Connect with us


SELICK: Ontario plans to inject school children without parental consent

Traditionally, minors require parental consent for medical decisions, including vaccinations.




Ontario’s Minister of Education, Stephen Lecce, recently announced that “to keep schools as safe as possible”, Ontario school boards and public health units will be required to hold vaccination clinics in or near schools.

Although the convoluted verbiage in this government news release tends to obfuscate rather than clarify what it really means, it seems to imply that parental consent will be dispensed with.

“With respect to consent at school-focused clinics, COVID-19 vaccines will only be provided if informed consent is received from the individual, including eligible students, and as long as they have the capability to make this decision.”

Traditionally, minors require parental consent for medical decisions, including vaccinations. But in Ontario, it appears that students themselves will able to consent to vaccinated, without parents being consulted or even informed.

Several details remain unclear. For instance, what is an “eligible student”? I checked a database of Ontario law but that term is not defined either by statute or regulation. We don’t know, for instance, how old a student will have to be in order to be considered eligible, or what factors besides age will be taken into consideration. Nor is it clear who will determine whether any particular eligible student has the capability to make this decision.

What does seem clear is that it won’t be the parents who decide. The news release goes on to state: “Health care providers, the school, and families must respect a young person’s decision regarding vaccination.”

We don’t know what inducements might be offered to eligible students. For instance: Get the jab and you’ll be excused from history class?

What information will be given to students to ensure that their consent is indeed fully informed? For instance, will they be told that their chances of dying from COVID-19 are very slim in the first place? The CDC’s data shows that within the US, only 87 infants under a year old and 354 young people from age 1 to 17 have died of COVID-19 since the pandemic began 16 months ago – and there’s a good chance that these statistics are inflated by the use of PCR tests with false positives.

However, to put things in perspective, the leading causes of death in children and adolescents in the US for a single year (2016) were: car accidents (4,074), suicide (2,335), homicide (1,865), drowning (995) and unintentional drug overdoses or poisoning (761). Kids and parents don’t go around obsessing about these dangers – avoiding car rides or swimming pools, for example. COVID-19 is one of the least statistically significant causes of death for young people.

Perhaps the most offensive part of this story is the government’s unspoken premise that it has more right to control people’s kids than they do themselves, and that its wishes can easily be implemented through publicly funded schools. This may come as a surprise to many parents, but it shouldn’t. Taxpayer-funded education has always had this underlying premise.

In his 1994 book, Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families, author Sheldon Richman documented how the early advocates of taxpayer-funded public education explicitly stated that their goal was to transform children into obedient, compliant minions of the state.

For instance, Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) – the so-called “father of American psychiatry” – wrote: “Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property.”

Sociologist Edward Ross (1866-1951) wrote that the task of the schoolmaster is “to collect little plastic lumps of human dough from private households and shape them on the social kneading board.”

Archibald Douglas Murphey, a judge in North Carolina, wrote in 1816: “…in these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed…Their parents know not how to instruct them…The state, in the warmth of her affection and solicitude for their welfare must take charge of those children…”

Richman was not the first to recognize and deplore this movement. Journalist H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) observed disapprovingly that: “The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.”

Just as gender reassignment is now being promoted through the schools despite parental opposition, social engineers are now looking to compulsory educational institutions and controversial medical treatments as a further way to undermine parental authority over their kids.

Karen Selick is a columnist for the Western Standard and a retired lawyer who now works as a freelance writer, editor, and video maker. 

Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for the original Western Standard, the National Post, and Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca. You can see her videos at https://www.bitchute.com/channel/SuoLpS8cVejQ/

Continue Reading


  1. Jennifer Dyck

    August 28, 2021 at 5:58 am

    Schools have been lining kids up for jabs without parental knowledge or consent for years. I had to tell my kids that if they were told to line up and then taken for shots at school, they should say no, call my mom, and refuse the shot. One of my children refused the Gardasil shot in grade 5. As a child in the ’70’s, I was lined up and jabbed at school. Parents weren’t involved. Public health nurses just showed up and lined us up like cattle, assuming we would all comply. One of my family developed epilepsy right after one of those. This is so wrong!!

