As Rainbow Gang Chants Outside, Speaker Debunks Pro-Castration Curriculum

Pro-SOGI, pro-NDP protesters

By Steve Weatherbe

VICTORIA, B.C. , June 6, 2019 – B.C. education critic Jenn Smith finally got his say in British Columbia’s capital, delivering a devastating critique of the NDP government’s radical Sexual Orientation Gender Identity 123 curriculum supplement.

Several weeks ago he was prevented from delivering the same lecture by a mostly chanting and shouting crowd of several hundred strong SOGI 123 supporters  led in by provincial NDP vice-president Morgane Oger, outside the Oak Bay lecture venue. Police did nothing. Inside a smaller, fractious mob,  beribboned in the colours of the LGBTQ spectrum, simply yelled Smith down from a few feet away.

But this week the rebooted lecture went ahead in the City Light Church, where an audience of about 100 were protected  from several dozen yelling pro-SOGI-ites by a cordon of a  dozen Saanich police. The Oak Bay News immediately questioned the church’s tax-exempt status.

The fight is over the new ideology of Inclusion as promoted by the NDP government’s SOGI 123 public school maerial. It holds, first, that the sexes and genders are interchangeable, second, that any parent, school or church that argues otherwise is a “hater” and , third, that to oppose a child changing from male to female and vice versa is an act of “family violence” and will lead to suicide.

Smith condemned SOGI material as a propaganda effort to undermine the traditional family and worse.

“SOGI 123 is not Orwellian, it is post-Orwellian,” he told this reporter. As in George Orwell’s novel 1984, “where the State insisted that ‘peace is war,’ we are being told that male is female. And we are being required to say it and not to deny it.”

During the lengthy talk, Smith unleashed an avalanche of scholarly studies and forensic evidence to reveal the dangers of  SOGI 123 and of the push by legal, medical and school leaders to persuade BC children that biological males who identify as females can actually change into the other sex, and vice versa.

Ostensibly SOGI 123 is designed to prevent bullying of children with gender dysphoria This is the technical term for the psychological illness of believing oneself to belong to the opposite sex. Opposing SOGI 123 , its defenders claim, will lead to young gender dysphorics committing suicide.

To rebut this, Smith cited studies showing that across Canada in recent years after public schools have established  Gay Straight Alliances and other programs to promote tolerance of homosexuals and transgenders, nonetheless “suicide rates in school age youth have not gone down. They have gone up slightly.”

He showed video of parents who supported their childs’ transgendered desires, saying, “I’d rather have a live daughter, than a dead son.” Smith agreed that transgender youth have a suicide problem. However, it is not caused by their being bullied or thwarted in their desire to change sexes, he argued. According to Smith and the data he presented, gender dysphoria is frequently associated in psychological literature with other “co-morbid” psychological illnesses such as depression and, especially, autism.

Children with such illnesses are likely to be marginalized by their behaviour in school, leading to bullying on the one hand, and a resort to escapist behaviours such as gender dysphoria, and a vulnerability to confusing ideas such as gender fluidity—that changing one’s sex and gender is possible, even laudable.

Smith also noted that transgender youth may self-report suicide attempts at a much higher rate than non tg youth because they are hoping thereby to extract support from their parents to getting hormone blockers and cross sex hormones. He cited a Vancouver psychologist, Wallace Wong, who said publicly that tg youth pulled such “stunts” to get the drugs they wanted.

What’s more, Smith cited a long-term Swedish study of post operative male to female transgenders that shows they have a far higher suicide rate than the rest of the population, despite Swedish society being one of the most accepting societies in the world in terms of transgenders.  The implication is that getting their way does not solve the transgenders’ suicide problem because it does not address their underlying psychological issues, be they autism, depression, anxiety or schizophrenia.

Smith likened gender dysphoria to anorexia and displayed a picture of an anorexic girl’s midsection. Children with gender dysphoria are deluded just as anorexic children are, he said. They deserve treatment, not encouragement.

Anorexics could die of starvation, said Smith, but gender dysphorics could be rendered impotent by hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones, or their normal growth permanently impaired. Sometimes Male-to-Female transgenders are, in the case of males, castrated, and in the case of females willingly have their breasts removed. Later, if they have regrets, they cannot recover their sex-appropriate physical features.

Smith argued at the beginning of his lecture that propaganda consists not only of falsehoods that are told the public, but truths that are concealed from them. One such truths concealed is that most MtF transgenders retain their male genitals. This means that the MtF transgenders who the SOGI program says should be allowed in girls’ washrooms and change rooms will have their male genitals and sexual interest in females intact.

“Who is in the washroom with your six-year-old daughter?” he asked.

He cited two well-publicized cases of  two MtF sex offenders, one in the United Kingdom, named Karen White,  who recently sexually attacked fellow inmates in a women’s prison, and an earlier one in Toronto of sex offender Christopher Hambrook, who  molested women he was sharing a bedroom with in a women’s shelter.

The truth is not only being withheld, it is being suppressed, he said. He cited the case of a British feminist Posey Parker, whose billboard carrying the dictionary definition of “woman” was condemned as a hate crime and removed.

He also described the celebrated, recent case of the BC man who opposed his  13-year-old daughter’s being administered testosterone by the BC Children’s Hospital. When he took the hospital to court, he not only lost, but was ordered by the judge never to speak to his daughter, or to anyone else about his her, except as the boy she insisted she was. To use even female pronouns in reference to his daughter would be an act of “family violence” potentially leading to charges.

Smith also recounted how Christian crusader Bill Whatcott was fined $55,000 by the BC Human Rights Commission for describing NDP Vice President and candidate Morgane Oger as a “biological male and transvestite,” during the last provincial election.

Furthermore, Smith himself lost his Twitter account for campaigning about transgender issues and SOGI 123.

While defenders of SOGI claim its goal is to prevent bullying, Smith counter-claimed that its real purpose is to actively promote gender fluidity upon confused and vulnerable children. He cited SOGI classroom materials that require students to go to the front of their classroom and in front of their classmates place themselves on a `gender line`between two boxes chalked on the board, one reading “I am male” and the other, “I am female.” He added, “They aren’t allowed to put their names in the boxes,only between them.”

Another SOGI-recommended material for SOGI is the book, “I am Jazz,” about and ostensibly co-written by celebrated MtF transgender Jazz Jennings. In it Jazz claims, “I have a female brain” inside a “male body.”

This is intended to “confuse and indoctrinate” school children into believing they can choose to be the opposite sex. People born with male biology have unmistakably male chromosones throughout their body, Smith insisted. Nobody can have female brains and male bodies.

Smith also showed slides showing various medical specialists supporting so-called sex change therapy to make the case they get financial support from major hormone makers such as Abbvie. One Powerpoint slide showed Abbvie making $1.3 billion each year  from two drugs used for so-called sex-change therapy.

Smith told this reporter, “we are setting a precedent here if the state can force us to say that a man is a woman.” Soon Christian parents will face children sent home with sexual doctrines they oppose, with the potential of dividing families. “It’s not Orwellian. It’s post-Orwellian.”


 Post Orwellian indeed. We all know Orwell coined the term “newspeak” to cover how the government of England  described in 1984,  would generate lies and claim them to be true. Thenn it would say the opposite and claim that was the truth. But his England of 1984 was based on the Soviet Union of the mid-century. There yesterday`s heroes were erased from Communist Party histories by diligent librarians and children were indeed encouraged at school to inform on their parents when the uttered anti-regime comments

The totalitarian state cannot tolerate independent thinking. Today`s Communist China is jailing Muslims and Falun Gong believers and extracting organs for transplant from prisoners facing death sentences. Christian churches are being bulldozed.

In Greater Victoria, advocates for the state religion of Inclusion are urging Saanich municipal council to removal the tax exemption on church property if the church can`t pass an inclusion test. Federal summer intern grants for charities to employ students in their work are already tied to inclusion tests that bans Christian organizations opposed to abortion or other aspects of “the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

This use of the property tax exemption, which is at the discretion of municipalities only for property upon which the church does not sit, to frighten churches into silence, will surely be expanded. Next will be the tax on property under the church itself—this is now automatically granted by provincial law. As such, it would  only take an amendment by the legislature controlled by the New Democrats to remove this exemption.

After that, there is the income tax exemption under federal law. It extends to churches and charities, but only if they stay clear of politics. Prolife groups which campaign for restrictions on abortion cannot get this exemption, for example. How long will it be before a Liberal or NDP or Green government/ coalition decides the test for this exemption should be inclusivity “under the spirit of the Charter.” This would mean that a church or non-profit that did not endorse abortion, gender fluidity or homosexuality would be taxed. At the same time, donors to these churches or parachurch organizations would lose the tax deduction on their gifts.

All in the name of Inclusion, the new state religion. (see a previous blog to read about the old state religion, which is the Compact Theory of Confederation.)

Against the totalitarian premise behind Inclusion, is a fundamental premise of pluralism, which ought to be the guiding principle of our Canadian democracy but isn’t. It holds that  having different independent sources of ideas about the public interest is itself in the public interest. The content of their ideas doesn’t matter so much as the existence of different generators of content. The free press and news media that are independent of government and each other, independent churches, independent judiciary, independent universities, discrete federal states within a nation, competing political parties, private and public schools, and the principle that parents are the first educators of their own children—these are all building blocks of pluralism.

In the case of Jenn Smith’s lecture, and by implication, the case of the BC father forbidden to talk of his daughter as a female, we have seen freedom of religion threatened by a newspaper and a mob, both doing the government’s bidding; we have seen the government using emotional blackmail with the suicide card to silence its critics, we have seen the “hate card” played again and again by local politicians. We have seen Orwellian newspeak enforced by courts. We have seen the primacy of the nuclear family undermined by medical, educational and legal elites.

Why has the legal profession become the leading advocate for inclusion– hat they would call human rights? It is a blatant example of corruption. Lawyers, law professors and the judges they become have been seduced by power. Formerly the protectors and administrators of the law, they have become its masters. Because every law passed legislators is now subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—as arbitrated subjectively by judges—the legal profession has supplanted Parliament. Only a handful of lawyers, professors and judges now believes that our Charter and our Constitution mean what they say. Under the self-serving doctrine of “the living tree” our judges now decide for themselves—and for all of us—what these fundamental documents mean.

But the creepiest part of the inclusion push is that, while it is the NDP government promoting it, any opposition to it is being suppressed by the lawless rabbles who crashed Jenn Smith`s first lecture attempt in Oak Bay, led by an NDP vice president. And that boutique community`s leadership supported the state religion of inclusion by simply ordering its police force to stand by and let the lecture crashers have their way.

So hats off to Saanich and its police force, with an assist, we hear, from the Victoria force, for defending our hard-earned civil rights. And hats off to the City of Light Church for the courage it showed and to the Canadian Christian Lobby for championing Smith and the safety of children.  As for Oak Bay, its council and its pretend police force,  and as for the Fernwood Community Centre, which signed a contract to host Smith and reneged at the first sign of criticism, I shake off my sandals.



Posted in freedom of religion, Gender Ideology, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Irony, Bullying and a Do-Nothing Oak Bay ‘Police Force’

The Jenn Smith Debacle

Irony and Bullying were the themes on display at the lecture that never happened in Oak Bay last week, due to the negligence of the police force that so daintily serves the boutique citylette on Victoria’s doorstep. “No call is too small” is its motto. It ought to go on, “But some are way,way too big.”

The bullies were a yelling, screaming and intimidating gaggle of young ruffians of all genders and their target was small group of mostly senior citizens who had come to hear a lecture by Jenn Smith on SOGI. SOGI stands for the Sexual Orientation Gender Identity component being inserted into public school programs.

The irony is that the bullies were full of hate as they called anti-SOGI lecturer Jenn Smith a “hater” and his audience “white supremacists”. The double irony is that SOGI’s ostensible purpose is to prevent bullying. The triple irony is the pro-SOGI protesters were using violence and fear tactics to prevent the lecture. The quadruple irony is that the young screamers frequently screamed that SOGI would save the lives of children.

However, people are opposed to SOGI motivated by sincere concern for children. First, they believe that SOGI will achieve its goals by normalizing homosexual behaviour and transgenderism. Transgenderism is the conviction that a person born male physically can actually be a woman, can so declare himself or herself, and demand that the world treats her or him as if this were so. SOGI will encourage children to believe themselves transgendered.

Second, opponents of SOGI believe transgenderism is dangerous to the person with this belief, which used to be called gender dysphoria. This delusion, similar to anorexia, used to be treated with psychotherapy. Now  doctors, psychiatrists and leftwing judges scramble over each other in their rush to remove body parts and fill the child’s body with wrong-sex hormones. Gender dysphorics are akin to anorexics.  But we do not leap to encourage anorexics to starve themselves.

Gender dysphoria is similar: an underlying mental illness such as depression or severe anxiety expressing itself in self-body hatred. Critics of SOGI believe that encouraging tolerance for transgender children will also encourage their peers to interpret their own emotional distress as being born in the “wrong” body.

Male to female transgenders may opt for castration, with plastic surgery to mold the remnants into semi-functional female genitals. Female to Males will have their breasts removed and their own genital surgery to create a much less functional facsimile of the male organ.

So the final irony: what is the greater danger? Mutilation or bullying. But the bullying could lead to suicide, cry the LGBT advocates. The evidence is in from  long-term studies of Scandinavian men who have had so-called sex-change surgery to appear as women. They have far higher suicide rates than those with gender dysphoria who do not opt for surgery. An higher than the general population.

Almost certainly this is because their underlying mental condition—depression, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia—went untreated while they put their hopes for relief in changing their sex.

You can look it up at, a Canadian Christian clearing house for dissenters from the transgender ideology.

As a postscript some vignettes. As I took pictures of some protesters carrying signs, a little female protester imperiously screamed in my ear: “You can’t take their picture without their permission.”

So I patiently explained that a protester at a public event was fair game for a photographer. She made the “blah, blah,blah” sign by repeatedly opening her hand and closing it to indicate that my words didn’t matter. “You mean, in one ear and out the other,” I responded. She yelled, “Get the f***k out of here.” There were a dozen conversations going on around the room like this. It was like trying to explain the UN Rights of the Child to , well, a child.

SOmeone I know  in her seventies said to a young but quiet protester next to her, “I appreciate that you are keeping quiet so I can hear the speaker.” The woman responded, “F***k you.” And so it went.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why Canada’s Civic Religion Caused the SNC Lavalin Scandal

By Steve Weatherbe


We all have heard of the United States’ civic or civil religion, which involves the invocation of God at public events, the use of the phrase “you are in our thoughts and prayers” in public expressions of sympathy for flood victims, the veneration of past leaders, and a vague belief that America is the Promised Land.

But what is Canada’s civil religion? It is, of course, the Compact Theory of Confederation, the higher good for which any crime can be committed. The Compact Theory is the belief, held especially strongly by the Liberal Party of Canada, that Canada came about from a compact between the  Anglo Scottish Protestant majority in the Ontario portion of what was then the British colony of Canada, and the Franco-Catholic majority in the Quebec portion of Canada.

To break free of the deadlock these “two Solitudes” found themselves in, also to resist American Manifest Destiny, the French and English Canadian politicians put down their swords and agreed to make Canada into a federation that would preserve each other’s ethnic/ religious character from interference by the other, forever. The Maritimes were drawn in to give the federation more economic clout, but the essential deal was to preserve the two cultures in two provinces.

Western Canada’s provinces are seen as the offspring of this fruitful union. Their role is to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve it, and of course, to supply raw materials (watch for my upcoming , jaw-dropping column on “the Laurentian Thesis”) The Compact is, simply, sacred, though rarely spoken of. It is the highest value for the politicians and bureaucrats—the elite—from Ontario and Quebec who run the government and the Liberal Party. It is why the Liberals alternate Francophone and Anglophone leaders. It is why the infamous CF-18  maintenance contract went to a Quebec firm and not a Manitoba one back in 1986, and probably why a big naval contract just now went to Quebec firm and not a Maritimes one.

So when Liberal politicos and hacks bombarded Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC Lavalin jobs being at risk, she missed the surtext: these were not job-jobs, these were Quebec jobs. I’m sorry, Jody, what part of  Quebec jobs don’t you get? That is, sacred jobs necessary to secure Confederation from the threat of Quebec unhappiness leading to separation.

Wilson-Raybould marches to a different drum, of course. She not only comes from the West coast, she is a Liberal party newcomer, and her civil religion is centred on the use of the law to further native rights.

I get the Compact. It is surely a good thing that two cultures that had been at war on and off for decades politically and before that militarily were, in 1867, able to agree on forming a voluntary political union. O Canada!

But do we have to sacrifice the integrity of the legal system to it? Given that those Quebec jobs secure not only the holy Compact, but ongoing Liberal control of Canada with all the perqs and quarks that this entails, shouldn’t we be just a little cautious about invoking the Compact.

Unfortunately, history teaches that pandering to Quebec is a politically profitable move. It is why the Liberal Party has governed Canada for most of our history. When the Tories have unwisely taken punitive action (hanging Louis Riel “though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour”), bringing in conscription in World War One essentially to dragoon Quebeckers into the war effort, they have swiftly been punished in the polls, and for a long time.

So while other candidates for Canada’s civil religion such as environmentalism and human rights grab headlines, the Confederation Compact runs quietly on, invisibly directing the hands of Canada’s leadership.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why I’m Shocked But Not Surprised at the Supreme Court’s Decision on Trinity Western University

TWU Campus

Nobody should have been surprised that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the sexual preferences of a tiny minority (two-three percent) of the population take precedence over the religious rights of all Canadians (including the tiny minority of the tiny minority—Gays and Transgenders who are also Evangelical Christians). Can anything be done about the Trinity Western Law School decision?

Those who value religious liberty and all civil liberties, liberal democracy, pluralism and the Canadian Constitution as written and enacted—we should all be disappointed to the point of shock. It is supremely dismaying that the highest court in the land has reinterpreted the Constitution to mean something so opposite to its wording and, we have to assume, the intention of its drafters. The impact is potentially extremely hurtful and moves Canada in a decidedly totalitarian direction hostile to faith and freedom.

Why am I not surprised? Because the writing was so clearly on the wall when the whole issue was created by the legal professions in three English-speaking Canadian provinces—including the two biggest in Ontario and British Columbia. Their overwhelming dismissal of the religious rights of future graduates of Trinity Western University’s proposed law school indicates the direction taken by several generations of law professors. This ruling was long in the works.

