http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-introduce-more-explicit-sex-education-in-schools/article1540642/
The days of euphemisms and innuendo in Ontario's classrooms are numbered, with the province set to roll out a new sex education curriculum next fall built on clear and explicit language that has raised objections from conservative parent groups.
The revision, outlined in 208 pages that were quietly posted on the Ministry of Education's website in January, will for the first time teach Grade 3 pupils about such topics as sexual identity and orientation, and introduce terms like "anal intercourse" and "vaginal lubrication" to children in Grades 6 and 7. The new curriculum begins in Grade 1 with lessons about the proper names of body parts.
The changes came to light Tuesday, when members of a religious, "family-focused" coalition threatened to pull their children out of school on May 10 unless Premier Dalton McGuinty abandons the changes.
The Premier stood by the curriculum, saying he has confidence in the judgment of school principals and teachers to present the information in a thoughtful and responsible manner. If sex education is not taught in the classroom, he added, students could get information from potentially uninformed sources, such as their friends.--especially ones named Marti.
"If we can provide it in a format and in a venue over which we have some control ... why wouldn't we recognize that we live in an information age and why wouldn't we try to present this information in a thoughtful and responsible and open way," Mr. McGuinty said.
Critics said topics such as homosexuality are best left to parents to discuss with their children.
"I think it's a sort of infringement on parents, because you're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.
Some of the most controversial changes are in the Grade 3 curriculum. In a discussion on human development and showing respect for people's differences, for example, teachers are invited to discuss "invisible differences," including gender identity and sexual orientation, in an effort to reflect the fact that more and more students have same-sex parents.
Christian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation. He accused the Premier of listening to "special interest groups with an agenda," including former education minister Kathleen Wynne, who is openly gay.
The curriculum hadn't been reviewed since 1998, and the changes reflect Ontario's diverse society and have nothing to do with Ms. Wynne, who is now Transportation Minister, said Michelle Despault, a spokeswoman for Education Minister Lorna Dombrowsky.
"As a government, we have a commitment to provide a curriculum that is both equitable and inclusive," she said.
A spokesman for Ms. Wynne said the minister will make no comment on the issue.
In another key change, the topic of puberty will be introduced in Grade 4, a year earlier than in the old curriculum, in recognition of the fact that many children reach puberty at younger ages. The description of physical changes is also more explicit in the new version, including the development of breasts and body hair.
All the changes are developmentally appropriate, and sex education doesn't lead to sex, said Alex McKay, research co-ordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada.
"If anything, young people who are very well educated about sexuality and sexual health tend to actually delay having sex, because they fully understand everything that's involved, biologically and psychologically," he said.
There has always been a sting to the topic of birds and bees in the classroom. Sex education was first seriously considered in Ontario in the 1940s, fuelled in part by the spread of sexually transmitted infections during the Second World War. It wasn't until 1966 that education officials drafted a Grade 9 course that introduced students to human reproduction.
Almost every change or revision since has drawn some objections.
In 2004, a parents group in Nova Scotia grew incensed after the province offered youth 12 years old and over a brightly coloured, spiral-bound notebook titled Sex? A Healthy Sexuality Resource.
When New Brunswick reviewed its sex education curriculum in 2005, parents called the course too explicit, pointing to references to homosexuality, orgasm and masturbation. The curriculum was adjusted slightly to place more emphasis on abstinence.
The new Ontario curriculum took two years to develop and involved input from principals and teachers in both the Roman Catholic and public school boards as well as parent groups and public health units in the province.
With research from Rick Cash
Quote"I think it's a sort of infringement on parents, because you're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.
I can see why religious leaders would get upset at the idea of someone else "infringing on kids thought processes".
QuoteChristian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation.
Of course, teaching kids even younger than eight years old that their friends who do not share their religious beliefs are going to burn in hell for all eternity (or insert some other morally reprehensible religious viewpoint here) is perfectly reasonable.
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
Death to Political Correctness!
QuoteIf sex education is not taught in the classroom, he added, students could get information from potentially uninformed sources, such as their friends.--especially ones named Marti.
Ha.
Is that some sort of Canadian joke? Ones named Marti?
It's a Languish joke. Eventually, you'll understand.
Some kind of reference to Cuban poet Jose Marti I'm guessing. :hmm:
What's your objection to this, Josephus? That school pupils should not learn about sex or that they should not learn about anal sex?
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2010, 08:49:29 AM
Death to Political Correctness!
How is this political correctness? Or are you saying that those opposing these subjects being taught at schools are acting out of political correctness?