  2. Left Coast

    August 27, 2021 at 5:30 pm

    New Israeli Study Finds Fully Vaccinated People are at “Greater Risk of Hospitalization” and 13 TIMES MORE LIKELY to Catch Covid-19
    Than Those Who Have Recovered and Have Natural Immunity

    A new study out of Israel has seemingly confirmed that individuals who have natural immunity have better protection against the NEW DELTA VARIANT than people who are fully vaccinated.

    The team of researchers, from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University, published their study earlier this week to medRxiv.org.


  3. Left Coast

    August 27, 2021 at 1:47 pm

    CDC Data Highlights COVID Vaccination is More Dangerous than COVID Infection for Young Adults

    According to the CDC data for every 100,000 young people vaccinated 700 will require medical care and 200 will be hospitalized. Put another way, 200 young people will suffer side-effects that require hospitalization for every 100,000 vaccinations administered. However, also according to the CDC data, the CDC estimates that only about 50 out of 100,000 adolescents have EVER been hospitalized for Covid-related illness.

    That means the rate of hospitalization from the COVID vaccine is four times greater than the rate of hospitalization from exposure to the virus itself.

    Why would any young person in their right mind increase their risk of hospitalization by taking the vaccine?

    Alex Berenson dove into the CDC analysis after the CDC study was made public [SEE HERE].


  4. Baron Not Baron

    August 25, 2021 at 12:53 pm

    School was never used for education, since the Roman Empire. School is for funneling. It is part of the grid. School makes one dependable on the grid (the others). The great majority of the population is not self-sufficient. That is only because of the school – that teaches you “everything”, but one thing: how to think.

  5. Left Coast

    August 25, 2021 at 11:38 am

    Doug Ford is such a fool . . . here’s a real leader . . .

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Explains Monoclonal Antibody Treatment
    August 24, 2021 | Sundance
    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is working to open monoclonal antibody treatment centers across the state, which would expand access to a revolutionary COVID-19 treatment. The Republican sat down at one of the latest facilities in Panama City, Florida for an exclusive interview with One America’s Stefan Kleinhenz. [Direct Rumble Link]

    In addition to the monoclonal treatment, the Florida governor discusses the issues of masks in schools. WATCH:


  6. Bill Mccann

    August 25, 2021 at 9:17 am

    This is beyond wrong to the point of criminal. Blood could flow as a result of this decision.

  7. Bryan

    August 24, 2021 at 7:05 pm

    Yet another reason why he’s called ‘THUG’ Ford. Parental rights? GONE! Courtesy of yet another ‘statist’ CONservative.

    “HA! HA! HA! HA!”, says THUG.

  8. mm

    Karen Selick

    August 24, 2021 at 2:45 pm

    Yup, that’s exactly what they are planning to do.

  9. Left Coast

    August 24, 2021 at 11:39 am

    So healthy children who have a near ZERO chance of dying from the Wuhan Virus are going to be Injected with an Experimental Vaccine that is not a vaccine, by the Insane Ontario Health Dept.

    Reactions in Children can be serious and sometimes deadly . . .

    65% of the Delta variant Deaths in the USA are Vaccinated folks.
    According to Dr. Peter McCullough . . .

  10. mm

    Karen Selick

    August 24, 2021 at 9:01 am

    Something else I wanted to comment on in here (but there wasn’t room) is that adverse events of vaccination for young people are starting to accumulate in the VAERS database. The last time I checked, there were 2,720 reports of adverse reactions to CV-19 injections among people under 18. I’ll bet the school children won’t be informed of this downside when being asked for their “informed consent.”

  11. Mars Hill

    August 24, 2021 at 1:55 am

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


The Pipeline: YouTube cancels Western Standard

This week a Calgary Cop suspended for refusing vax, YouTube cancels Western Standard and D-Day on Kenney’s leadership vote rules. Join us live at 12 PM!




