, students are actually most frequently bullied, both in traditional forms of aggression as well as through cyber-bullying, for three primary reasons: body image or appearance; school grades or marks; and cultural background and race,” said Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel, in a press release yesterday.
“One survey showed that body image alone accounted for 38% of cases of bullying, grades or marks accounted for 17% and cultural background for 11%,” he said.
In reference to the proposed content of Bill 13, the EFC suggested in the review that “while all children are equally deserving of dignity and respect, the special focus on LGBTQ students may artificially skew the statistical reality that this demographic makes up only a small portion of all bullied children and may unintentionally serve to minimize the suffering of victims of other forms of bullying.”
Hutchinson pointed out that any initiative that seeks to reduce bully needs to be based on good data.
“We believe that no child should be bullied, marginalized or suffer discrimination for any reason,” he said. “And we believe that if we’re going to reduce bullying in Canada,
Pope Francis: It is ‘better to be an atheist than hypocritical Catholic’
Pontiff says some Catholics should say ‘my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, [I lead] a double life’
Since his election in 2013, the pope has often told Catholics to practice what their religion preaches EPA Pope Francis has said it is better to be an atheist than one of “many” Catholics he said lead a hypocritical double life.Delivering another criticism of some members of his own Church, the pontiff said: It is a scandal to say one thing and do another. That is a double life.”There are those who say ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association’,” the head of the 1.2 billion-member Roman Catholic Church said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript.
He said some of these people should also say “‘my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, [I lead] a double life’.”
“There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal,” he said. “How many times have we all heard people say ‘if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist’.”
Since his election in 2013, the pope has often told Catholics, both priests and lay people, to practice what their religion preaches.
In his often impromptu sermons, he has condemned sexual abuse of children by priests as being tantamount to a “Satanic Mass”, said Catholics in the mafia excommunicate themselves, and told his own cardinals to not act as if they were “princes”.
Please copy the link below to see 45 minutes of Jewish history.
In Red China, a pastor and two Christian girls were sentenced to death. They promised the pastor his freedom if he would shoot the girls. The girls waited in the prison yard, only to discover that their executioner was their pastor. He explained the situation. They said, “Before you shoot us, we wish to thank you for what you’ve meant to us. You taught us the way of eternal life. May God bless you for all the good you’ve done to us. You also taught us that Christians are sometimes weak and commit terrible sins, but they can be forgiven. When you regret what you’ve done, don’t despair like Judas, but repent like Peter and God be with you. Remember that our last thought was not one of anger against your failure. Everyone passes through hours of darkness. We die with gratitude.” The pastor shot them and was then shot by the Communists. A powerful and deep lesson from the k ingdom. Whatever betrayal, hurt, disappointment, or injustice people have done against you isn’t anything in comparison. In this case, learn not from the pastor, but from his congregants.