I still need to see what these peeps are objecting to but they're not his employer so want to know what nutter statements from JP warrants licensing review.
dude was really arrested for trespassing but it's not like we don't know what led it there. In the name of diversity, a Catholic school in Renfrew suspended a student and had him arrested for saying there are only two genders. Josh Alexander was suspended last November over comments made about gender in class and told he couldn’t return to class until he recanted. On Monday, Alexander returned to class and was promptly met by the vice-principal, arrested by two local police officers and charged with trespassing. The now seemingly former student of St. Joseph’s Catholic High School told the National Post in an interview that he made comments during a class discussion on gender. “It was about male students using female washrooms, gender dysphoria and male breastfeeding. Everyone was sharing their opinions on it, any student who wanted to was participating, including the teacher,” Alexander said. “I said there were only two genders, and you were born either a male or a female, and that got me into trouble. And then I said that gender doesn’t trump biology.” Those statements, in line with Catholic teaching, were what got him suspended from school. A lawyer representing Alexander said that the school won’t let him attend classes again until he agrees “not to use the ‘dead name’ of any transgender student and agreed to exclude himself from his two afternoon classes because those classes are attended by two transgender students who disapprove of Josh’s religious beliefs.” Alexander told National Post that he’s never dead named another student, meaning using their original name before transitioning. As for trans students disapproving of Alexander’s religious beliefs, maybe they want to reflect on the fact that they are attending a Catholic school, or at least one that calls itself a Catholic school. This incident shows why it might be time to finally say goodbye to Ontario’s publicly funded Catholic school system. There’s nothing Catholic about it, they adhere to the same secular gospel as all of our other public institutions, and it is beyond saving. I say this as someone who graduated from the Catholic system, whose children all attended Catholic schools and who values the distinct education that I, and my children received. That distinct education is no longer distinct when, in the name of diversity, the person adhering to Catholic teaching is the one who is excluded. Anyone who looks into Alexander’s social media presence will see that he is a political activist. He’s pro-life, and he favours a red ball cap that reads “Save Canada” on the front. He’s even been photographed at protests against the Trudeau government on Parliament Hill. All of that will see critics say that Alexander doesn’t deserve any sympathy, that he got what was coming to him. This is where we are in political discourse in Canada. This young man is being denied an education for having a different view than those in power. What does it teach Alexander that the response to him saying there are only two genders inside a Catholic school is that he is now excluded? The school administration is turning this young man into a martyr, while also showing they long ago abandoned the Catholic beliefs they say they uphold as a school. What does it teach the trans students who don’t want Alexander in their class because they disagree with his religious beliefs? It teaches them that they have special powers, are more important than other students, and don’t need to learn to deal with those they disagree with. No one is well served by this. Perhaps we don’t have the full story from Alexander or from the school board, but one thing is clear. In Ontario’s school system, woke politics trumps everything else, including the right of a teenager to receive an education. The entire system is rotten to the core.
%% NOTHING like a good lawsuit ; or common sense. IF they are going to fund everything , dont exclude Catholics. Private education in US trumps everything else so much, no wonder the unions hate any competition.
eh...for profit colleges have been a scummy scam delivering garbage and more useless education than "gender study" degrees. Shows what a racket religion is though. Let us compromise our belief system in order to get these public benefits. I'd question if this issue is being enforced by Canadian madrassas or yeshivas but dunno if there's any in this pseudo public space.
I know i've lumped the Euros w/Canada but staying on topic: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/23/wolf-whistling-made-illegal-claiming-joke-wont-excuse/ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63916328 Men who wolf-whistle or make sexual remarks to women will face prosecution for street harassment even if they believe it is a compliment or a joke, under legal changes announced by Suella Braverman. The Home Secretary is to toughen a proposed new street harassment law so that potential offenders cannot escape prosecution by claiming they did not realise their behaviour amounted to harassment. The new Bill, due for its final report stage in the House of Commons on Friday, will make it an offence to cause “intentional harassment, alarm or distress” to a person in public based on their sex. Offenders will face a maximum of two years in jail. However, campaigners said there was a loophole in the proposals that would let offenders escape prosecution by claiming they thought their behaviour was welcome, even if any other reasonable person felt it was not. Mrs Braverman has now accepted their concerns and is backing an amendment that will close the loophole, by requiring a “reasonableness test” where a defendant “ought to know” their behaviour amounted to harassment. This means anyone who catcalls, wolf-whistles or makes a pass or sexual comment towards a woman that a “reasonable” person would feel amounts to harassment will no longer be able to claim it was meant as a compliment or joke. Police will be issued with guidance so they can enforce the law. ‘Right to walk the streets without fear’ Mrs Braverman told The Telegraph: “Women have the fundamental right to walk the streets without fear and I’m committed to ensuring that criminals who intimidate and harass them face the consequences. “This is why we are backing the Protection from Sex-Based Harassment in Public Bill, and after carefully considering a range of views, we are supporting an amendment that will require the Government to produce statutory guidance for the police to help them enforce the new offence. “The new guidance will clarify in particular how the ‘reasonable conduct’ defence should be interpreted, to ensure any new law is as robust as possible.” The legislation has been piloted through the Commons as a Private Member’s Bill by Greg Clark, the former cabinet minister, and backed by the Government. He put forward the amendment supported by Priti Patel, the former home secretary, and Caroline Nokes, who chairs the Commons women and equalities committee. ‘Give police and prosecutors training’ Stella Creasy, a Labour MP who played a key part in supporting the Bill, said: “Women and girls often get told ‘you can’t take a joke’ or ‘it was just a compliment’ when they object to being harassed, but without change this public order law risks making that an actual defence to a criminal offence. “In this day and age, most know better than to try to grope or harass a woman as a way of chatting her up – but not all do. No one should be able to evade accountability for such behaviour by arguing they thought it was reasonable to abuse someone because it was their way of trying to attract attention. “So it’s good that the Government has listened to the need to address this loophole. To make it work, it’s vital the police and prosecutors are given training to understand how serious public harassment is and to use this new law to ensure everyone can walk freely on our streets and public spaces without being abused.” The Home Office has previously listed the types of behaviour that count as street harassment as following someone; making an obscene, aggressive, or offensive comment or gesture; obstructing a person making a journey or “cornering” them; or driving or riding a vehicle or bike slowly near to a person walking down the street. Officials said the guidance for police would make clear what is deemed reasonable by a third party rather than by the defendant.