Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau released his full package of campaign promises this week, an 88-page plan covering a host of issues that matter to– wait for it– the middle-class. There’s been little (read: no) media coverage on his firearm policy, so I thought to jot down a few notes here (admittedly, lifted from a Twitter rant earlier this morning).

The platform begins with the words, “We will take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.” Really? Seems to me these measures target law-abiding gun owners, not criminals.

Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 12.09.46 PM

Grievances follow:

  • “Repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit…C-42 does neither. Also, ATTs are useless documents that amount to a license on top of a license.
  • “Will put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police.” In other words the Liberals with give reclassification power back to the RCMP lab-rats who created unnecessary dramas like those that unfolded with the Swiss Arms and CZ858 crises.
  • “Modify the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee…” Translation: Stack it with antis.
  • enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm” Save a cavity search, you have all my info! Clue: Think like a Liberal… Install another layer of bureaucracy. Perhaps CFO reassessment or guarantee with each new restricted firearm? Could take weeks, months even.
  • “Require purchasers of firearms to show a license when they buy a gun…” We already do that in stores! This provision targets Internet sales and would kill legal exchanges for online retailers.
  • “And require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the license is valid before completing the sale.” They already do that! But, wait… Why have 10  bureaucratic layers when you could have 20?  Perhaps retailers will have to call in every purchase to ensure validity?
  • “Require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales…” FFS. I can’t even buy ammo without being recorded already.
  • We will not create a new national long-gun registry.” They’ll just repeal parts of C42, increase record requirements for firearms vendors.
  • We will ensure that Canada becomes a party to the international Arms Trade Treaty.” Really? A sketch of the most noxious provisions follows:
    • Article 2 defines scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance — including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.
    • Article 3 places “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” – within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.
    • Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.
    • Article 11 is concerned with “Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency” and seems to hint at a registry for signatories… “Such records may contain … end users as appropriate.”
    • Finally, the agreement demands that nat’l govts take “appropriate measures” to enforce terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get ‘er done, Article 16 provides for UN assistance including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” (!!!) Also, a “voluntary trust fund” to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm citizens.


All that to say: ‘s policy on firearms demonstrates a lack of knowledge, even research on the topic from both him and his team.






Posted on by Faith Goldy in Catholic Register | 2 Comments
There is a metastasizing false belief in Christian circles that suggests socialism is the system most consistent with God’s will. This belief has lured the faithful away from Christ’s teachings and convinced them that the Jesus encountered in Scripture is some sort of divine Robin Hood.
I’m sure the godfathers of Christian socialism — men such as Tommy Douglas, Desmond Tutu, Leo Tolstoy and several Brits in the 1960s — had good intentions. But where have they led us?
I found myself asking that question while travelling the Pelopponnesian coast of Greece this summer. Greece is — pardon the pun — a nation in ruins. Some 200 billion euros in debt, Greece is at the mercy of a shrinking group of overlord lenders, battered by the crisis of refugees landing by the thousands and buckled by austerity measures that are hitting its most vulnerable citizens the hardest. Amidst this, Greeks will head to the polls for the second time in just eight months on September 20.
Until recently, Alexis Tsipras was the elected leader of Greece. Tsipras, an atheist who neither married in a religious ceremony nor baptized his children and refused the religious oath of office. Tsipras, a hardline socialist who gave his youngest son the middle name Ernesto — a tribute to Che Guevara, the Marxist mass-murderer who Tsipras cites among his idols.
It’s baffling. How could a nation that is 97 per cent Greek Orthodox Christian elect a militant atheist socialist who reveres a violent revolutionary and expect him to repair a failing economy? I didn’t understand, so I asked the locals, every one of them a self-identified believer.
“Why Tsipras? As an Orthodox Christian, how can you reconcile your vote with your conscious?”
My anecdotal survey yielded nearly unanimous results: believers justified their vote by virtue of his socialist credentials. One villager went as far to say, “If Jesus were here today, he’d run for Syriza (Tsipras’ socialist party). Jesus preached socialism!”
Now hold on a tick! It’s one thing to argue God would vote for the blue, red or orange team but I feel quite comfortable in asserting that Jesus is not a socialist. In fact, Scripture suggests he was the opposite.
Take property rights, a key contrast between socialism and capitalism. While socialism often supports state control or ownership of industry and property, capitalism seeks the free exchange of privately owned goods and services. The Ten Commandments include laws against theft of property, and even envying our neighbour’s goods is against moral law.
While Scripture teaches that humans are children of God, it also reveals the human heart is disfigured. So any system of economics should consider our sinful nature. But, historically, socialist systems have enabled an elite which has controlled and exploited the masses. Free-market democratic systems, by contrast, encourage individuals to prosper and invest as they see fit.
Christian socialists argue that capitalism promotes greed and exploitation. But consumption, over-spending, borrowing, hyper-taxation and inflation are not capitalism. They are the products of our sinful natures. Since roughly the end of WW II, Western society has pursued a doomed economic model that urges us to overspend our way to happiness. But instead of prosperity and freedom, many of us have become slaves of debt.
What ultimately renders socialism incompatible with Christianity is its views concerning the nature of man. Socialism dictates that men serve government; our faith teaches that men are here to serve God. The socialist view disregards the true dignity and nature of man — his rationality and free will — as espoused by the Church.
Second to serving Him, Christ commands that we love our neighbour as we love ourselves. This presupposes our self-interested, self-loving nature. Free-market capitalism taps into this self-interest. To turn a profit, a seller must offer a product at a price and quality pleasing to the buyer. By placing the buyer’s needs first, the seller is able to meet his own needs as well. A seller can support their family by meeting the needs of a neighbour. Self-interest drives a seller’s desire to profit and it results in him serving others.
There is no shortage of Biblical passages that remind us what to do with our profit: save, invest and give generously to charity.
The Church and the free markets agree there is dignity in work. Christians, in Greece and elsewhere, might do well to see this bigger picture. Caring for the truly poor is necessary, but intentionally creating dependence is immoral.


Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From his “Who am I to judge?” remark in reference to homosexuals to the so-called cap-and-trade encyclical, Pope Francis has been accused of diverting the gospel into a series of ill-supported political pronouncements. While such musings are often misrepresented and over-stated by the mainstream, I must confess: the Pope’s most recent comments on weapons have me in a bind.

Pope Francis issued his strongest rebuke of firearms yet during his visit to the Italian city of Turin on Sunday saying, “If you trust only men, you have lost,” adding, “It makes me think of… people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?” Finally, the Bishop of Rome extended fault to those who invest in the weapons industry, asserting “duplicity is the currency of today… they say one thing and do another.” Meanwhile, Sunday was not the first time Pope Francis denounced the weapons industry as, last year, he referred to gun makers as “merchants of death.”

Before wading into dissent, let’s be clear: While the chattering classes make as if the doctrine of papal infallibility applies to everything he utters– that’s simply not the case. The pope was not issuing a pronouncement on matters of faith or morality and he was certainly not speaking ‘ex cathedra.’ As a law-abiding gun owner and Catholic in good standing, I am free to dispute the Holy Father’s present view that these lots are somehow duplicitous or hypocritical.

On the topic of hypocrisy one might point to the Swiss Guards, charged with protecting our Holy Father, who have at their disposal an armoury of firearms and ammunition. Even the first pope in Simon Peter was depicted with a sword (recall how he cut off the ear of one of Jesus’ captors). But, to tell you the truth, delineating a history of papal defence is too simple, too shallow an argument to make. The same goes for a hunter’s use of firearms, paired with the ‘God gave us dominion over the animals’ tirade– it’s just too easy.

More compelling grounds for the presence of weapons and their proper role in society are plainly found in both The Bible and Catholic Catechism.

Consider the chief application of weapons: during times of war. While the fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life, evil and injustice in this world are such that the Church recognizes states need to be armed for reasons of legitimate defence. Two great Christian theologians shaped what is known today as the ‘just war theory,’ a doctrine cited several times in both the Catholic Catechism and international convention alike. Saint Augustine of Hippo was one of the first to assert a Christian could be a soldier and serve God and country honourably while Saint Thomas Aquinas, some nine hundred years later, used Augustine’s arguments to convey the strict conditions under which a war can be just.  Of course war should always be avoided; in some instances, however, war is inescapable. And so, if appropriate and Church-sanctioned criteria are considered, then how can we condemn those who help history’s good guys in their fight? The work of  Augustine and Aquinas was not hypocritical; rather,  the height of sincerity: both used their Catholic insight to assert the permanent validity of moral law, even in armed conflict. And, while many leaders, civilians, and soldiers worldwide fall short of the just war ideal, it’s very existence means– on a macro scale– Christian weapons manufacturers and investors are not necessarily duplicitous or hypocritical creatures.

On a smaller scale, the United States Second Amendment is perhaps the most striking protection of individual rights to firearms ownership. The ultimate end of the Second Amendment is to ensure one can defend oneself against any kind of illegal force, whether from a neighbour, an outsider, or from one’s own government. The goal of this amendment is to preserve liberty, not make war, and– while no such right exists in my native land, Canada– one might argue the origins of self-defence and personal weapons ownership are, in fact, Biblical.