Such a clear indication of where the legal profession has gone surely warns that the judges that have been drawn from the profession will hold the same views. As one then-law professor (and now a judge) told me recently: “I am the only legal conservative on my laws faculty. I know that other faculties throughout Canada are the same.” The majorities on those faculties and the lawyers and judges they have trained believe the following:

  • The Constitution and Charter of Rights means what judges say it means, not what the words convey on their face.  This has been the theme of the long, baneful reign of Chief Justice Beverly Maclachlan: the so-called “living tree” doctrine. It means that the courts are free to reinterpret the written document to suit the changing times. In effect, this provides a way to change the Constitution without resort to our very difficult amending process involving assent by a  super majority of provinces representing a majority of Canadians.
  • The importance that the Constitution gives religion—making religious freedom one of the four “fundamental freedoms” along with speech, assembly, and thought—can be, should be and has been dismissed by the courts. That was then and this is now. Canadians today place much less importance on religion than in 1982, when the Constitution was drafted, and the courts should reinterpret the Constitution to reflect this. No need to wait for the elected legislators to reflect the will of the people.
  • Diversity, which means rights for sexual minorities essentially, but also medical access for those seeking abortions and euthanasia, is much more important than religious rights.
  • With religious belief effectively demoted from its primacy as one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ fundamentals, it survives only as one of the characteristics protected from discrimination along with ethnic and sexual minorities, gender, age etc. When conflicts arise between such groups, the courts now weigh them in the balance of relative ease of accommodation on the one hand and  relative injury on the other.

In the case of Trinity Western University, even  this “balance” approach, was not used by the Supreme Court.

Because Trinity Western University’s proposed law school has been prevented from existing under  the school’s current ban on sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage, the Evangelical Christian community in Canada, as well as conservative Christians of all denominations (conservative Catholics have already set up an adjunct to TWU), have lost  their only opportunity to have their children schooled in law while protected from the prevailing sexual mores.

But if TWU were allowed to operate its school under its current ban, not one single LGBT student would be denied a place there. They would simply have to pledge to refrain from homosexual activity while enrolled. If this was deemed an intolerable imposition they could attend any other law school in Canada and have their sexual activities defended and promoted. Moreover, they could do so for a tiny fraction of the tuition free charged by the private Christian university. (Virtually nobody attends TWU whose parents aren’t footing the bill)

Nor does TWU’s ban on homosexual activity deny them any real opportunity. The proposed school would attract candidates who would otherwise attend public universities. TWU’s law school would therefore open up opportunities for LGBT candidates in public university law schools.

What this decision does is strike a blow against diversity of thought in the name of diversity of sexual practice. It quashes debate on the issue by preventing the creation of a law school that would dare to disagree The decision must therefore be seen in the larger context of Canada’s intellectual elites acting in favour of LGBT entitlement. The country’s banks not only flash pro-homosexual messaging to customers from the back wall of their branch offices, they threaten to cut off would-be corporate borrowers who do not appoint enough LGBT members  to their boards and management, for example.

Is the situation hopeless? No,but resistance will be costly. Conservatism in the U.S. points at least one way. There legal foundations have created summer law schools to provide training for graduates of secular law schools in bringing Christian and conservative legal thinking to bear. This addresses the need for an ideological counterweight to the prevailing post-modern legal consensus which holds that laws are whatever judges want them to be and which promotes sexual permissiveness. However, it does not solve the problem of protecting young Christians who have been home schooled or enrolled in Christian private primary and high schools until now from the secular humanist, sexually permissive world view.Such students who want to study law have no place in Canada to go.

Christ never promised us a rose garden, in this life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mother’s Day Reminds Us Where Science and Christianity Agree



You could call Globe and Mail Columnist Margaret Wente that paper’s token conservative, but you would be doing a disservice. She is a provocative thinker in her own right. For Mother’s Day sh focused  our Western Civilization’s abandonment of the reproductive function, in effect writing its own death warrant. Virtually every industrialized nation except the United States now has a birth rate well below replacement levels and the U.S. is only inches away from the tipping point.

The rate of immigration needed to sustain our population and our economy is arguably unsustainable culturally. We can’t bring people in from Africa, Asia or the Middle East fast enough and process and school them into proper, secularized , high-tech Canadians fast enough to sustain our economy or our rainbow mosaic of a society.

However, Western Europe’s leaders still seem to believe they can indeed absorb unlimited numbers of Muslims and turn them into perfect post-WW2 secular Europeans who keep whatever religious beliefs they have in a closet. I think Justin Trudeau and his entourage think the same.

At one remove from this is an agenda hled by many in our university and public policy elites to reduce the population sharply—down to a few billion worldwide — supported by fully robotized infrastructure.

Conservative Canadian pundit Ted Byfield used his column to applaud Wente. Some of his fans, however, got on her case for appearing to endorse evolution when she did a quick survey of reasons for having children, including serving God and perpetuating one’s genes.

So the readers’ discussion quickly moved, as web comment chains do, away from motherhood to Wente’s somewhat offhand reference to evolution and genes. Thus, Jim Mason wrote dismissively: “In fact, the ‘right’ behaviour in an evolutionary worldview is for males to impregnate as many females as possible as often as possible since evolution is simply ‘the survival of the fittest’ with the ‘fittest’ being, by definition, those that survive. Consequently, by having as many offspring as possible, a male will increase the probability of more offspring surviving and, therefore, being ‘the fittest,’ whereby, that male will be making his optimum contribution to the continuation of the species.”

But I don’t believe Jim Mason’s version of the current evolutionary take on the male imperative is correct, though it used to be. Evolutionary biologists no longer believe male promiscuity may not be as good a way to ensure the survival of one’s genes or one’s offspring as settling down with one mate and ensuring her survival and that of one’s children (and genes.). in this, they would be agreeing with God.

Of course, evolutionary theorists have no idea what really was going on a million years ago and they have no way to verify their theories. Many men have indeed behaved promiscuously. But marriage has obviously prevailed as an institutionalized behaviour while promiscuity has been condemned. Even polygamy is a form of marriage institutionalizing permanent unions.
Arguing evolution from observable human behaviour is like a parlour game, or, as some put it, a mug’s game. But, admit it, as a game, it is fun. In my view, however, Christianity has a fuller explanation for what we observe in human behaviour than do evolutionists because our explanation includes the Fall. The Fall explains why we can see how the world should work, and how humans should behave, at the same time as it is apparent that people do not behave that way.

In natural law theology, God is said to have written in human nature—in the nature of each human being—how we ought to behave. Which, being Fallen, we often ignore.

I once attended a lecture by Helen Fisher (anthropologist, author: Why We Love, about the neuroscience of romantic love). This lecture was where I learned of evolutionary thinking’s shift to seeing monogamy rather than male  promiscuity, being best for survival. Evolutionary scientists who believed marriage was best were still stumped, she admitted, to explain why promiscuity and infidelity persisted; why humans were capable of being married and sincerely committed to one person while at the same time also able to fall in love with another and be sexually attracted to a third. As faithful evolutionists, they have to believe everything that lives or ever lived has an evolutionary reason to do so.

I was tempted to wave my hand and say, “Teacher, teacher, I know why these contradictions exist.  It’s because of The Fall.”

I agree with Fisher, in other words, that it is hard to see an evolutionary advantage in adultery. If life, as Darwinists believe, is nothing but a dog-eat-dog struggle, then ensuring the survival of one’s mate and offspring is a full-time job.

However, if Christians are correct, life in the fallen world is often, but not necessarily and not always, dog-eat-dog. It is redeemable in a limited way by our faithful, charitable actions in imitation of Christ. And it is redeemable completely by Christ on His return.

Where the promiscuity idea came from, I believe, is the insect view of life. Some leading popular thinkers, notably Paul Ehrlich and Jared Diamond, wrote very deterministic books based on their study of insects. Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, wrongly predicting the world would run out of all natural resources including food, in the 1980s. Diamond explained all history in terms of geography. Britain was more successful than France because it was closer to North America, surrounded by water and rich in tin and then coal. Period. And so on. Diamond gives no importance to Protestantism, the Magna Carta, the cherished story of King Arthur, for example.

But humans, unlike insects, have free will, and can change their course. Humans can develop new ways to feed themselves, explore for more oil and iron and coal when rising prices encourage this.

An excellent but under-appreciated  documentary movie called Demographic Winter showed a human geographer who commented on screen that the downturn in the industrial world’s birth rate was not affecting conservative Christians, conservative Jews, and Muslims as much as others. They all saw children—and life—as God’s great gift. Therefore these “People of the Book” would slowly take over a larger and larger share of the population by virtue of their large families.

These days Muslims and very conservative Jews are doing the best job at maintaining a commitment to big families but Evangelical Christians and a dwindling number of conservative Catholics are also having big families.
May their tribe increase. While the survival of genes is ultimately irrelevant, the survival of Christian beliefs is of the utmost importance. Mother’s Day is a perfect time to remember that traditional—and large–families are the best way to ensure our faith lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

An Unflinching Examination of Islam

On Islam

A  Chronological Record, 2002-2018

By James Schall, S.J.

Ignatius Press, 2018

The danger that Islam poses for post-Christian North America came home to British Columbia with the abortive plot to explode a bomb at the Canada Day celebration in front of the Legislature a few years ago. Forgotten by most was the earlier use of Victoria as a staging area for a Muslim scheme to set off a bomb at an NFL game in California. Politicians and even Christian leaders have rushed to “explain away” even such successful acts of terrorism as the 9-11 destruction of New York City’s World Trade Center and the murder of  French Jews at their schools and French priests at their altars by Muslim terrorists.

These terror acts are blamed on economic conditions in Middle Eastern countries dominated coincidentally by Islam, or their failure to modernize, or envy of Western success, or the infection of the discontented in those countries with Western-inspired Islamo-fascism.

The blame is laid on anything, in sum, but Islam itself, which, we are told repeatedly, is a religion of peace. Those who actually perform the acts, and claim Islamic inspiration and motivation, are  deluded.

