A Red Deer school trustee has ignited controversy by citing divine intervention as the trigger for her posting a meme that equated the LGBTQ2S+ community with Nazi Germany. In the wake of this incident, Monique LaGrange, the trustee in question, stands by her actions as ordained by “the Holy Spirit,” despite a 15-page decision by the board of trustees for Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools declaring otherwise.
The contentious meme, posted by LaGrange on August 27, juxtaposed images of children waving Nazi swastika flags and Pride flags with the caption, “brainwashing is brainwashing.” The board, finding her in violation of its policies, ordered her on October 13 to issue an authentic apology, undertake sensitivity training, and acknowledge the negative impact her post had on the community.
LaGrange, however, disputes the board’s assertion that her post was against the LGBTQ2S+ community. She argues that the meme critiqued indoctrination efforts undertaken by international organizations like the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, claiming they undermine children’s individual identities under the guise of promoting inclusivity.
Despite numerous complaints about LaGrange’s posts, including criticisms from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre of Holocaust Studies, several individuals have expressed support for her stance. Foremost among them includes her lawyer, James Kitchen, who asserts that LaGrange is acting out of deep-seated religious convictions and will seek a judicial review of the board’s decision.
In response to the controversy, the board maintains that the meme failed to adhere to a professionally dignified standard and that irrespective of LaGrange’s intentions, it conveyed a negative comparison detrimental to an inclusive and supportive school environment. The provisos explicitly express the board’s mandate to foster a secure, respectful, and inclusive environment conducive to student well-being.
Meanwhile, LaGrange’s ongoing participation in the board remains conditional on her completion of the mandated sensitivity training. Her lawyer has indicated that she may not apologize or participate in the sensitivity training due to her faith. Seeking an injunction has been projected as a possible recourse if LaGrange faces disqualification for not adhering to the board’s rulings within the stipulated 90 days.
Chairperson of the board, Murray Hollman, firmly distinguishes the board’s stance on the issue from LaGrange’s personal views. As the board anticipates potential judicial review applications from LaGrange, it is evident that her future on the board hangs in the balance. The community is warily observing the unfolding situation with LaGrange’s non-apologetic stance further stoking the embers of contention.