Remember the Israelites were expected to carry their own personal weapons as every man defended himself. “And David said to his men, “Every man strap on his sword!” And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage” (1 Samuel 25:13). No service men were called upon; rather, civilians were expected to carry their arms and fight if necessary. Additionally, in Psalm 144:1, David wrote: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…” One would do well to recall that nowhere in Scripture is self-defence forbidden; in fact, one can find examples where God actually sanctions self-defence. “If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder” (Exodus 22:2), while this point is reiterated in section 2263-2264 of the Catholic Catechism.

More contemporarily, though, recall the Vatican’s unusually blunt endorsement of military action against the Islamic State. Unlike their opposition to the two US-led Gulf Wars, Vatican representatives in Geneva did not shy away from labelling ISIL’s terrorism against Christians and other minority groups to include acts of “genocide,” saying the coordinated international fight against them was, indeed, “legitimate.” While the Vatican prevails as both a Holy and a political office, it is within the purview of the faithful– some might even argue it is incumbent on them– to point out political inconsistencies. Perhaps the present pope is receiving bad advice, Lord knows he wouldn’t be the first. Perhaps he didn’t mean to allude to faithful firearms investors as hypocrites, Lord knows we’ve muddled his message before. Surely there exists a great majority of gunnies who agree violence, murder, and war ought to be avoided, because Lord knows, if there’s one thing I love more than my handgun, it’s Him.

Faith in the crosshairs

Posted on by Faith Goldy in Catholic Register | Leave a comment
In a matter of days the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to release a historic decision on same-sex marriage. While the top court has ruled on issues related to gay unions in the past, this time they will address the big question: is marriage a fundamental right afforded to every citizen under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Oral arguments in the spring indicated a divide among the nine justices, yet the court is widely expected to affirm a homosexual’s constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That would mean an end to the current patchwork of laws that permit same-sex marriage in some states and deny it in others. The Supreme Court decision, regardless of how it goes, will be final with no right of appeal.
The two sides in the debate are no doubt already practicing their refrains: religious freedom advocates expressing worries of a slippery slope and a hierarchy of rights, versus progressives and atheists who view this as a step forward in civil rights and secularism.
Traditionalists and religious will no doubt continue to push back, but the other side has a point — America is quickly becoming a secularized nation. Americans who identify as Christian have declined by some 20 per cent since 1960. Gallup Politics found that the majority of Americans age 35 to 55 consider the following behaviours “morally acceptable”: gay/lesbian relationships (54%), non-marital sex (63%), divorce (66%), out-of-wedlock birth (67%), and embryo-destructive research (59%). So it’s unsurprising that many people now demand these secular sentiments be reflected in the law.
But is that all this is, a reflection of the modern ethos of secularism? Or is there something more vigorously hostile afoot?
One needn’t dig deep to discover that secularism is a cipher for the active dechristianization of America. From the Hobby Lobby case that challenged the right of Christian family owned businesses to refuse to pay insurance coverage for contraception, to a Christian bakery found guilty of a civil-rights violation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple,  examples abound of a fierce campaign, by public servants and civil society alike, to deny Christians freedoms protected by the Constitution.
Perhaps the steadiest attack on faith and religious freedom is occurring in the military. In the past five years, attacks on the Christian faith have grown and include: commanders being barred from promoting chaplaincy programs; a navy directive banning Bibles from a hospital; an army reserve training program that listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism; and an army email that listed some prominent Christian ministries as “domestic hate groups.” This comes after the controversial policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed to allow people who identify as gay or lesbian to openly serve in the armed forces.
If a process of dechristianization is indeed underway, is it certain to succeed, as many modern crusaders claim? Much has been written on the role history can play in forecasting the future. One Winston Churchill quote comes to mind: “The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” Friction between religion and civil society has a long history.
During the Enlightenment, post-Reformation Europe swelled with anti-Christian sentiment. While some thinkers used reason to embolden their faith, the majority sought to do away with God as a source of authority. This was particularly true in once-Catholic France. There, a belief system known as the cult of reason usurped Christian thought, causing historic cathedrals like Our Lady of Strasbourg to be turned into temples of reason and a prostitute in priest’s garments to be venerated as the goddess of reason at Notre Dame. To purge France of clerical trappings, the government of the French Revolution even replaced the seven-day calendar from Genesis with a 10-day week.
Today in France, much like other European nations, religion is again becoming a fault line. Immigration and birth rates have led to a sharp rise in Islam, with Mohammed becoming the most popular boy’s name in much of France and Britain as a whole. Legislators are wrestling with how to address seismic shifts in demographics and social attitudes, and wondering how religion fits into increasingly secular societies.
That same debate is occurring in Canada and the United States. But as Americans wait for the Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage, one wonders if history has already determined their course.