I fail to see how actually giving any information to students can be seen as "political correctness"? Isn't political correctness about censoring or restricting some information or expressions because they are politically incorrect?
Quote"I think it's a sort of infringement on parents, because you're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.
I wish someone had "infringed on his parents" and taught him how to form proper sentences. :D
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
What's your objection to this, Josephus? That school pupils should not learn about sex or that they should not learn about anal sex?
I only posted it as an FYI...I'm not necessarily pro or con. But now that you got me started on it, I don't think 8 year olds need to know about anal sex no. If they get the urges they'll eventually figure it out.
When you consider that Canadian students are consistently doing poor in such skills as grammar,math and science, I just believe that maybe schools should put more effort into teaching kids how to read and write first, before teaching them how to bugger each other.
Don't forget I am one of the representatives of the loonie leftists on this board...I'm all for gay rights...I just don't think it's a huge priority to get into so much detail in Grade 3 or whatever. I'm a strong believer in childhood, and it seems more and more that childhood, the intrinsic innocence of it, is ending.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 09:17:11 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2010, 08:49:29 AM
Death to Political Correctness!
How is this political correctness? Or are you saying that those opposing these subjects being taught at schools are acting out of political correctness?
I fail to see how actually giving any information to students can be seen as "political correctness"? Isn't political correctness about censoring or restricting some information or expressions because they are politically incorrect?
Not using the real words is political correctness.
Hrm, I'm not sure how I feel about this. It might be a bit too young to be learning about gay sex, but I do think it's a serious problem that gay teens never really get sexual education in school...
Fair enough to a extent. They may try it anyway and end up hurting themselves.
But grades 6 and 7? Way too early.
Quote from: Josephus on April 21, 2010, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
What's your objection to this, Josephus? That school pupils should not learn about sex or that they should not learn about anal sex?
I only posted it as an FYI...I'm not necessarily pro or con. But now that you got me started on it, I don't think 8 year olds need to know about anal sex no. If they get the urges they'll eventually figure it out.
When you consider that Canadian students are consistently doing poor in such skills as grammar,math and science, I just believe that maybe schools should put more effort into teaching kids how to read and write first, before teaching them how to bugger each other.
Don't forget I am one of the representatives of the loonie leftists on this board...I'm all for gay rights...I just don't think it's a huge priority to get into so much detail in Grade 3 or whatever. I'm a strong believer in childhood, and it seems more and more that childhood, the intrinsic innocence of it, is ending.
But they aren't teaching anyone about anal sex in Grade 3.
They are teaching kids in Grade 3 about sexual identity and orientation. Which, IMO, is perfectly appropriate, since by that age they are going to be exposed to the concepts in general society anyway.
I know this is not intentional, but you are mimicking the standard fundy "response" to this kind of stuff - take the totality of what is taught at any age, lump it all together, then decry that the stuff being taught in high school is being taught in kindergarten or whatever.
Vaginal lubrication? These kids aren't old enough to drink
Quote from: Josephus
When you consider that Canadian students are consistently doing poor in such skills as grammar, math and science, I just believe that maybe schools should put more effort into teaching kids how to read and write first, before teaching them how to bugger each other.
From my experience, canadian girls aren't very educated when it comes to grammar, math or science, but they're so naïve that they learn about butt sex REAL soon.
They're WAY more gullible than US girls, that's for sure.
And canadian parents are total wankers. I knew a canadian girl, very cute, blonde and innocent, who met online an American guy and he went over to Canada to meet her.
He almost immediately proceeded to have rough sex with her whenever he wanted - she was only 17 - irrespectively of weather she wanted it or not, in her own parents' house, for three days. And the parents did nothing to stop it, in order no to look 'offensive' or 'intrusive'.
She got scarred for life after that.
Why is Martim so creepy?
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:37:54 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 21, 2010, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
What's your objection to this, Josephus? That school pupils should not learn about sex or that they should not learn about anal sex?
I only posted it as an FYI...I'm not necessarily pro or con. But now that you got me started on it, I don't think 8 year olds need to know about anal sex no. If they get the urges they'll eventually figure it out.
When you consider that Canadian students are consistently doing poor in such skills as grammar,math and science, I just believe that maybe schools should put more effort into teaching kids how to read and write first, before teaching them how to bugger each other.
Don't forget I am one of the representatives of the loonie leftists on this board...I'm all for gay rights...I just don't think it's a huge priority to get into so much detail in Grade 3 or whatever. I'm a strong believer in childhood, and it seems more and more that childhood, the intrinsic innocence of it, is ending.
But they aren't teaching anyone about anal sex in Grade 3.