Continue Reading


MORGAN: Free speech in comedy under siege

“What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle? “




Standup comedians have always been on the front lines in battles over free speech and expression.

In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, most of the pearl-clutching busybodies came from the ‘moral majority’ religious right. They feared obscenity within comedy acts would degrade the moral fabric of the nation and for a while, the law agreed. Comedian Lenny Bruce was convicted and sentenced to four months in a workhouse in 1964 for the crime of spreading obscenity in his act. George Carlin was arrested seven times during the 1970s for his famous “Seven Dirty Words” routine.

Bruce died before the appeal of his sentence was completed. He was posthumously pardoned in 2003. Charges against Carlin were all dropped before he could be convicted. Carlin and Bruce refused to back down and in the end, the state couldn’t win. We will never know how many comedians allowed themselves to be cowed into changing their acts due to state and social intimidation in those days. Not all of them had the will or support bases Carlin and Bruce enjoyed.

The ability for comedians to freely express themselves is just as threatened today as it was 50 years ago. The source of puritanical outrage against comedy routines has changed, though. These days the prigs demanding the curtailment of free speech in comedy acts are the snowflakes of the politically correct left.

Canadian comedian Mike Ward found himself dragged before human rights tribunals and the Canadian courts for nearly a decade over a routine in which he mocked a disabled young Canadian performer. The case ultimately went to the Canadian Supreme Court where it was ruled in a tight 5-4 split decision Ward’s right to free speech was to be protected, and jokes were not subject to judicial review. We came dangerously close to having a comedian convicted for his routine during this decade. The threat to free expression is real and it’s ongoing.

The prime target of the cancel-culture mob lately has been American comedian Dave Chappelle. Chappelle has long enjoyed poking fun at the hypersensitive underbelly of the LGBTQ activist community and has never backed down in the face of the enraged blowback following one of his acts. In Chappelle’s most recent Netflix comedy special he went out of his way to antagonize the usual suspects as he made jokes about transgender ideological orthodoxy. The response to his act was immediate and predictable. Activists demanded Netflix pull the special down and small groups of Netflix employees staged widely publicized walkouts in protest of Chappelle’s act.

Netflix never pulled Chappelle’s special down and Chappelle has remained unapologetic for it. The controversy generated by apoplectic snowflakes in response to Chappelle’s act likely only increased viewership of the special.

It has just been announced Dave Chappelle is going to be headlining a Netflix comedy festival this coming April in Hollywood Bowl. This signals Netflix has done well with Chappelle’s routine despite or perhaps even because of the controversy it generated. In having a set date at a large outdoor venue and in such a populated area, Netflix is upping the ante in their battle with cancel-culture activists. Not only are they saying they won’t pull Chappelle’s older content, but they are also expanding the reach for his next act.

American and Canadian courts have proven they will protect the rights of free expression for controversial comedians, albeit grudgingly. Anti-free speech activists will have to take their case to the streets now and I suspect they will. With as many as 17,000 attendees arriving for a comedy festival being potentially greeted by a sizable number of protesters, things may get ugly.

What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle?

Chappelle’s showdown this spring could be a turning point for comedy. Will he and Netflix stand their ground in the face of protests? Will local authorities ensure the show can go on even if activists vow to shut it down? This comedy event is going to be an important one.

As with any art, the enjoyment of comedy is subjective. Some people like simple clean humour, some like complex satire, and some like vulgarity-laden shock comedy. The only people who can judge good comedy are the audience and they should only be able to render judgment through voting with their feet (and wallets). In other words, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

Comedians ply their trade by observing the world and poking at sacred cows. They dig into subjects people commonly avoid and force us to think about them through the lens of humour. They provide a public service by pushing the boundaries of free expression and ensuring no subjects are ever out of bounds. They often make us laugh and we need a whole lot more of that these days.

Comedians will not be able to effectively practice their art if they fear censors or legal repercussions. They will be restrained and they will leave subjects that need to be brought before public scrutiny untouched.

