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.

Jonathon Van Maren

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.

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was a “huge win for Texas…. We sued immediately when the federal government was observed destroying fences to let illegal aliens enter, and we’ve fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”

A panel of three judges on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit filed over its concertina wire barriers.

The court ruled 2-1 in a case that may set the tone for two other cases before the court related to Texas’ border security operations.

Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote for the majority, with Judge Don Willett joining him. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented, arguing Texas did not meet “its burden to show a waiver of sovereign immunity or a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The ruling was issued 13 months after Texas sued the Biden administration after it destroyed concertina wire barriers it erected on state land.

The court was asked to decide whether Border Patrol agents can legally cut concertina wire fencing erected by Texas law enforcement along its border with Mexico. The Biden administration ordered Gov. Greg Abbott to remove it, arguing he was interfering with federal immigration operations. Abbott refused, arguing that the administration was facilitating illegal entry and violating federal law. In response, the administration ordered Border Patrol agents to use a bulldozer and remove wire fencing. Abbott sued, arguing they were destroying Texas property and Texas has the legal authority to erect barriers on state land.

Texas requested the district court to issue an injunction to block Border Patrol agents from removing the fencing, which it denied despite agreeing with Texas’ arguments.

The court “agreed with Texas on the facts: not only was Border Patrol unhampered by the wire, but its agents had breached the wire numerous times ‘for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland,’” the Fifth Circuit’s 75-page ruling states. However, it denied Texas’ request arguing the federal government had sovereign immunity.

Texas next appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which granted the injunction pending appeal. The Biden administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without any stated reason.

The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t deter Texas, which continued building and erecting concertina wire in the Eagle Pass area, and later established the military base for Texas’ border security mission, Operation Lone Star, there. OLS officers also expanded concertina wire barriers in other key areas along its border.

“The Texas National Guard continues to hold the line in Eagle Pass,” Abbott said at the time. “Texas will not back down from our efforts to secure the border in Biden’s absence.”

The three-judge panel ruled that Texas “is entitled to a preliminary injunction.” The ruling states that the Biden administration “clearly waived sovereign immunity as to Texas’s state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act,” which it says “is supported by a flood of uncontradicted circuit precedent to which the United States has no answer.”

The Fifth Circuit also rejected other Biden administration arguments, including that Texas was erecting barriers to safeguard its own property, not to “regulate Border Patrol.”

The ruling reversed the district court’s judgment and granted Texas’ preliminary injunction. The court also prohibited the federal government from “damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s c-wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass,” including Shelby Park, which Abbott shut down after learning that the Biden administration was using it as a staging ground to facilitate illegal entry into the US.

Abbott lauded the Fifth Circuit ruling, saying, “The federal court of appeals just ruled that Texas has the right to build the razor wire border wall that we have constructed to deny illegal entry into our state and that Biden was wrong to cut our razor wire. We continue adding more razor wire border barrier.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was a “huge win for Texas.”

“The Biden Administration has been enjoined from damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s border fencing. We sued immediately when the federal government was observed destroying fences to let illegal aliens enter, and we’ve fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”

With weeks left in the administration, the concertina wire barrier case is unlikely to be appealed for a full court review.

In May, the court is scheduled to hear arguments on a lawsuit related to Texas’ marine barriers in the Rio Grande River, unless the case is dropped by the incoming Trump administration. Another case before the court is over Texas’ border security law, SB 4.