Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.
Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.
It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”
At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.
“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.
“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”
Statements by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau clearly signaled the pro-LGBTQ, gender ideology Liberal agenda, critics warned.
Coteau, who introduced the bill, told QP Briefing he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.
“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” he said.
“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”
Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity’, if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.
Fonseca also blasted the Catholic Church hierarchy for its silence in the face of this legislation.
I’ve only seen this covered on Christian media outlets, so I was a little wary of it. I e-mailed a friend in Ontario who follows this stuff, and asked if Bill 89 was as bad as it is described in this story. Yes, he says, it is — and the Kathleen Wynne government is extremely liberal on social issues.
So, under the provisions of this bill, if your 11-year-old son says that he is a girl, and you won’t go along with it, the government can seize your child.
Don’t think it can’t come here. In Illinois, the state won’t let families who oppose transgenderism foster children, or staffers within the Department of Child and Family Services oppose gender ideology:
According to the gender guardians at DCFS, all children have a “right to self-determination of gender and sexual orientation,” and individual choices about “sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression” should be viewed as “developmental milestones, not problematic behavior.” The role of adults is simply to “facilitate exploration of any LGBTQ matters through an affirming approach…by being open, non-judgmental, and empathic.”
Thus, when children or adolescents “explore/express a sexual orientation other than heterosexual and/or a gender identity that is different from the child/youth’s sex assigned at birth,” DCFS “staff, providers, and foster parents” must “support and respect” the child’s exploration “without any effort to direct or guide them to any specific outcome for their exploration.”
In other words, all DCFS staff and volunteers must communicate a uniform message to the children and adolescents in their care: it’s perfectly normal to identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, and just as conducive to a child’s wellbeing to be transgender as to identify with one’s actual sex.
For the true believers behind Illinois’ new child welfare policies, the state’s sacred task is to “facilitate” children’s “exploration” of the rainbow-colored, imaginary world of gender-as-you-like-it. Names, pronouns, and body parts are tried on or swapped out like fashion accessories to match the shifting feelings of “gender-fluid” (otherwise known as “confused”) children.
Read the whole thing — the details of this new policy are chilling. It only covers kids in the foster care system and their caregivers. How much longer before liberal politicians (and courts) make it illegal to deny your minor child the hormones and other things needed to transition to the opposite sex?
UPDATE: Here is the complete text of Bill 89. I may have misread it the first time. I took it to refer to what constitutes child abuse requiring the intervention of child protective services under Ontario law. It might be restricted to children in foster care overseen by the state. That’s a meaningful distinction, but it is very, very easy to see how that could be logically extended to all children. After all, if it’s considered abusive to prevent a foster child who considers himself transgender from exploring his gender identity, why isn’t it abusive to prevent one’s natural child from doing so?
As usual with the LGBT advocacy crowd, never, ever, ever believe that they will stop here and go no further. The Law of Merited Impossibility (“It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it”) is ironclad.
UPDATE.2: Reader MichaelGC writes:
Oh, it’s definitely in the works. This is what was discussed in a in a session of the WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) conference this year in LA:
And the final piece on suicidality is family non-acceptance. This is where you have a family who is saying, no, no, no…and then you realize that actually the family is contributing to some of that negativity at home. So the family is creating a toxic environment. (i.e. not letting him or her have hormones) And that’s where we have let the young person know the potential ramifications of calling DHS and saying that this is an unsafe environment. And that we’ve given the family every chance. To learn, to grow. And they’re continuing to be part of the problem. So thankfully this was an important time when I realized it was worthwhile in starting the clinic at children’s hospital to have lots of meetings with the lawyers in risk management. To be able to say, “alright. I have the ethicist, I have the lawyer, I have the guru from risk management, I’m gonna sit down and say, I need to describe a case to you and make sure this is actually parents being negligent in the healthcare needs of their child.
Elsewhere in that link, a Dr. Forcier says “We spent a half day with family court judges, telling them this is what gender and transgender is . . .”
So when they come after your child for not going along with her desire to transition with her buddies at school where transitioning is a thing, it will be because a judge has deemed you derelict by withholding needed medical care.
UPDATE.3: Frank Beckwith called this seven years ago. Excerpt:
So, here is the future: if the state can declare the Johns unfit to be foster parents, and thus deny them foster children, because they may teach these children the Christian understanding of human sexuality, then the state, armed with Judge Walker’s premises, can declare any married couple unfit to be parents, and thus remove their natural children from their home, because these parents, in fact, teach their children the same lesson the Johns were forbidden from teaching. For it is a lesson that is irrational and harms others, and thus to impart it to one’s children is a form of child abuse. As Leonard Cohen would put it, “There’ll be the breaking of the ancient western code. Your private life will suddenly explode.”