Part 2 / Gender, Parents, Abortion & Federal Election / Interview with Andre Schutten (1 of 2)

well Andre thank you so much for being with me in studio now I have seen you in action at Parliament and also you have you know you've been so good at communicating after you appear for referred the Supreme Court of Canada I've watched all your videos and you've just been such an incredible voice for freedom of religion freedom of conscience in our nation so let's talk about what you're working on right now in Alberta with advocating for parental rights mm-hmm well thanks very much first of all for having me for this opportunity in Alberta there's some pretty concerning trends in education law the last few years under the NDP government there the NDP introduced amendments to education law which would require schools to keep secrets from parents and so so what the law did specifically is they created an allowance for students to be able to create their own clubs with outside people not necessarily from the school creates clubs that deal with sexuality identity religion morality and so on and then the law said this the school the parents and the teachers had to keep the child's membership in those clubs secret from their own parents unless the child gave prior consent to the principal or something like that and that's a huge issue I think any parent in Canada Christian or not on either side of the issues of sexuality that our culture is dealing with today they should all be concerned about the government interfering and intentionally keeping secrets from parents about their own kids and so we've been intervening in that case where this and this is an ongoing case or where things that with the 24 yeah so so that was the law was called bill 24 it's been challenged in court by another organization the the justice center for constitutional freedoms so they're representing a coalition of parents and independent schools and and others multiple religious faiths represented in this coalition and they're challenging that law as unconstitutional and so ARPA Canada the organization I work for were intervening in that case and we've been given special permission so I appeared in front of the judge and we asked for special permission to be able to present a distinct minority religious perspective for the court so the court is going to consider the arguments of this coalition they're considering the arguments of the government they're considering the are a particular intervener representing the LGBTQ community and so we want to give them also a window we want to give the judge a window into well what does one particular religious community look like when it comes to schools independent schools parents in their relationship with their own children what does that look like and what does this law actually do to that community and so we're arguing to show that actually independent Christian schools in particular particularly out of the the reformed Christian tradition which is where I come from we've set up our own schools and those schools by the government's own measures are more safe and they're more welcoming and more it's a better learning environment by the government's own measurement than any of the public schools so why in the world would the government now interfere in that school and say no no school you got to keep secret from parents about their own kids when those kids already thriving in these schools and they have tons of parental involvement there wow really good point now let's continue to talk about parental rights because you've also been talking with something that's happening in BC with a father and his child who's transitioning and there's a bill in the Senate that was put forward by Senator Joelle talked to us about those two things right now so in British Columbia there's a court case where a father has a child the child is and I think I'm allowed to say this the child was born and identified biologically as a female and now 14 years old this child identifies now as male and the father does not accept that and has concerns about his biological daughter's transition to male what that means medically what that means emotionally what that means about his or her own identity and so this is ended up in court and so a judge has ruled that not only must the father accept this child's transition but that the father cannot refer to his child as his daughter the father cannot refer to his child by the name that the child was given when she or he was born and in fact the father's not even allowed to talk about it to the media or anything like that this is a really concerning case because what this gag order if I can call it that effectively is doing is saying you as a parent if you're on the wrong side of this current hot medical debate if you're on the wrong side of it if you don't agree with what certain people think about this issue you're not allowed to even talk to your own child about it you have to keep your mouth shut of course if you're on the other side you can talk all you know on about it you can talk to the media about it you can talk to to to your politicians about it but if you're in the wrong side you can't say anything that's really concerning for parents so that's being appealed to the BC Court of Appeal in our pequeñas hopefully going to be able to intervene in that case as well just to bring a perspective about parents and their their rights and responsibilities to engage their own kids so we're seeing a double standard there but we're also seeing a double standard on conversion therapy and this bill in the Senate unpack that for us right here before the break yeah so senator joy Ellis has introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code that would make it a criminal offense if you advertise or make any money on so-called conversion therapy and what he means by that would be something completely different than what I would understand conversion therapy to be he means that if you try to convince a child that they are not transgender then that's a form of conversion therapy but the actual fact is in the medical debate right now the one converting the other would be somebody who says well actually the body you have is the wrong one so we're gonna try to medically convert your body to look like or behave like the opposite sex so he had to clarify that and inside his bill he had to actually put a clarifying line in there to say that his bill is not criminalizing the type of stuff we're seeing now in the medical community cross cross hormone treatments or bodily surgeries to change the appearance of a human body so that's also again very concerning that that this kind of transition is happening at criminal law like we're talking about the full force of the state being used to enforce one particular view on a very hotly debated medical decision or medical debate right now mm-hmm and something that's still open to a lot of research still needing to be done now that bill died because of the parliamentary braking Parliament breaking for the summer in the election but because it was a Senate bill is there a good chance that it'll most likely come back again absolutely so after an election same senators that were sitting before will be sitting afterwards and from what we can tell senator Doyle would probably want to introduce the same bill again in fact he's allowed to introduce multiple bills so it's a very good chance that this coming Parliament will have to deal with this question so I recommend our viewers to engage their elected representatives see what they're gonna do about this bill we're going to talk about that about how people can engage their elected officials and potentially future elected officials right after the break now in a moment we are going to also watch something very chilly that happened in the House of Commons recently on the issue of life and I'd love to get your thoughts on that clip right after this you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *