Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

2SLGBTQIA+ group bullies small Canadian town for rejecting ‘pride flag’

Published

5 months ago

14 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Borderland Pride will donate one-third of the financial compensation paid to us by the municipality directly to the Emo Public Library, on the condition that it host a drag story time event, free to all to attend, on a date of our choosing this year.

An Ontario Human Rights Tribunal fined the small Ontario town of Emo (population 1,200) $15,000 for refusing to fly the “pride flag” four years ago in June 2020. Borderland Pride, a small LGBT activist, sued the town and Emo Mayor Harold McQuaker — 10 grand will have to be forked over by the township, and five grand by McQuaker himself. In short, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decided that elected officials have a legal obligation to express support for an ideological movement regardless of what their constituents think of that fact.

As I noted earlier, the worst part is not even the forced cash payouts — it is the fact that both the mayor and the chief administrative officer of the Emo municipality were ordered to complete a “Human Rights 101” course “offered” by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal within 30 days. In other words, the mayor and CAO are being forced to take a re-education class so that the next time the LGBT activists show up and demand something (and there’s always a next time), they’ll know their job is to do what they are told.

As Ontario adjudicator Karen Dawson wrote in her decision: “I find that $15,000 is an appropriate level of compensation for Borderland Pride’s injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.” Having seen a few “Pride” celebrations, I’d say that the primary damages to “dignity” and “self-respect” are done by the LGBT activists themselves — but it is extraordinary that the adjudicator didn’t even bother to pretend that she wasn’t penalizing the mayor and small town of Emo for hurting the feelings of LGBT activists.

The fact that small towns are being targeted by LGBT activists isn’t an accident by the way. It is part of a strategy. I know of small towns in the prairies where LGBT activists demanded a “Pride” parade and then drove in participants from larger cities to make sure there were enough people for a parade. They like to force their agenda on small towns in rural areas in particular because they want to confront those who do not share their beliefs — and they know they have the power to do so. Here is how this grift generally unfolds.

  1. LGBT activists insist that everybody fly the LGBT flag to overtly announce support for their ideology.
  2. Some institutions decline to fly this flag for reasons ranging from religious to community unity.
  3. LGBT activists then characterize this refusal to pro-actively show support for their agenda as a “backlash.” Canadian media obediently characterizes it as such. LGBT activists are now “victims” of their targets’ refusal to participate in the narrative they themselves have created.

Which is precisely how the CBC covered this story by the way. The headline should have been “Small town mayor ordered to take re-education camp after declining to fly LGBT flag on government property” or “Small town bullied by LGBT activists.” It was: “Ontario Human Rights Tribunal fines Emo Township for refusing Pride proclamation.” Notice the wording: The aggression, this headline implies, comes from those “refusing Pride proclamation” rather than those demanding a “Pride” proclamation. That wording is no accident.

LGBT activists are good at this game. Most municipalities choose to fold without protest when the rainbow mafia makes its demands — “nice little township you have there, it’d be a shame if we smeared it in the national press.” If you think I’m exaggerating, take a moment to skim-read Borderland Pride’s “Open Letter” of April 5, 2024 (all bolded sections theirs). I am including this letter in its entirely to highlight their tactics:

Dear Mayor and Council:

Re:  Final Settlement Proposal

In June, our complaint about your bigoted and discriminatory decision to refuse to recognize Pride Month in 2020 will proceed to a full hearing on its merits before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The hearing is scheduled for 5 days. Our legal team will be ready.

Our proceeding at the Tribunal is based in case law that has been settled in Ontario for 30 years. We cautioned you about this at the outset of this saga in May 2020 – after you made your ill-advised decision and we asked you to reconsider. In other words: you face an uphill battle in this hearing, and are likely going to lose and be ordered to pay significant compensation to us and the other complainants for violating the Human Rights Code.

Even if you do win (which is a very remote possibility, and one we would likely seek judicial review of), you cannot recover your legal costs at the Tribunal. We imagine that your lawyers have already told you this. It is unclear why you are not heeding that advice, especially after losing your motion to have our claim against the individual council members dismissed.

Emo taxpayers must understand that you have now spent tens of thousands of dollars of their money on exorbitant legal fees to defend the homophobia and transphobia of Harold McQuaker, Harrold Boven, and Warren Toles. Despite those significant expenditures, it is unclear what has been paid for given the very limited material that has been served on us to-date. All of this is an inexcusable and foolish waste of taxpayer money at a time when your council is also hiking taxes and cutting local services.

Specifically, this is playing out while your council is soliciting public donations to keep the lights on at its public library, including accepting handouts from the local food bank. You’ve also hemorrhaged taxpayer money to pay for other discrimination around the council table — such as the six-figure pay equity sum owing after it was determined that you had been underpaying women on your staff for decades. And if Mr. McQuaker’s comments around the community are to be believed, that isn’t even the only workplace settlement you have had to cough up lately.

One would think that a small municipality with a small tax base that finds itself in a hole like this would stop digging. But here we are, on the eve of Emo being added to the list of homophobic towns in publicly reported Tribunal decisions, and you are still scratching your heads wondering why the municipality can’t entice new medical professionals to live and work there. It is breathtaking that you have not connected the dots between your defence of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bigotry and its damage to the public image of your community. Your untenable legal position is simply worsening your municipality’s other challenges.