A crumbling foundation

Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
As advocates of same-sex marriage celebrated Ireland’s recent referendum, supporters of traditional marriage were left to lament yet another defeat. Meanwhile, I attended the sacramental union of my beautiful sister Alexandra to her dashing husband Michael.
The wedding was an intimate affair and it marked the third generation of our family married in Toronto’s iconic St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church. It got me thinking: with all the focus on same-sex battles are the faithful losing the marriage war?
Alexandra and Michael are new members of a steadily contracting club. Across the globe, marriage is in a state of crisis.

Canadian census data shows marriage in decades-long decline. In its place, a growing number of Canadians are living in common-law relationships, single-parent families or alone. Furthermore, families are getting smaller as birth rates decline.

The situation is worse in the United States. Compared to 72 per cent in 1960, only half of Americans are tying the knot today. The number of American couples living together outside of marriage has grown 15 times since 1960. Across Europe, marriage rates are down nearly 40 per cent since 1970. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico and other industrialized nations have seen similar rates of knot-tying decline.
But is a falling marriage rate such a bad thing? Simply put: Yes, it is. Marriage is the foundation for families, which are the building blocks of civilized society.
One needn’t be a person of faith to acknowledge that truth. The United Nation’s General Assembly acknowledges, “families, as the basic units of social life, are major agents of sustainable development at all levels of society, and their contribution is crucial for its success.”
The family has been the original social security net throughout history and could serve to help remedy so many of today’s crises in education, healthcare, finance and elderly care. It’s why all of Canada’s major political parties in an election year are eyeball to eyeball over who gives more support to  families.
Strong families are also smart economics. According  to The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, if the number of married households in the United States today equaled the number in 1980, “the growth in median income of families with children would be 44 per cent higher.” On average, married couples have more income and wealth, with savings that last into retirement. According to a 2012 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the median 65 to 69 year-old married household had saved almost 10 times more money than the typical single-person household.
To the ladies who have swallowed the women’s lib kool-aid, here’s a tip: marriage isn’t just for the little people. A 2012 Brookings Institution study found the only category of women experiencing an increase in marriage rates are those in the top 10 per cent of earnings, which mirrored the experience of men.
On an individual level, and contrary to the punchlines of so many jokes, psychological evidence shows a correlation between marriage and reduced rates in depression, anxiety, trouble with the law, drug and alcohol use, not to mention longer life expectancy. Yet 40 per cent of those questioned in a Pew Research Centre study agreed marriage is obsolete.
What would a society without marriage look like? When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in 1917, they regarded the family as a bourgeois institution and set out to destroy it. One of the first decrees of the Soviet government abolished the term “illegitimate children.” Simultaneously, a law was passed which made divorce a procedure of only a few minutes that could be obtained at the request of either partner.
In the aftermath, men sought out multiple partners and began having children with them all. There was an epidemic of divorce and it became common for women to have three or four abortions by the time they were 20. There was also a sharp increase in children being raised by a single parent, or being abandoned en masse.
The Bolsheviks subsequently reversed their destructive family policies in the face of a reality they could no longer ignore: without strong families, a heathy society is impossible.
If current trends continue, the jurisdictions that legalize same-sex unions will increase while traditional marriages hit record lows. I don’t know how this experiment will end. For now, couples like Alexandra and Michael stand as pillars for an institution in decay.


Patrick Brown would do well sticking to the facts

Posted on by Faith Goldy in Catholic Register | Leave a comment

Pundits and politicians agree: Ontario’s newly minted Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown is in a quagmire.

His problem goes something like this: social conservatives got him elected as leader but pro-life, anti-sex-ed voters aren’t nearly enough to bring the new guy victory in a general election. Sooner or later, they say, Brown must abandon his base.

Brown appears to be a genuine so-con. As an MP, he voted in favour of repealing same-sex marriage and studying Canada’s 400-year-old definition of a human being. He voted against the “transsexual bathroom bill,” legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia and opposed awarding the Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler. Either Brown is a so-con or he’s satisfied to take some serious hits for his constituents.

But the stakes are higher now. Brown is no longer a federal backbencher from Barrie; he’s a party leader vying for the top job in this nation’s most populous province. The temptation to adopt a populist platform will be tremendous.

Brown may very well give in, and who could blame him? His party was thumped in the provincial elections of 2007, 2011 and 2014 because of missteps by leaders that pushed the PCs to the so-called fringe. Why make moves that could render a similar result in 2018?

Forgive me when I say the soul-searching and strategizing required to answer such questions are his problem. Brown already said he won’t revisit the abortion debate and odds are his cameos at events protesting Ontario’s revised sex-education policy will become more and more infrequent.

Regardless of where Brown ends up, social crusaders mustn’t lose sight of the cause for the sake of the candidate. The PCs just elected their first unabashed social conservative in party leader history (unless one considers Bill Davis’ flip-flop on separate school funding to be something of the sort), which means these are heady times for small-c social conservatives in Ontario.

But if so-cons wish to optimize this unique juncture in the province’s history and secure legitimacy in the long-term, the grassroots might do well to pursue one task: appear more mainstream. That might sound like a tall order in self-styled centrist Ontario, but it is necessary. For starters, they should present the facts but do so with decorum.

On sexual education, simple tactics like gently quoting the new curriculum itself might mitigate some of the mudslinging. While supporters of the policy claim it’s rooted in science, several sections suggest the contrary. On page 197, for example, teachers are instructed to prompt Grade 7 students, “One of the best things you can do to stop HIV is to stop the stigma that is associated with having the infection.” Is that true? Stigmatizing any disease is dreadful but will it quell infection?

On page 216, Grade 8 students are asked, “How would thinking about your personal limits and making a personal plan influence decisions you may choose to make about sexual activity?” Now, hold on. Thirteen-year-olds aren’t supposed to have plans for sexual activity. For 12-year-olds, it’s actually illegal.

In fact, when it comes to social policy, there’s an argument to be made that Brown ought to expand his focus from sexual education to include questions about abortion too. Take the provincial power to defund abortions that are not medically necessary. According to an Angus Reid poll in 2013, 51 per cent of Ontarians — a greater number than support any provincial party — oppose the status quo of forcing taxpayers to finance all abortions, for any reason.

Politicians perpetually avoid the topic because they’re told Canadians don’t want change. The truth is, on abortion, Canadians are totally uninformed. Another Angus Reid poll showed only eight per cent of respondents know abortion is legal during all nine months of gestation.

Stating facts are a so-con’s answer to the “knuckle-dragging,” “religious right” bleats from media and other critics. Facts reveal that so much of what social conservatives defend is not fringe and faith-based alone — it is common sense.

Here’s hoping this favourable moment isn’t bungled, because only God knows when the movement will get another chance.



Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | 55 Comments

Ben Levin is guilty.

The educrat pleaded guilty to three child porn related charges including making child porn, possession, and counselling sexual abuse of a minor.

Tuesday’s plea was a result of an international sting operation which led to Levin’s July 2013 arrest after Toronto officials were contacted by authorities in New Zealand and police in London, Ontario.

From late 2004 to early 2007 and again from 2008 to 2009, Levin served as deputy education minister in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty, while current Premier Kathleen Wynne was heading up that same department. Further still, Levin acted alongside top Ontario Liberal brass as part of Wynne’s transition team as she took office and was a tenured professor at OISE (the school that teaches Ontario’s teachers).

Public interest in Levin’s case follows from questions surrounding his fingerprints on Wynne’s controversial sex education policy, which begins for children as young as five and six and is set to roll out this September.

While Wynne has attempted to downplay Levin’s role in the sex ed strategy that teaches children under the legal age of consent about six genders and anal sex, here are three reasons why Ontarians should take a closer look at Levin.



The 2015 sex ed curriculum (by which I mean those portions of the Health and Physical Education document that pertain to sex education for children) is nearly identical to the toxic sex ed policy Dalton McGuinty pulled in 2010, which was directly connected to two policies (Equity and Inclusive Education, Safe Schools) for which Levin claimed responsibility.

Don’t believe me? Take the convicted child pornographer in his own words:

– The then-deputy minister said he was “responsible for … everything that they do” and to “implement” the “new” approach. (Levin, 2009 newsletter)

– Levin wrote and signed a memo that put himself in charge of Ontario’s school curriculum…“I am writing to provide an update on our sector’s agenda … I will be filling the ADM (assistant deputy minster)… The division… will be renamed as ‘Learning and Curriculum.’ It will have responsibility for curriculum and for Special Education including Provincial Schools.” (Levin, March 6, 2009)

– Levin wrote that the “Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy” sets out a “vision for an equitable and inclusive education system.” He wrote “the principles of equity and inclusive education should be embedded into all aspects of board and high school operations including program, employment, research, curriculum, resources, instructional and assessment practices.” (Levin, June 24, 2009)

– “I was the deputy minister of education. In that role, I was the chief civil servant. I was responsible for the operation of the Ministry of Education and everything that they do; I was brought in to implement the new education policy.” (Levin, OISE’s winter 2009 newsletter)

As the Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington put it, “These memos end the confusion as to just what was his involvement in the curriculum.”



