Conservative MP says party needs to change LGBTQ policy 

Conservative MP (Ontario, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill) and recently appointed CPC deputy leader Leona Alleslev caused outrage Saturday when she flippantly asked on CBC’s The House why no one was asking leaders about attending Saint Patrick’s Day parades, equating it to politicians not attending LGBTQ Pride parades.

“Have we asked anybody if they’ve marched in a Saint Patrick’s Day parade?” said Alleslev Saturday morning on the CBC politics program.

Shortly after the program aired, Alleslev apologized for equating Saint Patrick’s Day parades with Pride parades, which were started to push back against gay persecution and inequality.

Many critics on both sides of the political aisle argue Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s CPC lost crucial ridings in Ontario and other progressive metropolitan areas of the country because of his ambivalence on LGBTQ issues and his personal religious beliefs, which led to him being dogged by reporters throughout the election campaign with questions he evaded.

A large contingent of the CPC is also actively trying to get Scheer to step down as leader after the party failed to oust Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in October. They were quick to pounce on the latest blunder by his new deputy leader, who was still a Liberal MP until crossing the floor about a year ago.

Journalists were also questioning the judgement of the leadership of the party when they’re still having difficulty communicating unequivocal support for the LGBTQ community.

Scheer critics also questioned why he didn’t include CPC MP (Ontario, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Eric Duncan in his shadow cabinet, the first openly gay Conservative MP. Duncan was the former mayor of the township of North Dundas, with over eight years prior experience in politics. He also vocally defended Scheer during the 2019 election when the CPC leader was being attacked on LGBTQ issues. Since the election, Duncan has said the party needs to rethink its approach towards LGBTQ issues.

Meanwhile, party stalwarts launched a non-profit organization last week to raise money to depose Scheer from power.

Conservative Victory was created by Kory Teneycke, Doug Ford’s top election advisor and former director of communications for prime minister Stephen Harper, Jeff Ballingall—the founder of the Proud Network and the Chief Marketing Officer at The Post Millennial—and John Reynolds, who co-chaired the Stephen Harper’s 2006 election campaign.

Scheer loyalists in the party maintain that the CPC leader still holds the vast majority of support from his caucus and the uprising is just a small dissident group.

Scheer’s office did not respond to The Post Millennial‘s request for comment.

Anna and Jen went on a date. The Guardian set it up, as part of their blind dating service. It was a sweet little date, both Anna and Jen enjoyed themselves. They shared some wine, they shared a kiss, and the whole experience was written up in their Blind Date column. The Guardian didn’t reveal the daters’ genders to one another—presumably because The Guardian’s editors think everyone should be okay with being pansexual.

Anna gave the date an 8 out of 10. A second date was talked about, but not carried out. All in all though, a success for the news outlet’s blind dating program. 

Jen was asked: “And… did you kiss?”

“Yesssss! Outside the station. I am so bad at kissing, though, so I hope I didn’t embarrass myself. Her glasses fogged up, which was super cute. I’d like to see her glasses fog up again,” she said.

There was just one little hitch, however, which was that Jen is trans; Anna is a biological woman and a lesbian. 

By all accounts, Anna was charming, and she and Jen had a good time. But the internet picked up on this detail of disclosure. It was posited by gender critical women that this was an unreasonable oversight, that the biological sex of a blind date should be at least one thing the participants would know about each other. 

Others had the idea that the second date was cancelled by Anna because of Jen’s transness.

And of course, any of those things could be true. Maybe Anna and Jen were surprised by each others’ genders. Maybe Anna was expecting a female lesbian. Maybe Jen was expecting a trans woman. Maybe both of them were expecting female lesbians. Only The Guardian could know that for sure. 

The Guardian claimed that it did not disclose participants’ because it did not ask for the info. Presumably, before setting up blind dates, people are asked what they are looking for in a mate. Dating apps give users the opportunity to state what kind of sexual partner they are looking for, but maybe The Guardian doesn’t do this. Maybe instead there’s the presumption that all people can see past gender, to the sweet and gooey insides, and find true like no matter what the external package

If so, then kudos to The Guardian for their ingenious plan to overturn millennia of sexual and biological evolution with just a few pixels, a blind date, and a snog outside the train station. But in today’s climate of gender confusion, I don’t know if we should be so generous to these editors. 