We sympathize with the hard-working members of the community who are watching this car accident in slow motion. That’s why, despite that you have rebuffed all prior efforts to settle on reasonable terms, we want to offer a final off-ramp from this impending national public relations tire fire for your council and community. We are even willing to pitch in to support the municipality in its time of need.

Here’s our proposal:

  1. You will agree to the settlement terms extended to you by our legal counsel at Cambridge LLP in March 2022, including the published apology, financial compensation (reduced from what we will seek from the Tribunal), diversity and inclusion training for council, and a commitment to adopt Pride proclamations in the future without stripping out their 2SLGBTQIA+-affirming language.
  2. Borderland Pride will donate one-third of the financial compensation paid to us by the municipality directly to the Emo Public Library, on the condition that it host a drag story time event, free to all to attend, on a date of our choosing this year.
  3. Borderland Pride will, before the end of 2024, host its next charitable drag event in Emo, the proceeds of which will support the Emo Public Library. The municipality will provide facilities for this event at no charge.

This is a good deal. You should take it. The alternative is to continue to waste taxpayer money fighting a losing battle in defence of bigotry and hate. That path will be embarrassing for your municipality and council, not to mention all of those with ties to your community and who expect better from its leadership.

Look at it this way: can you really demand that your voters pay more in taxes and offer up donations to support basic municipal services while also refusing an offer that could generate revenue and end your litigation bills? If this crusade of yours isn’t really about your prejudice and contempt for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, we look forward to your acceptance of our terms, which can be transmitted to our legal counsel at Cambridge LLP.

This offer remains open until May 3, 2024.

Sincerely,

BORDERLAND PRIDE

Douglas W. Judson (he/him)

Co-Chair/Director

Notice here, that not giving in to LGBT demands is portrayed as proactive aggression. Judson refers to the council declining to endorse his ideology as a “crusade,” when it is obvious to any clear-minded observer that the crusade is his. Additionally, Judson has a second trick up his sleeve — bring drag queens into the local library to read to kids, and we’ll even give you some of the money we extorted to pay for it! Again, this is smart strategy — but it should be recognized for what it is. The LGBT movement wants every small town in the country to overhaul its operations in line with their ideology. They know how to get what they want, too.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Economy / 49 mins ago

US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal

Crime / 1 hour ago

Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

International / 2 hours ago

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

Business

Federal government’s accounting change reduces transparency and accountability

Published on May 3, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.

The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).

According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.

First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.

Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.

Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.

Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history

Published on May 3, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

The Liberals won the federal election partly due to the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to Carney’s fiscal plan, he doesn’t think Justin Trudeau was spending and borrowing enough.

To recap, the Trudeau government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1 trillion in debt, recorded the six highest spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023, and last fall projected large deficits (and $400 billion in additional debt) over the next four years including a $42.2 billion deficit this fiscal year.

By contrast, under Carney’s plan, this year’s deficit will increase to a projected $62.4 billion while the combined deficits over the subsequent three years will be $67.7 billion higher than under Trudeau’s plan.

Consequently, the federal debt, and debt interest costs, will rise sharply. Under Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3 billion in 2028/29 compared to $68.7 billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. More taxpayer dollars will be diverted away from programs and services and towards servicing the debt.

Clearly, Carney plans to be a bigger spender than Justin Trudeau—who was the biggest spender in Canadian history.

On the campaign trail, Carney was creative in attempting to sell this as a responsible fiscal plan. For example, he split operating and capital spending into two separate budgets. According to his plan’s projections, the Carney government will balance the operating budget—which includes bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers (e.g. health-care funding) and benefits (e.g. Old Age Security)—by 2028/29, while borrowing huge sums to substantially increase capital spending, defined by Carney as anything that builds an asset. This is sleight-of-hand budgeting. Tell the audience to look somewhere—in this case, the operating budget—so it ignores what’s happening in the capital budget.

It’s also far from certain Carney will actually balance the operating budget. He’s banking on finding a mysterious $28.0 billion in savings from “increased government productivity.” His plan to use artificial intelligence and amalgamate service delivery will not magically deliver these savings. He’s already said no to cutting the bureaucracy or reducing any cash transfers to the provinces or individuals. With such a large chunk of spending exempt from review, it’s very difficult to see how meaningful cost savings will materialize.

And there’s no plan to pay for Carney’s spending explosion. Due to rising deficits and debt, the bill will come due later and younger generations of Canadians will bear this burden through higher taxes and/or fewer services.

Finally, there’s an obvious parallel between Carney and Trudeau on the inventive language used to justify more spending. According to Carney, his plan is not increasing spending but rather “investing” in the economy. Thus his campaign slogan “Spend less, invest more.” This wording is eerily similar to the 2015 and 2019 Trudeau election platforms, which claimed all new spending measures were merely “investments” that would increase economic growth. Regardless of the phrasing, Carney’s spending increases will produce the same results as under Trudeau—federal finances will continue to deteriorate without any improvement in economic growth. Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP) are lower today than they were seven years ago despite a massive increase in federal “investment” during the Trudeau years. Yet Carney, not content to double down on this failed approach, plans to accelerate it.

The numbers don’t lie; Carney’s fiscal plan includes more spending and borrowing than Trudeau’s plan. This will be a fiscal and economic disaster with Canadians paying the price.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X