After we heard the agreed upon statement of facts, the courtroom’s air seemed poisoned, everyone’s imagination was sickly stretched and forcibly violated.

One of the exhibits of particular import in relation to curriculum formation, in my mind at least, is the instance of his counselling an undercover agent on how to groom her child for sexual abuse.

On June 12, 2013 an officer from New Zealand claimed to be a single mother attracted to her 8 year old daughter. According the the statement of facts, the officer posed as someone looking for guidance on how to groom her own child.

Levin leapt at the opportunity to play educator…

The 63 year old told her to expose the child to pornography, to being nude, and to masturbate in front of her child. When the officer said she did that, Levin said it was then necessary to, “Play with the child to prepare her for being fucked,” spank the child for her own sexual pleasure, and encouraged her to continue to sexually assault the child by penetrating her with fingers and other instruments.

Perhaps what I found most disturbing (though I can’t be sure) was when Levin instructed the officer that it was fine if her child cried, and to make the 8 year old understand more was coming to her… Levin emphasized the importance of making a child cry.

This is the same man who took responsibility for Ontario’s public sexual education for children.



How dare Kathleen Wynne call opposition to this policy “homophobic”?

Where do folks get off dismissing parental concern as “partisan politics”?

It is good, if not entirely innate, parental sense to protect your children from a person that sees them as sexual objects.

Ontario parents don’t want their underage children sexualized. Many rightly claim that is what this policy does– myself included.

According to the grounds for his conviction, Levin is a man that normalized the sexualization of children.

This is not an issue of left or right, red or blue.

I just wish pundits and politicians would emerge from their zombie refrains and realize: A child pornographer has no place in the classroom.


Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | 19 Comments

The Kathleen Wynne government revealed on Monday ex-Premier Dalton McGuinty’s sinister sex-ed curriculum in drag. To be taught in Ontario public and Catholic schools between Grades 1 to 12 beginning in September, the sex strategy should be rejected and reviled by people of all political stripes for five glaring reasons.


The government’s present chorus, alongside those in their curriculum-corner, is this: The province’s approach to sex-ed is out of date– it’s for the children. Here, I’ll spare the gentle reader obvious questions about how the human species of the Ontarian variety managed to procreate and avoid epidemics of venereal diseases between now and 1998, the last time our policy was updated.

I get it.

The internet, smartphones: these are the prospective setbacks to our children’s sex lives.

No parent wishes to adapt to a situation of school violence, bullying, or improper use of social media. Prevention is key.

But if that’s all this is, a preventative action against contemporary crises like cyber-bulling and sexting, why not add a simple section or two to our present curriculum, preparing teachers to cover the specific subjects at hand? What about a ‘sexting 101’ send-off pamphlet for parents to discuss with their kids at home?

Instead, Ontario must accept an overhauled schooling in sex– beginning at ages five and six– such that your kids will be fluent in issues including anal intercourse and the disputed “gender theory” before they enter middle school.


In an ironic twist of fate, the very curriculum that will teach your child the value of consent sought nothing of the sort– not from parents or trustees.

Setting aside the checkered history of this policy’s near twin and predecessor, which saw itself scrapped after public outcry from secular and religious communities alike, the so called “consultation process” for the present policy was a sham.

Ontario’s elected school board trustees had no say regarding the ‘new’ curriculum.

More importantly, having 1/3 of 1% of Ontario parents complete a leading questionnaire hardly counts as parental assent.


Some might think teaching children (under Canada’s legal age of consent) about anal and oral sex is necessary.

I do not.

Sexual education is not like math or French class, it can be informed by a host of factors including personal, familial, and religious inputs.

Ontario’s majority legislature might think it knows what’s in your child’s best interest– but it is not their right to trump your parental authority.

A state that holds first place to your second fiddle at parenting your child is a social experiment I want no part of– and I’m not alone.


While the present government says it will find a way to accommodate separate schools, you’ll forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical. Recall that McGuinty threatened to pull funding from Catholic schools who dissented from the province’s institution of Gay Straight Alliances in the past.

One might disagree with Ontario’s separate school system, and that’s fine.

Issue is: The right to teach Catholic doctrine in publicly funded schools is protected by Canada’s Constitution.

There is an argument to be made that Ontario’s Liberal government has already overstepped it’s Constitutional perimeter in the face of denominational rights, while enforcing the present policy would do well to play out in a court of law.


If nothing else on this list sticks, perhaps these two words will: Ben Levin.

The former Deputy Education Minister acted as architect to this policy before he was caught up in an international sting operation aimed at catching kiddie pornographers. He now faces seven charges related to child pornography and child exploitation.

On March 3, Levin will plead guilty to some of those charges including making and distributing child pornography. Following his plea, the details of the case will be released without a publication ban. I suggest you pay close attention to the news that day.