They are teaching kids in Grade 3 about sexual identity and orientation. Which, IMO, is perfectly appropriate, since by that age they are going to be exposed to the concepts in general society anyway.
I know this is not intentional, but you are mimicking the standard fundy "response" to this kind of stuff - take the totality of what is taught at any age, lump it all together, then decry that the stuff being taught in high school is being taught in kindergarten or whatever.
What Berkut said.
I guess Josephus wasn't taught how to understand written communication.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 21, 2010, 09:40:34 AM
Vaginal lubrication? These kids aren't old enough to drink
In most countries teenagers (please do not use the word "kids" for mid-teens) can legally have sex with adults (not to mention, have their first sexual encounter) several years before they can legally buy a drink. So not sure how your observation is relevant?
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:47:56 AM
Of course, teaching kids even younger than eight years old that their friends who do not share their religious beliefs are going to burn in hell for all eternity (or insert some other morally reprehensible religious viewpoint here) is perfectly reasonable.
it's Canada we're talking about here, not some backwater southern US state ;)
Quote
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
I can agree with that.
Quote from: Josephus on April 21, 2010, 09:31:39 AM
If they get the urges they'll eventually figure it out.
I have always had problems with this "they'll eventually figure [sex] out" once "they get the urges" approach to sex education, because, of course, the way they figure it out is to make all the mistakes, get each other poxed or pregnant (or both) when education could save them and society a lot of grief.
I think the "let kids figure sex out" approach isn't quite as bead as the "let kids figure driving out" approach, but it
is similar.
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 10:06:01 AM
Why is Martim so creepy?
Do you really want to know or were you just making conversation?
I'm an Ontario parent, and I have no problems with this plan.
Martim, I think that making generalizations about a whole country based on anecdotes about some person you've heard of is usually misguided - but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
Fair enough to a extent. They may try it anyway and end up hurting themselves.
But grades 6 and 7? Way too early.
Um...grade 7 is when they have sex education in the US. I think age 12 and 13 is perfectly reasonable.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
(please do not use the word "kids" for mid-teens)
Sorry man. 16 year olds are not adults.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:47:56 AM
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
Noce to see you're interested in a nice, rational exchange of viewpoints on this topic.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
(please do not use the word "kids" for mid-teens)
Why the hell not?
I sometimes use the word "kids" for people in their 20s.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 21, 2010, 09:40:34 AM
Vaginal lubrication? These kids aren't old enough to drink
In most countries teenagers (please do not use the word "kids" for mid-teens) can legally have sex with adults (not to mention, have their first sexual encounter) several years before they can legally buy a drink. So not sure how your observation is relevant?
Alcohol is vaginal lubricant ;)
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:14:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:47:56 AM
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
Noce to see you're interested in a nice, rational exchange of viewpoints on this topic.
Which topic?
The topic of how rational (ie, not religious by definition) people can decide when and what is appropriate sexual education for children?
Or the topic of how religion relies on instilling "faith", a entirely irrational concept by definition, in children prior to their ability to critically question it?
Two completely different subjects, although I have noted the hypocrisy involved in religious figures feigning outrage that someone would provide actual, real information to children. Of course, the two thinks are not really analogous, so my comparison is a bit flawed - teaching kids that there is a magic being in the sky who cares about their sex life is not really similar to teaching kids that people have differing needs and desires in relationships, or how their bodies actually work.
So you got me there.
Is religion a genetic disorder or is it a choice?
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
If parents want to have an absolute power over how to raise their children (including home schooling them or decide what topics their children shouldn't be taught in schools), then fine but don't expect tax cuts and tax privileges, free education, maternity leave or other privileges that parents usually get. If parents want to get these privileges (on account that raising children is in the interest of the society), then the society should have a say in what children are being taught (in the communal interest), even if parents disagree with it.
It is in the communal interest that children learn about sex before they start having sex, to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies, STDs etc.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 11:01:19 AM
I'm an Ontario parent, and I have no problems with this plan.
Martim, I think that making generalizations about a whole country based on anecdotes about some person you've heard of is usually misguided - but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
I'm judging the entire Union by his posts.
I have concluded that it is no wonder the fucking place fell apart.
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Indeed - either extreme would be rather horrific.
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Because if my taxes are being spent on raising other people's children then I want to have a say in how these children are raised. Isn't this a basic tenet of any democratic redistribution effort?
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Because if my taxes are being spent on raising other people's children then I want to have a say in how these children are raised. Isn't this a basic tenet of any democratic redistribution effort?
You clearly do have 'a say' - schools set out basic curriculums, etc. There's a legitimate question about how much of a say, but 'society' has some control over what children are educated.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Indeed - either extreme would be rather horrific.
