Why are Alberta public schools working with the Fyrefly Institute?

In fall 2023, my child’s school shared information about its upcoming “Human Sexuality” unit. I checked the website provided. Prominently displayed on the launch page are their six partner organizations, one of which is the Fyrefly Institute at the University of Alberta. This alarmed me because in 2021 I had raised concerns with my employer, the University of Alberta, about Camp Fyrefly (a project of the Fyrefly Institute) promoting Sophie Labelle on their website.

Sophie Labelle had been an “artist in residence” with Camp Fyrefly in 2019.  By 2021, it was public knowledge that Mr. Labelle was a producer of fetish drawings of “diaper porn” that used photos of real human babies as source inspiration. Why, then, was he was still being promoted on a University of Alberta website? To my astonishment, it took quite a bit of back and forth to get the University to treat this with the appropriate level of concern - although Mr. Labelle’s photo and information were, ultimately, removed from the Fyrefly Institute’s website.  I include the relevant correspondence at the end of this post.

In fall 2023, I contacted both the Edmonton Public School Superintendent Darrel Robertson and School Board Chair Julie Kusiek to apprise them of this history and explain that I did not believe Fyrefly was appropriately serious about child safeguarding and, thus, should not be used as a partner by Edmonton Public Schools.  After several email exchanges and phone calls EPSB indicated that it would not be advising me of any future decisions about the matter.  Fyrefly remains partnered with the Edmonton Public Schools and Alberta public schools more broadly, though its Fyrefly In Schools program.

This is unsettling, because it turns out continuing to promote Sophie Labelle after he was revealed as a serious danger to children was not Fyrefly’s first child safeguarding misstep. In 2018, it was reported that a former employee of Camp Fyrefly – another Fyrefly Institute project -- had accessed the private information of more than 700 campers and their families: a very serious data breach. Around the same time, Fyrefly Institute was re-structured by the University of Alberta, with its founders Kristopher Wells and Andre Grace moved into “research roles” with “much less control”.

Early in 2019, the University of Regina abruptly withdrew its support from Camp Fyrefly with no public explanation, in a move that an insider described as having “sort of taken us a little bit by surprise”. 

Later that same year , the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms filed an affidavit from the parent of an autistic 13 year old girl that his child had, during a school field trip to the University of Alberta, been subject to a presentation by Fyrefly Institute on gender and sexuality by Fyrefly presenters who “told her not to tell her parents what she had heard that day.. she felt anxious and confused during the Fyrefly presentation and wanted to leave, but felt that she was not allowed to do so”. This was in spite of the fact that the girls’ parents had explicitly instructed their child’s school “to exlude our daughter from discussions, presentations, or material that explicitly discuss human sexuality”. 

This, then, was a double child safeguarding failure:  on the part of the Edmonton Public Schools and the Fyrefly Institute. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that the association between the two continues: but it is not reassuring.

Kris Wells, one of the two founders of the Fyrefly Insititute, has been vociferous in denouncing Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s recent announcement that she plans to restrict puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone treatment, and sex trait modification surgery for children under 15 in Alberta. Smith’s proposed policy follows similar shifts in Scandinavia, France, and the United Kingdom, some of which go much further to protect children and youth from these experimental interventions. Revelatory reporting on the internal discussions of the principal advocacy body for these treatments, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, reveal a shocking disregard for the well-being of children, youth, and adults subjected to WPATH protocols.

In my last post, I remarked on a Pride Week announcement put out by the University of Alberta based Fyrefly Institute that made no mention at all of lesbians and gays, instead describing Pride as a celebration of “trans and gender diverse” people. These facts are not unrelated. It is precisely those children otherwise likely to grow up to be gay men and lesbian women who are most frequently harmed by so-called “gender affirming care”:  that is, medical interventions that seek to modify the sex traits of children who do not conform to sex role stereotypes.

A serious disregard for child safeguarding is built into the very foundations of the Fyrefly Institute. Why on earth are public schools in Alberta partnering with it?

NOTES

(background about my 2021 correspondence with the University of Alberta about its continued promotion of Sophie Labelle):

In the spring of 2021, I was serving as a member – elected by my faculty colleagues – of the “General Faculties Council” at the University of Alberta.  I had been elected to a three-year term, and was serving the second of such terms (non-consecutively) so I was by then quite familiar with its procedures.  My first term had been served during the presidency of Indira Samarasekara, and this second one was being served during the presidency of Brian Flanagan.

GFC is the University’s highest internal governing body, subject only to the oversight of the Board of Governors.  It had been normal procedural practice that any GFC member could submit questions in advance of GFC meetings to be answered during a question period at the end of the session.  These questions generally took the form of requests for information from some part of the university structure, requests for clarification about the docket of materials sent to members in advance of the meetings, or follow-up queries regarding issues raised in prior meetings.

