Opinion
High school calls police, bans parents from soccer games for silently supporting girls-only teams
From LifeSiteNews
The ‘No Trespass’ order alleged that parents wearing the pink wristbands ‘had the effect of intimidating, threatening, harassing, and discouraging’ the boy playing on the opposing girls team.
A New Hampshire high school halted a girls soccer game last week and called the police after parents, who were dismayed about a female-identifying male playing on the opposing team, were found to be wearing pink wristbands as a means of silent, peaceful protest.
Two parents subsequently received a notice from the superintendent of schools banning them from attending their daughters’ future games, asserting that by distributing the pink wristbands, which carried the simple message, “XX” (referring to the two chromosomes indicating the female sex), had the effect of “intimidating, threatening, harassing, and discouraging” the boy playing on the opposing girls team.
A NO TRESPASS order from Superintendent Mary Kelley sent to parent Anthony Foote of Bow, New Hampshire, alleges that “prior to and during the soccer game,” he “brought and distributed pink armbands to parents and other attendees to protest the participation of a transgender female student on the other team.”
“You are hereby prohibited from entering the buildings, grounds, and property of the Bow School District, including but not limited to all school administrative office buildings, parking lots, and athletic fields, until further notice,” the terse notice declared.
“You are also prohibited from attending any Bow School District athletic or extra-curricular event, on or off school grounds.”
“My daughter’s playing in the homecoming game this weekend, and I’m banned until the 23rd,” Foote told the NHJournal. “I can’t watch her play in homecoming — which is ridiculous.”
Foote told the NHJournal that he doesn’t care about what Parker Tirrell, the male student playing on the rival team, wants to do with his life.
“What I do care about is that my daughter could be physically hurt, maybe not by Parker because he’s not the biggest kid on the field. But there’s a chance that next time will be different,” Foote said.
Gov. Chris Sununu had signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act into law in July, making the Granite State the 26th state to keep males from participating in girls’ sports events.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty prevented the law from being enforced.
“Judge Landya McCafferty”s ruling has settled the question of allowing males to compete as girls for the moment … but the issue of free speech is not resolved,” NHJournal’s Michael Graham noted. “It’s possible the school’s treatment of these parents violates their First Amendment rights, or that the school district’s interpretation of what is ‘disruptive behavior’ could be viewed by a court as too expansive.”
Foote also said he’s concerned that social pressure may prevent a large number of parents from expressing their views about the matter of boys competing in girls’ sports.
“Bow is a very blue town, and the people who run things will defend any liberal issue. It’s hard to speak out. But I would say there’s a silent majority,” Foote said. “There are firemen, there are police officers, there are teachers from other towns. They don’t agree, but they have to think about their finances. They have to protect their families. They can’t say anything.”
Parental concerns about their daughters being injured by males playing on what not so long ago were “female only” sports teams are by no means unfounded.
In nearby Massachusetts earlier this year, a gender-confused male playing on a girls high school basketball team injured three female players, causing the remaining female teammates to fear for their safety.
The Daily Item reported that Collegiate Charter School of Lowell ended its February 8 game against the KIPP Academy girls basketball team after just 16 minutes due to the KIPP team’s inclusion of a male player reportedly six feet tall with facial hair.
Earlier this year, LifeSiteNews’ Calvin Freiburger explained:
Inclusion of gender-confused individuals in opposite-sex sports is promoted by leftists as a matter of “inclusivity,” but critics note that indulging “transgender” athletes undermines the original rational basis for having sex-specific athletics in the first place, thereby depriving female athletes of recognition and professional or academic opportunities.
There have been numerous high-profile examples in recent years of men winning women’s competitions, and research affirms that physiology gives males distinct athletic advantages that cannot be fully negated by hormone suppression.
In a 2019 paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, New Zealand researchers found that “healthy young men (do) not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to (below International Olympic Committee guidelines) for 20 weeks” and “indirect effects of testosterone” on factors such as bone structure, lung volume, and heart size “will not be altered by hormone therapy;” therefore, “the advantage to transwomen (biological men) afforded by the (International Olympic Committee) guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”
Business
The Snack Attack: Are Major Food Brands Making Kids Addicted?
By Christof Plothe, DO
A lawsuit has just dropped that could send shockwaves through your pantry.
Eleven major food manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé are accused of engineering their ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be downright addictive, while marketing these tasty ‘treats’ directly to our kids. Sounds like a plot twist right out of a movie, doesn’t it?
The drama unfolds in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, where a brave plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, claims that his exposure to these sugary, salty foods led him to develop type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at the tender age of 16. As his complaint states, “Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.”
The lawsuit draws comparisons to the notorious marketing tactics of ‘big tobacco’. Public health expert Carlos Monteiro, who coined the term UPF, is sounding the alarm, saying that food companies are using the same underhanded strategies to hook kids on their products. With the food industry reportedly spending a staggering $2 billion each year to market these processed foods to children, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.
The lawsuit, which includes Conagra Brands among the accused, alleges that these companies are not just selling food, they are selling addiction. Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and others were approached for comment but have remained tight-lipped about the allegations.
A plateful of addictive substances
We’re talking about a food landscape in the U.S. where 73% of what’s on the plate is ultra-processed. This isn’t just a health concern for adults; studies show that a whopping 67% of American children’s diets are made up of these foods, with many displaying signs of addiction.
As this legal battle heats up, we might just witness a seismic shift in how these companies advertise their products. Could we see warning labels on our favorite snacks? Or maybe a complete overhaul of their marketing strategies? Only time will tell!
Stay tuned, because this is one story that’s just getting started and with the changes in the US health politics that seem to be in the pipeline, we see a “better way” for the health of our children.
Sources:
https://www.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/
If you find value in our work and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.
Business
Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis With This One Cool Trick
As you’ll soon see, local and provincial governments – if they were so inspired – could drop the purchase price on new homes by 20 percent. Before breakfast.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s all about taxes and fees. This post will focus mostly on taxes and fees as they apply to new construction of relatively expensive detached homes. But the basic ideas will apply to all homes – and will also impact rentals.
Here are some estimated numbers to chew on. Scenarios based on varying permutations and combinations will produce different results, but I think this example will be a good illustration.
Let’s say that a developer purchases a single residential plot in Toronto for $1.4 million. In mature midtown neighborhoods, that figure is hardly uncommon. The plan is to build an attractive single family home and then sell it on the retail market.
Here are some estimates of the costs our developer will currently face:
- Construction costs on a 2,000 sq. ft. home (@ $350/sq. ft.): $700,000
- Land transfer taxes on the initial land purchase: $35,000
- Development fees: $100,000
- Permits and zoning/site approvals: $40,000
Total direct development costs would therefore come to $875,000. Of course, that’s besides the $1.4 million purchase price for the land which would bring our new running total to $2,275,000.
We’ll also need to account for the costs of regulatory delays. Waiting for permits, approvals, and environmental assessments can easily add a full year to the project. Since nothing can begin until the developer has legal title to the property, he’ll likely be paying interest for a mortgage representing 80 percent of the purchase price (i.e., $1,120,000). Even assuming a reasonable rate, that’ll add another $60,000 in carrying charges. Which will bring us to $2,335,000.
And don’t forget lawyers and consultants. They also have families to feed! Professional guidance for navigating through the permit and assessment system can easily cost a developer another $25,000.
That’s not an exhaustive list, by the way. To keep things simple, I left out Toronto’s Parkland Dedication Fee which, for residential developments, can range from 5 to 20 percent of the land value. And the Education Development Charges imposed by school boards was also ignored.
So assuming everything goes smoothly – something that’s far from given – that’ll give us a total development cost of $2,360,000. To ensure compensation for the time, work, investments, and considerable risks involved, our developer is unlikely to want to sell the home for less than $2,700,000.
But various governments are still holding their hands out. When the buyers sign an agreement of purchase, they’ll be on the hook for land transfer taxes and – since it’s a new house – HST. Ontario and Toronto will want about four percent ($108,000) for the transfer (even though they both just cashed in on the very same transfer tax for the very same land at the start of the process). And, even taking into account both the federal and Ontario rebates, getting the keys to the front door will require handing over another $327,000 for HST.
Here’s how development fee schedules currently look in Toronto:
And here’s a breakdown of the land transfer taxes assessed against anyone buying land:
In our hypothetical case, those fees would give us a total, all-in purchase price of $3,135,000. How much of that is due to government involvement (including associated legal and interest fees)? Around $695,000.
That’s $695,000 our buyers will pay – over and above the actual costs of land and construction. Or, in other words, a 22 percent markup.
Let’s put this a different way. If the cost of the median home in Canada dropped by 22 percent, then around 1.5 million extra Canadian households could enter the market. Congratulations, you’ve solved the housing affordability crisis. (Although supply problems will still need some serious work.)
Now it’s probably not realistic to expect politicians in places like the Ontario Legislature and Toronto City Council to give up that kind of income. But just lowering their intake by 50 or even 25 percent – and reducing the costs and pain points of acquiring permits – could make a serious difference. Not only would it lower home sale prices, but it would lower the barriers to entry for new home construction.
Just what were all those taxes worth to governments? Let’s begin with the City of Toronto. Their 2023 Financial Report tells us that land transfer taxes generated $944 million, permits and zoning applications delivered $137 million, and development fees accounted for $1.45 billion. Total city revenues in 2023 were $16.325 billion.
We’re told that all that money was spent on:
- Roads and transit systems
- Water and wastewater systems
- Fire and emergency services
- Parks and recreation facilities
- Libraries
Well, we do need those things right? We can’t expect the city to just eliminate fire and emergency services.
Wait. Hang on. I seem to recall being told that revenue from my property tax bill covered those services. Yes! My property tax did fund those things. Not 100 percent of those things, but a lot.
Specifically, Toronto property tax revenues cover 65 percent of the municipal costs for roads and transit systems, 85 percent of fire and emergency services, 75 percent of parks and recreation facilities, and 95 percent of library costs (even though very few people use public libraries any more).
Granted, property tax revenue covered only five percent of water and wastewater systems, but that’s because another 40 percent came from user fees (i.e., utility bills).
So revenues from land transfer taxes, developer fees, and permitting aren’t an insignificant portion of City income, but they’re hardly the linchpin propping the whole thing up either. City Council could respond to losing that income by increasing property taxes. Or – and I’m just throwing around random ideas here – they could reduce their spending.
Now what about the province? I couldn’t get a good sense of how much of their HST revenue comes specifically from new home sales, but Ontario’s 2023–24 consolidated financial statements tell us that provincial land transfer taxes brought in $3.538 billion. That would be around 1.7% of total government revenues. Again, a bit more than a rounding error.
Politics is about finding balances through trade offs. Sure, maintaining program spending while minimizing deficits is an ongoing and real challenge for governments. On the other hand, they all say they’re concerned about the housing crisis. Foregoing just one to five percent of revenues should, given the political payoffs and bragging rights that could follow, probably be an easy pill to swallow.
A few weeks ago I reached out to the City of Toronto Housing Secretariat and the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Affairs and Housing for their thoughts. I received no response.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province Releases Blockbuster Review of COVID-19 Pandemic Response
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Immigration actions, deportation flights begin
-
Podcasts1 day ago
Mother of Likely Murdered OpenAI Whistleblower Reveals All, Calls for Investigation of Sam Altman
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Hegseth Confirmed As Secretary of Defense After Chaotic Process
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Jaw-Dropping Number Of Inmates In Women’s Prisons Are Actually Men
-
Automotive1 day ago
Trudeau must repeal the EV mandate
-
Alberta1 day ago
The Government of Alberta’s Report on Their COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Bryam Bridle
-
COVID-191 day ago
Emails obtained by CHD reveal government’s failure to monitor COVID vaccine injury reports