TORONTO – In days gone by, this adage served many purposes. It stoked mistrust of the “do nothing”; nurtured respect for those who strove to “prove themselves” by being useful, and, encouraged younger people to pursue learning and the application of acquired art.
In short, within the constraints of what “the Law permits”, the thinking was that “you are what you do”. The most difficult, and complex, “do” (duty) is arguably parenthood. Once parents “survive” the challenges of their offspring’s infancy, the learning process for them and their children grows exponentially.
Some teachers, administrators and institutions (like school boards) occasionally assume a demeanour and behaviour suggesting they know best how to raise a child. Even if, occasionally, they might “lord it over” trusting or less educated parents, it is important to understand that these pretenders are mere passing fancies. Their sole authority is derived from the parent(s). At best, these authorities are obligated to act in loco parentis, in the child’s best interests as recognized by the parent(s) and supported by Law.
Some choose to adopt attitudes that insinuate themselves in in the child-parent relationship but, until the child becomes an adult, the familial relationship – strained as it may become – is not easily superseded by outsiders, even if their influence may be impactful.
None of this is new. Yet, more recently, “outsiders” and their “allies” in the bureaucracies, academia and school-related boards and agencies have taken to pushing an agenda that excludes parental input in child-rearing and the establishment of social goals.
They are in the minority. They are vocal. They have appropriated language and discredited the natural social allies of parents, like religious organizations. They have seized control of the political process.
Concerned parents are pushing back. In the USA, they have a champion in Florida Governor Ron De Santis. In Canada, Premier Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick has staked his political future on an amendment to a law his own government had enacted.
The “Higgs amendment” would prohibit the use of a pronoun, by a teacher or school official, toward a student if said pronoun would be inconsistent with the biological sex the child manifested at birth, without the written approval of the student’s parent. Moreover, no child psychologist or mental health official would be allowed to examine and consult a student on gender transitioning without the permission and presence of the parent(s).
Some members of his Cabinet and party (all “adults”) have put in motion an internal rebellion to oust Premier Higgs from government and from the Party. Their actions would seem extreme.
What appears to be at the centre of this bewildering political event is the manifest definition of what is a male – person biologically endowed with (1) internal sperm producing organs and (2) a penis – or female – person naturally gifted differently with (1) internal organs for storing and developing unfertilized ova and (2) a vagina – .
If Higgs holds on, new Brunswick may emerge at the forefront of a pro-parent counter-revolution against the outcomes of idle minds. First round, on August 15th.