Folks in Ontario’s media, as well as their echo-chamber audience, wholly dismiss any pursuit of this story, saying Levin—the alleged child pornographer— is inconsequential to a story involving hyper sexualized material taught to kids.

I, on the other hand, stand with parents who don’t want their children informed by any policy that had anything to do with a soon-to-be-convicted child pornographer.


So, what can you do?

Well, Minister of Education Liz Sandals reiterated the premier’s statement that the curriculum will not be altered once published.

Thus, these are the options we are left with:

– Pull your kids out of sex ed classes (an option afforded to parents in the present policy).

– Help the PCs elect a leader willing to undo this toxic policy (while Patrick Brown talks the talk, Monte McNaughton is the only one who intends to reverse the legislation).


Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

It’s finally here: the police watchdog’s report on the RCMP’s post-flood seizure of High River firearms.

In June of 2013, Mounties seized 539 firearms from homes abandoned due to rising waters. The RCMP said their actions were a byproduct of their search for trapped persons, while any seizure of property was intended to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Claims of good intentions aside, today’s gun grab report found the RCMP “exceeded their authorities in some instances during the emergency response.” Moreover, “in a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view.” In other words, Mounties were looking in places where a person couldn’t possibly hide (e.g. under a towel in a closet, inside drawers, etc). Overall, the report found in several cases “firearms were not removed with lawful authority.”

My two cents: Officers who broke into High River homes and unlawfully took property should be criminally investigated. They’re not above the law.


For more… 

High River Gun Grab Report (full text):…/chair-initiated-complaint-an…


FINDING 23: “In a number of cases, RCMP members’ forcible entries to facilitate home inspections caused significant damage and were not reasonable in circumstances where buildings were unaffected by the flood.”

FINDING 24: “The secondary entries for the specific purpose of seizing unsecured firearms were not authorized by the Emergency Management Act.”

FINDING 29: “In a number of cases the RCMP seized firearms which were lawfully secured.”

FINDING 30: “RCMP members were not authorized by the Criminal Code to seize secured firearms.”

FINDING 34: “Where a secondary entry into a building was not authorized under the Emergency Management Act or the common law, the seizure of unsecured firearms was also unauthorized.”

FINDING 37: searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband.

FINDING 38: RCMP supervisors failed to provide sufficient guidance to members in relation to scope of their authorities to search buildings.

FINDING 39: “RCMP members failed to report to a justice to show that they had reasonable grounds to undertake warrantless seizures pursuant to paragraph 489.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.”

Finding 49: Sergeant Powers, the Acting Detachment Commander of the High River Detachment, should have acted as the RCMP representative at the High River Emergency Operations Centre.


Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Canada’s activist Supreme Court struck down existing assisted suicide legislation today, skirting parliamentary supremacy and judicial precedent.

The unanimous ruling holds that Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and permanently have the right to a doctor’s help in dying, while said suffering can be physical OR psychological. Meanwhile, the feds and provinces alongside medical regulatory bodies have twelve months to draft new laws and policies around doctor assisted suicide.

To be sure, the Supreme Court’s already heard a ‘right to die’ case from the same region in 1993, with Victoria resident Sue Rodriguez. The ALS patient wanted to chose her expiration date but the SCC upheld our country’s laws banning assisted suicide, leaving Rodriguez to take her own life one year later with the help of an anonymous doctor. I’ll spare you the sermon on why our elected House of Commons, and not the appointed Court Party, should be in the business of legislating licenses to kill.

Suffice to say, as recently as 2010 the House debated doctor-assisted death and the bill was dead on arrival, defeated by a margin of 228 votes against to 59 votes in favour. Meanwhile, the Harper Conservatives have articulated they have no interest in revisiting the debate. Even still, not-so-socially-Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher introduced two private members bills to legalize assisted suicide in this country. Even now, it’s doubtful the bills will see a vote before the next election, but Mr. Fletcher’s Bill came on the heels of Quebec’s Bill 52, covertly coined “Medical Aid in Dying”—thrown out only because an election was called. The euphemistic label of the bill aimed to redirect what would otherwise be a federal offence under the provincial jurisdiction of healthcare—a tactic to downplay the Quebec government’s deliberate intention to legalize euthanasia. Euthanasia is not healthcare and, up until today, was against the law.

For good reason… Unlike the abortion debate, there’s no scientific question about the nature of the species before or after the act. Before euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide the person is alive. After, he or she is dead. Folks aren’t confused about that. The science involved in this case is political science: how policies involving the deliberate killing of someone by act or omission have been implemented—for better or for worse.