Now here is a book by a Catholic scholar, Father James Schall, which argues that the delusion is on the other foot. It is the terrorists who are speaking the truth, says Schall in On Islam. And not only subjectively: about Islam being their inspiration. But objectively: Islam really does justify terrorism.

He makes a good case too, and an important one. The West cannot come to grips with Islamic terrorism without treating Islam seriously as a religion whose message has all-reaching ramifications that impact on us and our countries, economies and our Christian faith.

The various popular explanations “fail to get at the central issue,” writes Schall, which is the fundamental Islamic “belief that everyone ought to be a Muslim.” And “until the submission [of the world] can be brought about…there can be no peace.”

Christians can identify with this: our faith too is evangelical. Indeed, we invented evangelism, obeying God’s command to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. But Islam was the invention of the warrior. It was spread by the sword, and its remarkable holding power, its ability to resist counter-evangelism, Schall notes, is sustained by the sword. In most Islamic states conversion merits the death penalty, while those whose families who have been Christians for a thousand years are now being exterminated or forced to leave.

Schall’s book is actually a collection of his writings on Islam since 9-11. But his analyswis logically begins with the Koran. Dictated by Muhammed over several decades in no apparent coherence, it incorporated altered versions of the Old and New Testament in an apparent attempt by Muhammad to attract converts from those faiths. Some of its contradictions rest with the author’s hope to draw converts voluntarily at first, and his later disillusionment and embracing of military conquest to bring the world under Allah’s will.

Thus, parts of the Koran support the idea of Islam as “a religion of peace,” and other parts, added later, justify holy war. This inconsistency is not a problem for Islamic scholars because the God of Islam is understood as the Supreme Will, a big difference from the Christian concept of God as the Supreme Lawgiver, whose law reconciles Justice and Mercy.

It is a hugely significant difference, not least in explaining  acceptance of terrorism by many ordinary Muslims (Schall says, by at least  10 % of the one billion believers). The individual “guilt” or “innocence” of terrorism’s victims is not a matter of concern for terrorists, if their objective is the submission of the world to God’s will.

But the two concepts of God are also key to understanding why the West advanced in the natural sciences so much more than have Muslim countries. Schall relies on the recent work of  theologian/physicist Stanley Jaki , who argued that the West’s Age of Reason was based on medieval Christian thinking that God was the God of Reason, whose universe was governed by universal laws discoverable by observation and rational thought.

Meanwhile medieval Muslim theologians condemned their scientific counterparts who also sought to base their studies on a rational, law-giving God. Such a belief was blasphemous, said the theologiians since it would implicitly subject God’s will  to his own laws.

Small wonder, then,  Schall writes, that Muslim countries display “common signs of arbitrary military rule: civil intolerance of other religions and practices, and usually poverty.”

(It must be admitted that Christian countries displayed intolerance in the past, especially during the Reformation. Nonetheless the fundamental Christian belief that salvation requires a voluntary acceptance of Jesus as God and Redeemer eventually led to the elevation of individual rights such as freedom of religion, speech and thought.)

So “few, if any, Muslim nations could be called free societies. In these areas the term ‘tolerance’ means something different from our accustomed understanding. A non-Muslim can survive but only as a second-class citizen, however delicately it is putt,” writes Schall.

But the nations of the West are afraid to condemn Muslim violations of the rights we hold to be universal. Partly, suggests Schall, it is because our declining birth rates make our leaders reluctant to “risk in combat their dwindling supply of sons.” But, “an abundant supply of sons is something that Islam has, many of whom seem surprisingly willing to die defending or expanding it.”

Another reason the West fails to come to grips with the Islamic threat is that it continues to think in terms of conflicts between states. And Muslim states are weak in conventional terms: poor, fractious, undemocratic and non-consensual. Coupled with that is our failure to take religion seriously. The threat Islamist terrorists pose is transnational.  To Islamic extremists, Even Islamic states are merely stages on the road to the world’s subjugation to God’s will.

A third reason lies in the West’s confidence in its own values. Leaving Schall aside for a brief personal observation, on a recent visit to Europe I viewed, among many wonders, the Museum of Europe (really of the European Union) in Brussels, and the Venice Biennale, an international exhibit of contemporary art. It was possible to discern in both settings how Europe’s intelligentsia still duismisses the threat posed by Islam. They see contemporary Europe as a triumphant expression of secular, scientific humanism, fully capable of absorbing, or digesting, Muslim immigrants or refugees and turning out enlightened, secular individuals who may or may not retain some attachment to a privatized form of their quaint and primitive faith. One has only to listen to Justin Trudeau to hear a perfect expression of this blind belief in secular humanism’s power.

The immediate danger of this false faith is that it will lead political leaders to try to stop terrorism by appeasing Muslim minorities with limited forms of self-government. This has been proposed both in Canada and Europe but so far resisted.