Ahead of the April 2021 meeting, I submitted the following query:

Two questions for Brad Hamdon, U of A General Counsel.

As described on the University of Alberta website, the Faculty of Education-affiliated “Camp fYrefly is a fun, educational, social, and personal leadership retreat for queer and trans youth ages 14 - 24.” https://www.ualberta.ca/camp-fyrefly/index.html

In 2019, Camp Fyrefly hosted Sophie Labelle as “Artist in Residence” and still, on its website (https://www.ualberta.ca/camp-fyrefly/program/artist-in-residence.html)  describes Labelle as follows:

“Sophie Labelle, Cartoonist - Camp fYrefly South 2019 

The Artist-in-Residence at Camp fYrefly Southern Alberta 2019 was comic artist Sophie Labelle. Sophie is a Canadian writer, cartoonist and public speaker. Sophie is known for her webcomic titled Assigned Male which speaks on her journey and experiences as a transgender woman.”

By Labelle’s own recent admission, Labelle has long maintained a Twitter account under the name “Waffles” that is dedicated to  “diaper cub porn”.  This is a euphemistic description for the pornographic depiction of the sexual abuse of children and toddlers portrayed wearing diapers, and with some animal features (ears, tails, fur). Labelle used photos of actual children in creating these drawings.

(One of many threads can be found here but essentially any internet search will show the relevant information:  

https://twitter.com/EssenceOfTweet/status/1364938947231584258)

Why is Labelle still featured on *any* U of A website as a positive role model for children and youth?

What kind of child safeguarding and vetting processes are in place at Camp Fyrefly?

For the first time in my by-then nearly six years of GFC service, during which time I had submitted numerous question in advance of meetings, to my surprise this question did not appear on the official “Question Period” docket.  When I wrote to ask why, I was told by the then-GFC Secretary Kate Peters:

“The question falls beyond the scope of GFC responsibilities” and if I was concerned I should “reach out to Philip Stack in Risk Management Services who can provide information on the Protection of Minors Participating in a University Program Policy. 

I followed up:

HI Kate, Brad, and Heather [Richholt],

First, I'd like to know who exactly determined this question falls beyond the scope of GFC responsibilities, and I'd like a reference to the document upon which they have made this judgement.

Second, in that question I reported to the University that Camp Fyrefly -- a camp for children and youth run under the U of A's auspices -- is promoting on a University website as a role model for children and youth a person who draws pornographic images of children.  Are you quite sure you want it on record that the response of the University is that if *I* am concerned about this *I* can contact Philip Stack, and the University has no other reaction to the information I reported in my question?  Brad you are the University's legal counsel so I'd like to hear directly back from you on this.  This is really the University's response of record?

University of Alberta General Counsel Brad Hamdon responded:

“The program you refer to is not an academic program nor is it related to the “academic affairs” of the University and as such falls outside of the scope of S. 26(1) of the PSLA.”

I responded:

The PSLA specifies that GFC has authority to:

(p) authorize lecturing and teaching on the university premises by persons other than members of the staff of the university

If Sophie Labelle was not lecturing or teaching on the university premises, what was he doing?

Mr. Hamdon responded as follows:

The policy that lays out the responsibilities of the University in vetting volunteers for University programs is not under GFC's authority, but the Board's. The program you inquired about is not an academic program approved by GFC.

Our Question Period Procedure states that the recipient, in this case, General Counsel, can determine if the question is out of scope of GFC.

Happy to meet with you to discuss how you could reformulate as set out in the Question Period Procedure.

I was not in a position to verify whether “Artist in Residence” was in fact a “volunteer” position, but by this time (late April, after the GFC meeting had taken place) I was relieved to see Mr. Labelle’s photo and information had disappeared from the Camp Fyrefly website (without remark).  There did not seem to be a point to reformulating my question in preparation for the final, June meeting of GFC that year, so I sent this in May:

HI Kate, Brad, and Heather,

Just for the record:  as an elected faculty member of the General Faculties Council I sent a question to GFC expressing grave concern that a man who draws pornographic images of very young children was being promoted on a U of A Faculty of Education website as an "artist in residence" at a camp for children and youth that is run through the auspices of the U of A.  I was told first that I could not ask this question because it was irrelevant to the academic mission of the U of A and that this determination was made by Brad Hamdon, the chief legal counsel of the U of A.  The question was not therefore included in the meeting materials as Mr. Hamdon's determination was not challenged by you, Ms. Peters, as the person who compiles and sends out those materials (Heather I don't actually know what your authority would be in this instance and so perhaps no responsibility attaches to you).

It was also indicated to me that if I remained concerned about this state of affairs, *I* could contact Risk Management Services, on my own.

Some time after this, the entire "Artist in Residence" page disappeared without comment from the website in question.

From my perspective, this is already very clarifying.  Brad and Kate:  are the two of you comfortable with this paper trail?

I never received a response.