Look folks, I’m not one easily sold on ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but in the case of euthanasia and assisted suicide every instance of ‘strict guidelines’ to start devolves into an ever-expanding category of those who are deemed ‘killable’.

The decade-old Belgium model has already proven to be deadly dangerous.


– 1/3 of euthanasia deaths performed without patient consent

– 1/5 of nurses admitted being involved in the assisted suicide of a patient.
–  1/2 of nurses administering euthanasia did so without the patients knowledge and consent.
– 47% of the assisted deaths go unreported in Flanders region of Belgium

According to studies in the Canadian Medical Association Journal one third of euthanasia deaths were illegally performed without patient consent in Belgium. One fifth of nurses there admitted to being illegally involved in the assisted suicide of a patient. And nearly half of these also said there was no consent. What’s more is that 47% of assisted deaths in the Flanders region have gone unreported. A woman in Belgium with anorexia nervosa recently ended her life by euthanasia and Belgian twins who were born deaf were euthanized out of fear of blindness, while Belgium is presently experimenting with euthanasia and organ donation.

Keep in mind, Quebec legislators admit to modelling their “Medical Aid in Dying” Bill after Belgian legislation.


1942 -legalized assisted suicide for compassionate reasons
2007 – Expanded to those with mental illness including the depressed
Today – destination for suicide tourism

Switzerland, on the other hand, was way ahead of its time, legalizing assisted suicide for compassionate reasons back in 1942. By 2007, the nation expanded the legislation to cover those with mental illness including the depressed. Today, Switzerland is a destination for suicide tourism, attracting even healthy foreigners and couples on suicide pacts, while one of the plaintiffs in the present case flew to Switzerland to end her life before today’s ruling.


1984 – stops prosecuting doctors who commit euthanasia 
1995 – Dutch Supreme Court approves assisted suicide for the depressed
2006 – euthanasia of children under 12 no longer prosecuted (Groningen protocol)
Today – 550 annual cases without request or consent

And the Netherlands stopped prosecuting doctors who commit euthanasia for the terminally ill in ’84. Less than 10 years later, the Dutch Supreme Court approved assisted suicide for the depressed. A decade after that, courts stopped prosecuting euthanasia for children under 12. Government studies today show 550 annual cases of termination without request or consent.

In all three case-studies I’ve presented to you, medical communities proclaimed “strict guidelines.” In time, every protocol and safe-guard proved to be worthless.

Now that assisted suicide advocates have been granted their wish, they will drag Canada, inch by inch, into the same nightmare world. Is this really the future we want for Canada?

If Canada institutionalizes a right to die it will also institutionalize a license to kill, which has been widely abused in every place it’s been permitted. And, should euthanasia be seen as a right of the individual, especially with terms like “medical aid in dying,” that will make it near impossible to protect the freedom of conscience and religion of doctors and other medical health practitioners who wish to deny the death penalty as a prescription for patients. And, while today’s ruling may not spell out an obligation for doctors to assist in suicide, that door remains open for a patient plaintiff down the road. And may I posit here that an “effective referral” option for doctors who refuse to provide treatment makes them complicit in the act and does not protect their rights.

Moreover, euthanasia and assisted suicide will create a duty to die for the weakest members of society. By creating a license to kill and commit suicide, our society will calculate value in human life based on pleasure and well being of an individual. You drool and need someone to change your diapers? You’re a bummer on play-dates because of some psychological or physical pain? You’re old and sick? Well, don’t burden your loved ones any longer. Just take this pill and the pain will go away. The gentle audience will forgive me, but I’m one of those crazy Canadians who sees people, even those in a persistent vegetative state, as human beings. I’m just one of those freaky folks who views people with mental or physical handicaps as having the same intrinsic value as any other human being. I do not see them as better off were they dead.

If folks want so-called death with dignity, without the ordeal and drain on a family unit, here’s an idea: more palliative care.


– 16% – 30% of Canadians (10% – 20% in Quebec) have access to or receive hospice palliative and end-of-life care services

– 90% of Canadians who die can benefit from hospice palliative care.

Only 16 to 30 per cent of Canadians who die currently have access to or receive hospice palliative and end-of-life care services. At 10 to 20 per cent, the numbers for palliative support are even lower in Quebec. This, while 90% of Canadians who die can, in fact, benefit from hospice and palliative care.

Today’s ruling found our assisted suicide legislation violates constitutional rights (specifically section 7 – a right to life, liberty, and security of the person), I wonder if the same argument could be made with respect to lack of access to government funded palliative care.

I predict neither the debate nor legal challenges end here.

For now, we have no remedy but to wait and see for there are a host of options: Will the provinces or feds act first or, similar to post-Morgentaler legislators, not at all. The only option not on the table is the status quo.