At the clear risk of being ignored again with respect to publication, I simply can’t stand by and accept the article that your reporter put together about Mr. Neufeld in last week’s edition without offering comment. To be sure Mr. Neufeld was not present at the meeting and that is about where the unbiased accuracy stops. From the position of an onlooker who became increasingly intrigued by this vicious version of a public funded soap opera, I suggest that Mr. Neufeld is not the bully from whom our children need to be protected, but he is the persecuted individual suffering under the systematic intimidation of the educational establishment. At the heart of this intimidation campaign is he fact that Mr. Neufeld refuses to believe the myth of gender fluidity, which point is flogged by the schoolboard and educational establishment by a religious fanatacism through non mandatory guidelines under the guise of an “anti-bullying” program. And who would take issue with this? Reality is, however, that:
Mr. Neufeld has never been reported as being against the officially presented version of the program i.e. anti violence and anti bullying. But he has spoken against the actual intent and practical implementation of a substantial part of these guidelines; the forcing of the gender fluidity dogma upon children from preschool age on. The absence of this alleged phenomenon is fully and scientifically supported; a quick scan of the Internet shows anywhere from 99.67% to 98.1% of the children are born in either one of the two biological genders.
Mr. Neufeld is being physically threatened by certain people, not likely to be those who are in support of him. This leads to conclude that those who are promoting this anti “bullying” are in reality the modern day Bullies. The meeting in Evergreen Hall, so haphazardly reported by The Progress reporter gives a good example of the so called “anti bullying” mindset present at the meeting. To wit:
1. “Bullying” actively took place by a representative of the the BC Teachers’ Association by standing in the door opening of the hall where the meeting supporting Mr. Neufeld took place, by spreading his large flag so wide in the door opening that people could not freely pass him. This in spite of the polite and friendly request at the opening of the meeting to keep ALL signs out of the meeting space.
2. “Bullying” took place by another individual with a rather odious sign who refused to keep his sign outside of the meeting hall, as did a BC Nurses’ Association person.
3. “Bullying” took place where this individual followed the transgender speaker in a physically harassing manner far down one side of the hall and continued to confront the speaker after he was encouraged to cease his behavior. So apparently it is also acceptable to intimidate transgendered individuals who happen not to agree with the philosophy of the bullies. So much for tolerance and the alleged concern for the transgendered people that is said to fuel this campaign!
4. “Bullying” took place when this individual continued to move along the front of the hall in an attempt to make it impossible to see the speaker of the moment. Fortunately this effort was thwarted by security and only when various meeting attendants assisted the single security individual in convincing this bully to cease his activity.
5. “Bullying” took place by CUPE members sitting in the front row who did not respect the request to leave all signs of whatever nature outside the hall. They frequently raised their signs for everyone to see and shouted comments during a presentation.
6. “Bullying” took place by individuals outside who made it difficult to enter the hall by “innocuous” but systematic clustering in front of the main access doors and in the entry hallway.
“Bullying” is taking place by the malicious lawsuits, and Tribunal Hearings that Mr. Neufeld is subjected to. All at the public dime and commenced by the bullies in a blatant attempt to ruin Mr. Neufeld into submission because he does not have the privilege of access to the public purse!
“Bullying” takes places by the Schoolboard in denying Mr. Neufeld access to the rightful avenues of a schoolboard member by virtue of his unquestionable democratic election to that board. Perhaps a suit of workplace discrimination is in order, or even a Class action???
This is no longer just a matter of a schoolboard member disagreeing with a topic. This goes to the heart of our democratic system. If we love democracy as much as we all loudly profess, then this blatant injustice should be not allowed to proceed. We don’t owe that just to Mr. Neufeld only, but as much to ourselves as well if we wish to use the words “anti violence” and “anti bullying” in the future. Sitting back and doing nothing makes us the parody of values we so loudly proclaim to be true and admirable!
George van Apeldoorn