CLC Blog

CLC Blog

Slippery slope motion was legit debating tactic: Witness

One of the most unexpected witnesses you could imagine has come forward in defence of Michael Del Grande against the LGBT mob.

The radical sex activists want to cancel Del Grande, because, as a trustee, he made a mock motion at a Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) meeting about protecting those who are afflicted with pedophilia, bestiality, auto-vampirism, an erotic form of cannibalism, and a long list of other deviant paraphilias.

This over-the-top motion was introduced in a desperate attempt to shake his colleagues out of their stupor, ahead of a final vote that sought to add transgender ideology to the TCDSB code of conduct as protected grounds, during a November 7, 2019, board meeting.

Mike is now facing disciplinary hearings by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), who is trying to unjustly strip him of his teaching license for those comments he made in the board room as an elected trustee (not in a classroom as a teacher).

Unlikely defender: Howard Moscoe

A month ago, on May 24th, Del Grande’s defence lawyer called to the stand an unlikely defender for his client.

The reason I say “unlikely” is because the defense witness was former Toronto City Councillor, Howard Moscoe.

Howard and Mike served together on Toronto City Council in the early 2000s, but the two men couldn’t be further apart when it comes to their religious and philosophical beliefs ...

Moscoe admits to being a left-wing, NDPer, and is fully on board with the LGBT lobby. In fact, during the hearing, he said that his granddaughter identifies as bisexual.

ABOVE: Howard Moscoe, debating in Toronto City Hall as a Councillor in 2009.

Mike’s lawyer called him to the stand for the sole purpose of defending Mike’s use of the tongue-in-cheek paraphilia motion, which some perpetually-offended LGBT activists took offense at.

Mike’s hyperbolic motion, steeped in extreme exaggeration, was intended to make a slippery slope argument against another trustee’s motion to add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Catholic board’s code of conduct as protected grounds against discrimination.

Of course, these terms are in total contradiction of Christian moral teaching.

The addition of those terms would have effectively given sexually-confused male teachers in Catholic schools the “right” to dress up like women when they’re instructing their classes, and for biological male students who identify as “transgender” to have full access to the girls' washrooms, change rooms, and showers. (Sadly, it ended up passing.)

Mike’s satirical motion proposed that the TCDSB’s code of conduct shouldn’t be so restrictive, and that it should, in fact, be “more inclusive” by protecting even more sexual lifestyles and preferences that are not approved of by the Church.

He proposed that, besides adding “gender identity”, “gender expression”, and two other terms being considered that night, the TCDSB should also add bestiality, pedophilia, an erotic form of cannibalism, and a long list of other deviant paraphilias.

Many in the audience in the boardroom laughed upon hearing the motion, recognizing immediately it was a sarcastic attempt to shock the trustees out of their moral complacency, so they wouldn’t embrace any ideology that contradicts Church teaching, i.e. gender ideology.

Imitating the main, emotion-based arguments that some trustees and LGBT delegates had put forth to justify violating Catholic teaching on transgenderism, Del Grande pleaded: “Jesus loves all of these people too! Why stop at the four terms?

Paying the price for defending the faith

Well, the LGBT lobby, assisted by certain left-wing TCDSB trustees who despise Mike for being an orthodox Catholic, seized on this facetious slippery slope motion, and inundated the school board with Code of Conduct complaints against Del Grande, alleging that he equated transgenders and homosexuals with pedophiles and bestiality practitioners.

Mike did no such thing.

Slippery slope arguments do not imply that one thing is exactly like the other, and in fact, his motion never once mentioned LGBT.

However, the OCT is using Mike’s facetious debating tactic to argue that he committed “teacher misconduct” and deserves to lose his teaching license.

This is where Howard Moscoe comes in as a valuable defense witness.

It turns out that Del Grande had learned that kind of over-the-top debating style, using facetious motions and amendments, from none other than the former Toronto City Councillor!

Mike was trying to imitate his former colleague’s technique, and even said during the public board meeting, after woke trustees objected to the motion, that, “I was doing a ‘Howard Moscoe thing’”.

You see, Moscoe had become somewhat famous for his signature style of extremely over-the-top, satirical, and sarcastic rhetoric at city hall, and his dramatic outbursts often drew criticism and outrage.

Like Mike, Moscoe held a teacher’s license at the time, but unlike Del Grande, he had actually taught for many years.

Legitimate debating tool

Moscoe told the OCT tribunal that that Del Grande was clearly using his old rhetorical tactic to prove a point, and that it’s a legitimate tool for elected officials to use in their legislative chamber – whether at city hall or around the school board table.

Furthermore, Moscoe testified that he did not believe Del Grande was – in anyway – trying to denigrate LGBT-identifying persons.

Moscoe criticizes effort to de-license Mike

Moscoe then made a point that he himself faced “plenty of complaints” for using this technique when he was a councillor, but that no one ever tried to strip him of his teaching license for doing his job as an elected City Councillor, implying the idea was absurd.

In a pointed question that highlighted the College’s lack of legitimate authority in trying to regulate the political speech of an elected official, Mike’s lawyer asked Moscoe: “Were you ever put in front of a disciplinary hearing by the College of Teachers because of your antics?”, to which he answered “No”.

During cross-examination by the prosecution, Moscoe rebuked the OCT for overstepping their bounds when asked a question that was supposed to hurt Mike, but ended up helping him:

“Mike is very conservative, his views arise from his faith, and I don’t share his views. Nevertheless, I don’t think it merits having his license taken away. I would have had my license challenged by thousands of people because people don’t like my views … Mike has his beliefs and he’s entitled to his beliefs … In politics, you shouldn’t be punished for your views …”

Conclusion: Prosecution’s case got hammered

My last report detailed how the OCT’s other charge, that Mike was “mean” to a trustee colleague, was destroyed by eyewitnesses who testified that he was a perfect gentleman.

And now, Howard Moscoe’s testimony hammered to pieces the College’s second charge against Mike, the accusation that his slippery slope motion was conduct unbecoming for an elected school trustee who holds a teaching certificate.

Moscoe made it clear that satire, ridicule and provocation are legitimate debating tools for elected municipal officials, and that the OCT has no business involving itself in the censorship of political speech.

Stand with Del Grande

Mike’s legal bills have far exceeded the donations received at his crowdfunding page.

Will you please help him continue the fight?

Mike has at least two more OCT hearing dates in September, and each one racks up big legal bills.

Additionally, there’s a trial underway in the real courts where he’s seeking to overturn a guilty verdict by the board of trustees (over the same accusations), and that case is scheduled for September 23rd.

Mike’s going to be buried in lawyer's bills. Will you help him stay afloat?

To see all our coverage of Del Grande's disciplinary hearings, go here