If the speech and expression of comedians are allowed to be suppressed, no speech is safe. We need to stand up for our comics for both their sake and our own.

Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


WAGNER: Hydrocarbon based fuels are here to stay

“Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”




Alberta’s future is threatened by a national campaign to dramatically reduce the production of hydrocarbons.

The political and media elite repeatedly assure everyone that such fuels can be replaced by new “green” energy sources such as wind and solar power. People currently employed in the oil and gas industry will supposedly transition into green energy production and life will continue on as before, except with fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indeed, Justin Trudeau’s federal government has committed to transitioning Canada’s economy to producing net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.

Trudeau’s scheme is a fairy tale. Hydrocarbons are going to be required for a very long time because current green energy technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to replace them. Currently, there are no realistic alternatives to oil and gas, so reducing their production will only lead to energy shortages.

As Dr. Henry Geraedts put it recently in the Financial Post, “The ultimate goal of net-zero politics is to impose a radical energy transition that demands a top-to-bottom physical and social-economic restructuring of society, with no credible road map in sight. Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”

Geraedts’ Financial Post column is a brief description of a policy report he produced in June 2021, and how it was ignored because its conclusions contradict the ideological perspective that university professors are expected to support. He didn’t toe the party line, in other words, and therefore got the cold shoulder.

Geraedts’ report, Net Zero 2050: Rhetoric and Realities, is available online at the website of the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy which is affiliated with both the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina. It’s a very credible piece of work.

Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons and Geraedts points out “hydrocarbons are nature’s most efficient embodiment of primary energy: the combination of high energy density, abundance, stability, safety, portability and affordability is unmatched by any other source of energy.”

Currently, hydrocarbons comprise about 80% of global primary energy. This is essentially the same percentage as 30 years ago, when the global warming craze began. Despite years of favourable government policies and billions of dollars in government subsidies, green technology such as wind and solar energy remain relatively small contributors to the world’s energy supply.

Geraedts also describes the negative environmental impacts caused by so-called green energy technology. Among the most interesting details he mentions is: “Neither turbine blades nor solar panels nor lithium-ion batteries are physically or economically recyclable. They are instead, at an alarming rate, ending up in landfills leaching toxic chemicals — an estimated 10 million tons/year of batteries by 2030 alone.” So much for protecting the environment.

Geraedts is not a so-called “denier.” He points to data from reliable sources indicating global temperatures have increased by one degree Celsius since 1900. But he also explains “the projections used to justify net zero policies and the Paris Accord, are based on fundamentally flawed computer climate models that overstate warming by some 200%.”

Not only that, but “observational, empirical evidence remains agnostic as to what, with requisite confidence levels, is attributable to anthropogenic influences vs. natural variability.” In other words, it cannot be determined with certainty to what degree the gradual temperature increase is the result of human activities.

But climate change worries aside, there is still a fatal lack of realistic alternatives to hydrocarbons. The International Energy Agency forecasts that even if all countries fulfill their Paris Accord commitments — an unlikely prospect — hydrocarbons will still account for 60% of primary energy in 2040. With accelerating energy demand in Africa and Asia, Geraedts expects hydrocarbons will remain the dominant energy source for decades to come.

This is what it all means: If we put progressive ideology aside and take a hard, honest look at the energy situation, hydrocarbons are here to stay for quite a while. Knowing the ingenuity of human beings in a free society, the discovery of new energy sources is likely at some point in the future. For now, though, we need oil and gas, and Alberta has lots of both.

With strong international demand for hydrocarbons forecast to last for decades, there is no reason why these resources cannot continue to provide the foundation of economic prosperity for the province. The biggest obstacle to such prosperity, of course, is the federal government. Due to its determination to prevent the development of hydrocarbons, independence may be the only way to maintain and increase the resource-based wealth that is Alberta’s birthright.

An independent Alberta could implement policies maximizing economic growth and avoid the suffocating policies of Canada’s central government. A free Alberta would be a prosperous Alberta.

Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

834 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**

The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:


Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.