Perhaps they believed that the right thing to do was to categorize a trans woman who is into women as a lesbian, for the purposes of breaking through that cotton ceiling. Maybe they figured that if Anna wasn’t into biological men who claim to be lesbians, that would be her problem. 

For their part, Jen and Anna behaved like the civil, thoughtful, considerate young people that they probably are. 

There was no love connection this time, but the next time The Guardian sets up two people of undisclosed genders, perhaps they’ll get lucky. It is not appropriate for a dating service to be so enthralled with the blind date idea that they are not even honest about the gender of the people being set up. If The Guardian is to be a trusted dating service, and maybe that’s not such a great idea, then they have a responsibility to respect people’s gender and sex preferences, or at least to disclose. Not everyone is into surprises. 

For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.

The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.

Presumably, both the Swedish government and the BBC believe they are doing the right thing, a good thing, taking a positive step in the education of their nations’ children. But why does the Swedish federal government and the BBC want children open to the idea that gender and biological sex are different entities, and that biological sex differences are not meaningful with regard to anything at all? 

The Swedish program, implemented on a federal level, is funded by a cache of cash left behind by those Swedes who died without any heirs, and is administered by Kulturforenigen Mums, which has brought in drag storytelling outfit Among Dragons and Drag Queens to create the curriculum. Among Dragons and Drag Queens’ plans is to rewrite those staid, boring, cis heteronormative fairy tales and replace them with stories where perhaps damsels rescue themselves, and handsome princes realize they’d rather fight for their right to be princesses than aspire to true love and responsibility. 

The idea behind drag story hour is that children’s concepts of gender are uprooted and questioned by having grown men dressed fantastically and comically as women. While they’re at it, Among Dragons and Drag Queens should bring in some women and men and who have truly bucked gender stereotypes, like dads who prioritize raising their kids over a full-time career, or women who build bridges. Wardrobe is fashion, but life choices are what actually matter. 

In the BBC video, children read questions about gender, such as “What are the different gender identities?” The answer is that this is a “that’s a really, really, exciting question to ask.” And another specialist tells children, in a voice rich with wonder and discovery, “do you know there are so many gender identities. So we know we’ve got male and female, but there are over a hundred, if not more, gender identities now. So we know that some people might think they are two different genders, so people might think they are bigender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves genderqueer, who are just like I don’t really want to be anything, in particular, I’m just going to be me.”

If this is all so innate, as male and female were considered to be only a few short minutes ago, why do kids need specialized education to understand it? If the goal is compassion, empathy, and instilling an egalitarian mindset, drag story hour and blatant televised lies about there being over 100 genders are not the answer.

So why do the BBC and the Swedish federal government want to make sure children know that men who don’t feel like adhering to male stereotypes and women who don’t want to adhere to female stereotypes are necessarily something other than male and female? 

Is this about making sure kids are not prejudiced against people who present and act differently from the expected stereotype? Is the goal to make sure that kids know that they personally do not have to adhere to these stereotypes? Maybe the goal is to break down sex-based stereotypes altogether so that kids know that their capabilities are not limited by their sex?

What these educational programs actually do is solidify and entrench different expectations other than the traditional ones. While these programs have the tinge of compassion, consideration, and inclusiveness, that is actually an illusion. Instead of breaking down the limiting factors of socially constructed sex-based stereotypes and leaving that space open, it fills it with new rules about how not adhering to stereotypes means you are the opposite gender from that which your sex determines you are. 

The message behind telling children there are people who are bigender, or multi-gender, or people who “just want to be me,” is that children must choose their gender, not that some people do, but that everyone must. Affirming these delusions is confirming them. What child doesn’t want to “just be me?” And if the way to “just be me” is to say “I’m different from my body,” then that’s what kids will do. These are guidelines to rebellion against the body, they are not telling children “here are some paths,” they are saying “this is the path, walk down it.” 

