National
2SLGBTQIA+ group bullies small Canadian town for rejecting ‘pride flag’
From LifeSiteNews
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.
- LGBT activists insist that everybody fly the LGBT flag to overtly announce support for their ideology.
- Some institutions decline to fly this flag for reasons ranging from religious to community unity.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
Zelenskyy Says He Still Wants To Sign Mineral Deal With US After Oval Office Spat With Trump
Trump and fentanyl—what Canada should do next
Trump’s USAID shutdown is a win for America and a blow to the globalist agenda
Trial underway in energy company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace
Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs
DataRepublican Exposes the Shadow Government’s Darkest Secrets
-
International2 days ago
Ukraine negotiations still murky after Trump’s joint Congress address
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
National1 day agoTrudeau fills Canadian courts with Liberal-appointed judges before resigning as prime minister
-
Business2 days agoTrump promises tariff revenue, fair trade and more jobs
-
Business1 day agoNext federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
International1 day agoCommerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business2 days agoLutnick says Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoMisinformed: Hyped heat deaths and ignored cold deaths