Featured Image
Dr. Ann GilliesBridge City News / YouTube

BRAMPTON, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled in favor of a school board that shut down a presentation that aimed to argue against the flying of pride flags at Ontario schools.  

On May 1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the Bluewater District School Board of Bruce and Grey Counties’ decision to ban Christian psychotherapist Ann Gillies’ oral presentation to protest Ontario schools’ mandate to fly the gay “pride” flag during the month of June, ordering her to pay the board $5,000 in costs.  

“Transgender children don’t exist – this term was brought into being by a coalition of pressure groups and political activities,” Gillies argued in her presentation submitted to the Superior Court. “It is NOT a scientific or medical term.”

“We have a moral obligation to open transgender doctrine to critical scrutiny. We stand in solidarity with biology, human design, physical reality, health and moralism,” she added. “As parents and concerned citizens we politely ask that you do not support the harmful transgender ideology by allowing the LGBT flag to be flown at our schools in June.”  

The Superior Court justified their decision by asserting that Gillies’ presentation could be harmful to “trans” children.  

“To understand the rationale for the Board’s decision, it is only necessary to imagine a trans student in attendance in the audience at the Board meeting where the applicant was making the presentation, and hearing it publicly declared that they do not, in fact, exist, but are instead the construct of a ‘harmful transgender ideology’,” wrote the Superior Court.  

“With regard to the balancing exercise, the respondent highlights its duties to promote an inclusive school climate for pupils of any sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, and to provide an environment free of discrimination and harassment. Transgender individuals are one of the most disadvantaged groups in society, frequently facing threats to their very existence,” the Superior Court continued.  

In 2019, Gillies applied to give her presentation to the school board but was denied. Citing human rights legislation, the board instructed her to email them her presentation instead.  

Following this, Gillies appealed to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms who filed an application for Judicial Review in the Divisional Court on her behalf against the Bluewater District School Board, asserting their actions were a “breach of her constitutionally protected freedom of expression.” 

Campaign Life Coalition’s Jack Fonseca told LifeSiteNews, “It’s a stupendously horrific ruling that destroys our constitutional right to freedom of speech. This censorship of parents and citizens voices is totally unfair.” 

Fonseca believed the only positive aspect of the ruling is that the “totalitarian LGBT lobby has revealed it has nothing left but raw censorship.” 

“Parents and concerned citizens are waking up to the brainwashing and sexual grooming of minors that is being perpetrated by our woke schools,” he added. “They are speaking out in greater numbers, totally fed up.” 

“We must pray and act, if we can, to support continued legal challenges to overturn this dangerous precedent,” Fonseca urged. “Increased protest and civil disobedience may be necessary as well.” 

According to Fonseca, the Superior Court judge “lied when he said that the censorship by the school board was an appropriate ‘balancing’ of rights.” 

“There was nothing appropriate about it. Freedom of expression is a constitutional right, enshrined in the highest law of the land,” he stated. 

“There is no constitutional right to fly an LGBT Pride flag over the heads of other people’s children with impunity, and to do so without criticism from parents and taxpayers,” Fonseca declared. “Here, a fake right has been used to destroy a genuine right, and we can’t allow it to stand.”  

Fonseca warned that the ruling will be cited by “woke school boards and Directors of Education across the country to censor the very parents and taxpayers who fund their salaries, to block them from delegating at school board meetings.” 

In fact, on May 15, the Durham District School Board asserted the court ruling gave the school board the power to set up a “legal framework for vetting of public presentations and questions.”  

“The very recent decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Gillies v. Bluewater District School Board, 2023 ONSC 1625, considered a substantially similar issue,” wrote the DDSB’s general counsel Patrick Cotter.  

“The reasoning and conclusions in Bluewater decision confirm the Board’s authority to vet questions in a manner that balances charter rights with the Board’s obligations and commitments,” he continued.  

Despite the ruling, Fonseca urged parents and residents of the Bluewater School District to make their voices heard by voting in pro-family candidates. 

According to Fonseca, candidates must be elected who institute a new “‘Transparency and Democracy in Delegations’ policy that enshrines the right to free speech in any topic, so long as it does not violate the Criminal Code of Canada.” 

“Then work to replace all of the trustees who support censorship in the earliest possible election opportunity,” he urged. “They need to get pro-parental rights candidates lined up right now, in the event that a by-election opportunity arises.”