Ceuti67's Blog

The Ontario liberal government has claimed that Bill 89 is needed in order to bring Ontario’s child services law into better alignment with human rights law….really?

The Child and Family Services Act, which Bill 89 replaces, has never included the long list of protected personal characteristics found in the Human Rights Code (nor has any other statute in Ontario before Bill 13 amended the Education Act in 2012). Adding this list of “identifiers” from the Human Rights Code is not only unnecessary – the Human Rights Code already applies to children’s aid societies, adoption agencies, etc. – it is also fundamentally unsound. It prioritizes equality (or the state’s view of what equality demands) over freedom of conscience, religion, and expression. And it extends the application of the state’s controversial equality doctrines from employers and service providers to parents and caregivers…..do you see where I’m going and the concerns this flawed legislation fosters…..parents be ready the government is again launching a full scale attack on your parental rights.

So what practical effects will the addition of the Human Rights Code list have? Bill 89 itself is exceedingly vague on details, but would give the Minister extensive power to make regulations “governing how service providers, in making decisions in respect of any child, are to take into account the child’s race … sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression”. In short, the Minister gets to decide on the details, without consulting the legislature.  That fact alone should make you uncomfortable. The Minister of Children and Youth Services, Michael Coteau (also the bill’s sponsor) – the one who would have this regulatory power – has given some insight on how he perceives the application of these new and far reaching powers.

Minister Coteau stated that it could be abuse for an LGBT teen to be told their identity is wrong and they should change. ‘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,’ he said.

The Orwellian reach of the state into parental affairs that is reflected in that statement is extreme.  However, the stunned silence of the “loyal” opposition has been deafening.  Even if the Minister was stretching the legal definition of abuse or neglect under Bill 89 (it’s not clear he was), he should be questioned, challenged – he is the Minister to whom Bill 89 grants extensive regulatory power…..but none was heard.  To contextualize the example given by the Minister above…imagine my or your 8 year old announces they are the opposite gender.  Is it far fetched to suggest that anything short of my full and complete concurrence, support, and celebration of this declaration by my 8 year old, could be construed abuse….really, that’s where we are at in Ontario today?

Here’s what we know from the bill itself. Where “the child suffers from a mental, emotional or developmental condition that, if not remedied, could seriously impair the child’s development and the child’s parent … does not provide treatment or access to treatment”, or where “there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm [anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive behaviour, or delayed development] and the child’s parent … does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment,” such a child is “in need of protection” under the law. And affirming a child’s “gender identity and gender expression” is an integral part of protecting the child’s “best interests” under Bill 89.

I’m a father of 3, so here is a question for the Minister and the government to chew on:  If a child is suffering or at risk of suffering mental or emotional harm in connection with gender dysphoria, a parent must provide access to treatment. But what if I as the child’s parent do not find the state-approved “treatments” appropriate? What am I to do when the state sponsored and politically correct approach to sexual identity issues conflict with my parental prerogative, as it relates to my child?  You see the language of Bill 89 does nothing to answer crucial questions like this, rather it uses broad brushstrokes and pronouncements, that make good Press releases and headlines, but do little to support families; which are the bedrock of any healthy community.

I believe Minister Coteau to be a man of conviction and great principle, having known him for many years.  What I also believe however, is that this government and the “progressives” have adopted a groupthink mentality on this issue.  When our government’s policies promote sexual confusion among our youngest and most vulnerable….and when our government policies effectively nullify the rightful authority and place of a parent over their children, then maybe its the governments understanding of human rights that has gone terribly wrong.