The reason for indoctrinating children early in the ways of society is to make sure they know exactly what concepts and constructs cannot be questioned and must be adhered to, both in thought and action. If trans ideology were about acceptance, something more along the lines of “people are different, don’t judge people for those things about themselves that they can’t control,” we would be in the realm of anti-bias initiatives. If the message were “you don’t have to be limited by traditional gender roles,” that would be about breaking down stereotypes. 

In the current merry multi-gender climate, the way that gender stereotypes are bucked is by showing men in dresses, and women speaking up for themselves. This is a strange dichotomy where what male gender warriors are fighting against is wardrobe, and female gender fighters are railing against traditional gender roles. But the thing is, those roles have already been turned on their heads. Women and men have far more freedom than they used to and are free live as they choose. The fact that adults want to transition and live as the opposite sex, or perform drag shows for other adults, has been pretty well accepted. The problem here is that children are being told lies to uphold adult desires.

Erin O’Toole and Peter MacKay are looking at runs for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, according to a well-connected source within the party who’s close to prominent figures of the CPC.

“O’Toole is waiting for the dust to settle” to launch his leadership bid, “I assume he is waiting for the caucus meeting next week,” said the source to The Post Millennial.

O’Toole currently serves as the Official Opposition Critic of Foreign Affairs and ran for the Conservative Party leadership in 2017, finishing third behind Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer. 

Multiple CPC sources spoke to The Post Millennial on the condition of confidentiality.

MacKay, a former minister in the Harper government, has also been establishing the foundations of a leadership bid according to the one source. “MacKay has had top organizers in Toronto for a meeting last week,” said the one source to The Post Millennial.

“Its categorically false,” said MacKay to The Post Millennial. “I met with former candidates that I supported during the campaign. I met with a group who were putting together a lecture series on [former Nova Scotia premier] Robert Stanfield.”

Earlier this week MacKay criticized Scheer for his stance on social conservatism, telling reporters that issues like abortion and immigration “hung round [Scheer’s] neck like a stinking albatross.” MacKay added that Scheer’s failure to defeat Trudeau “was like having an open net and missing the net.” 

After MacKay had made these comments, he soon backtracked, stating on Twitter that his recent comments only had to do with addressing Conservative policy rather than the party’s leadership. 

“We’ve been discussing what happened in the campaign and how we can improve our showing in the next election,” MacKay said.

“My open net comment was in response to what the Conservatives did to lose the election with all the ammunition that we had: SNC, blackface, India, all of the vulnerabilities of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, and how did we manage to lose?” continued MacKay. “I made probably what was a flippant remark, but nevertheless, it seemed to encapsulate that it was like shooting a breakaway on an open net and missing.” 

“[My comments were aimed at] the collective, the party, the election. It was not aimed at Andrew Scheer. Of course, a lot of people want to interpret it that way and want to use it as a cudgel to beat Andrew Scheer over the head with. Andrew Scheer is the leader, I supported him during the campaign, I continue to support him,” MacKay said when asked if the buck stops at the leader for the election loss.

“I worked my tail off away from my job and family to do everything in my power to help him become the PM of Canada and I would do it again. So I take some umbrage when I get questioned as to my loyalty— you know, somebody said that ‘MacKay wasn’t on the ice’, well I was on the ice for 18 years, I campaigned in 50 ridings last campaign, and I helped put the party together, I have a vested interest in seeing a Conservative government.”

Mackay previously served as the leader of the Progressive Conservative party before it merged with the Canadian Alliance, before Harper took over the united party. 

During the 2017 Conservative leadership election, O’Toole received similar support to Scheer within the party’s caucus.

Sources within the party say as many as 50 caucus members, including senators, are entertaining the idea of pushing for a leadership confidence vote at next Wednesday’s caucus meeting. At least 25 MPs—20 percent—need to sign a notice to trigger the confidence vote.

Scheer’s office didn’t immediately respond to request for comment.

The Post Millennial could not reach O’Toole for comment.