NCI Testimony: John Carpay on Parental Rights and Legal Failures
John Carpay’s testimony highlights legal protections, growing state interference, and the need for civic engagement.
In his testimony before the National Citizens Inquiry, John Carpay warned of a growing threat to parental rights and individual freedoms in Canada. While the legal framework still recognizes the family as the cornerstone of society, Carpay outlined how ideological agendas, government overreach, and judicial activism are steadily undermining these protections.
Thank you to the NCI for hosting this important hearing examining whether children are truly safe in Canada, and for continuing to give a voice to Canadians affected by medical tyranny and government overreach. You can support their mission at:
Website: nationalcitizensinquiry.ca
Social Media: nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/social
Donations: nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/donate
John Carpay is a constitutional lawyer and member of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. You can support the JCCF at:
The Legal Foundation: Parental Rights Recognized in Law
Carpay began by affirming that Canada’s legal framework generally protects children through parental authority. He referenced both international and domestic precedents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which defines the family as the fundamental unit of society deserving state protection. He demonstrated how Canadian law echoes this, with statutes like Alberta’s Family Law Act affirming parents' rights to make significant decisions for their children, including education and medical care.
Carpay said the Supreme Court of Canada also recognized that a parent’s right to nurture and guide their child, which guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person. Yet, he warned that these legal protections are increasingly ignored or undermined by ideological agendas.
Schools Undermining Parental Authority
Carpay illustrated how schools, often backed by government policy, are bypassing parental rights under the guise of protecting children. He cited cases where schools concealed students’ gender transitions from parents, encouraged alternative gender identities, and labeled dissenting parents as abusive. These practices, he argued, reflect a dangerous shift—where isolated cases of genuine abuse are used to justify widespread state interference in family life.
Carpay emphasized that while abusive parents exist, it is a grave error to treat all parents as potential threats. This distortion, he noted, parallels authoritarian tactics of the past, where regimes sought control by indoctrinating children and sidelining families.
Judicial Activism and the Failure of Constitutional Safeguards
In response to questions from commissioners, Carpay criticized the growing politicization of Canada’s judiciary. He observed that courts increasingly embed media narratives and ideological biases into rulings, often ignoring clear constitutional principles. This trend, combined with expanding administrative powers, has made constitutional challenges more difficult, weakening the Charter’s role as a safeguard against state overreach.
Carpay also highlighted how courts and professional bodies, such as medical colleges and law societies, have stifled dissent—particularly during the COVID-19 era, where mandates around "vaccines" and public discourse were enforced through coercion and censorship.
The Path Forward: Legislative Reform and Civic Engagement
Despite these challenges, Carpay remained optimistic that democratic action could reverse these trends. He pointed to recent legislative efforts in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where laws have been introduced to ensure parents are informed about significant decisions affecting their children within the school system.. He argued that sustained public pressure and involvement in the democratic process are now more critical than ever, given the judiciary’s ideological drift.
Carpay concluded by urging Canadians to demand legislative reforms that limit the overreach of professional bodies and restore debate, particularly in science and medicine. His message was clear: If citizens remain passive, the state will continue to erode parental rights and individual freedoms. Active engagement is crucial.