What does Schall think should be done? Though he admits early on that Muslims have resisted conversion, in his conclusion he nonetheless urges Christian evangelization as one solution to the threat of Muslim terrorism. Of course, nothing more violates the “spirit of the age” than a concerted effort by Christians in the West to evangelize Muslims here and in the Middle East. But that, he says, is clearly what God wants from us.

Alternatively, we should coldly and realistically see Islamic terrorists for the enemy they are,  first, as true expressions of the Islamic faith; and second, as opponents of our fundamental freedoms and of our faith in the Triune God. We should act accordingly.

Steve Weatherbe, May 7, 2018



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The New Gender Ideology Comes With Knives And Muzzles

A petition is circulating that calls on the federal and provincial governments to stop promoting the new gender ideology. Christians should take note and sign it, though already many Christian churches have been infiltrated by this latest trendy and powerful extension of post modernism and political correctness. After legislation was passed in the previous session without dissent or debate, it is now being taught in our B.C. schools as fact.

Gender ideology is the “ism” behind a dangerous trend in medicine and psychology that promotes troubled teenagers unhappy with their bodies to “change” their sex by taking powerful hormone blocks in early teen years, then opposite sex hormones later, with a view to ultimately cutting off their breasts if female and their genitals if males. It is a bad ideology that has caused a shared delusion among doctors, politicians and parents.

There is plentiful evidence that 80-90 percent of teenagers who decide they need to change their gender, or who believe they are already a different gender from their biological one change their minds back in a few years if left alone. Yet most doctors and psychologists will now support the troubled teens in their delusion.

The argument for taking hormone blockers at the onset of puberty and opposite sex hormones in mid-teens or late teens is that if such treatment is delayed, the child will develop the primary and secondary sex characteristics that are unwanted. They will develop according to their sex in some ways that are irreversible, such as the breadth of shoulders and pelvises , the length of arms and legs and the proportions of the bones of the face. And they ill develop in some ways that are changeable but only through irreversible surgery such as masectomy and castration.

But given that most people who suffer gender dysphoria recant, medicos and parents who jump on this particular bandwagon are approaching child abuse. Acceding to a child’s or teenager’s wishes certainly avoids conflict, but the evidence is that most gender dysphoric teens would be unhappy anyway because of a co-morbid condition such as depression or schizophrenia. Or so insists Walt Heyer, who after undergoing surgery to live as a woman for more than a decade, later reverted to his real sex and now crusades against the transgender movement full-time.  Treating such conditions with hormones or hormone blockers is a short term panacea, says Walt, that just prevents addressing the underlying condition. Heyer, a Christian, counsels trans youth to stick with their birth gender at

Again, given that most trans-inclined youth change their minds, arresting their normal growth with hormone blockers or opposite sex hormones during their teenage years may never be entirely reversed. They can go back to being a boy or a girl, but may grow into a permanently smaller less masculine, less strong man, or a less feminine, less attractive woman.


Heyer recently published an article in the conservative website the Federalist, “This formerly trans 14-year-old has a message for questioning kids.” There he writes about about a teen girl, Noor Jontry, who fought her parents for two years to be allowed to take steps to “change” her sex. Now she has recanted. Heyer quotes her as follows:

“I learned that being female isn’t a feeling. It’s a biological reality and I could feel however I feel without it meaning I was male.”

When asked why she wanted to be male, she said she didn’t like her body and wanted a different one. She also realizes in retrospect that “I used being trans to try and escape being scared about being small and weak. I thought that if I presented myself as a man I’d be safer.”

Noor’s thoughts are published on, a website for dissenting parents and professionals, many who write anonymously because those who fight are shunned by their professions. In Ontario and California it is illegal to even counsel teens who are gender dysphoric with the intention of helping them accept their birth-gender.

The CBC recently planned to air a BBC documentary on “Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best” until LGBT activists campaigned against it. A Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd who showed her class a debate on gender ideology was subjected to an Orwellian disciplinary hearing because it subjected her students to opinions that might upset them: the opinions of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson that gender is immutably based on biology.

Now the view that gender is plastic and subjective is being taught as fact and dogma in British Columbia schools.  The same is happening in Alberta, but there a resurgent conservative movement led by former federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney is daring to give mild support to parents who challenge the reigning  gender ideology. The NDP government is suggesting Kenney and his United Conservative party is bigoted against gays and trans youth.

Similarly, a new federal anti-hate law is being invoked against those who, like Jordan Peterson,  challenge the transgender ideology. The same law was cited the WLU teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd for merely showing students a debate between Peterson and those holding the prevailing view.

Christians who believe God made us male and female should sign the petition and support their Christian schools in resisting this dangerous ideoleogy.

And any parent you hear promoting this viewpoint, or supporting a gender dysphoric child, refer them to the websites listed in this blog.



Posted in Gender Ideology, Transgender | Tagged , , | 1 Comment