I've always been a supporter of a Plato's Republic. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 11:35:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 11:33:31 AM
On a broader note, I think the society should finally make up its mind on whether it wants to consider children a "private project" of their parents or a communal project undertaken in the interest of the entire society.
Why? Clearly it has elements of both.
Because if my taxes are being spent on raising other people's children then I want to have a say in how these children are raised. Isn't this a basic tenet of any democratic redistribution effort?
You do have a say though - but you don't have total say, nor should you.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2010, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
(please do not use the word "kids" for mid-teens)
Sorry man. 16 year olds are not adults.
Nor are they children. :rolleyes:
How many times must we have this discussion?
-----
In any case sex ed is a good thing so long as its well done. Sex ed should be about principles, not techniques...
G.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 11:39:50 AMYou do have a say though - but you don't have total say, nor should you.
I know - it's a part of a democratic process, like any other decision taken by a democratic community. I'm just annoyed whenever some parents seem to come from a position that if they don't their kids to learn about something, this should be the end of any discussion and they should have a final say.
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 11:01:19 AM
but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
:weep:
Quote from: HVC on April 21, 2010, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 11:01:19 AM
but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
:weep:
Traitor, go back!
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2010, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 21, 2010, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 11:01:19 AM
but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
:weep:
Traitor, go back!
i was born here :lol: But i must carry on my meme, lame it may be
Quote from: Malthus
Martim, I think that making generalizations about a whole country based on anecdotes about some person you've heard of is usually misguided - but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
She isn't someone I heard about. I've known her for many years, since she was just 14 years old. Which is why this thing annoyed me even more. :mad:
And she is hardly the only one - I know another canadian girl (this one from Québéc) who had a very similar experience. :(
And I also know another canadian girl (from Toronto) who just narrowly avoided that experience, narrowly escaping her would-be abuser (who was from the US and frankly seemed to have no idea that 'no' means 'no').
Wow.
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 21, 2010, 11:57:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus
Martim, I think that making generalizations about a whole country based on anecdotes about some person you've heard of is usually misguided - but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
She isn't someone I heard about. I've known her for many years, since she was just 14 years old. Which is why this thing annoyed me even more. :mad:
And she is hardly the only one - I know another canadian girl (this one from Québéc) who had a very similar experience. :(
And I also know another canadian girl (from Toronto) who just narrowly avoided that experience, narrowly escaping her would-be abuser (who was from the US and frankly seemed to have no idea that 'no' means 'no').
Interestingly I know literally hundreds of Canadian women, and yes some of them have had bad experiences with men they hardly knew (more of them had bad experiences with guys they thought they knew very well though). I'm pretty sure that happens in every single country in the world. It's how the world is, sadly. Some men are assholes, some women are naive or don't have the life skills to sense the danger they could be in. It has nothing to do with being Canadian per se.
Quote from: HVC on April 21, 2010, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 11:01:19 AM
but I'm making an exception for you, and judging Portugal based on your posts. :D
:weep:
Sorry, no amount of personal excellence on your part - or indeed on the part pf anyone of Portuguese heritage - can change my mind. :P
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 12:20:35 PM
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
One of them wasn't.
Quote from: BhuddaRhubarb
Interestingly I know literally hundreds of Canadian women, and yes some of them have had bad experiences with men they hardly knew. I'm pretty sure that happens in every single country in the world. It's how the world is, sadly. Some men are assholes, some women are naive or don't have the life skills to sense the danger they could be in. It has nothing to do with being Canadian per se.
Maybe, but while I've known abused women from other nations, the % of canadian girls I know/victims is by far the largest. And they were more naïve than any of the women from other countries.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 12:20:35 PM
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
Clearly, stricter border controls are required. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 12:20:35 PM
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
Clearly, stricter border controls are required. :hmm:
At the very least - those slut Canadian women are sapping our precious bodily fluids!
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 21, 2010, 12:37:12 PM
Maybe, but while I've known abused women from other nations, the % of canadian girls I know/victims is by far the largest. And they were more naïve than any of the women from other countries.
You are thinking that the element all of these girls have in common is that they are Canadian. Everyone else is thinking that the element all of these girls have in common is that they are willing to know
you. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 21, 2010, 12:48:34 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 21, 2010, 12:37:12 PM
Maybe, but while I've known abused women from other nations, the % of canadian girls I know/victims is by far the largest. And they were more naïve than any of the women from other countries.
You are thinking that the element all of these girls have in common is that they are Canadian. Everyone else is thinking that the element all of these girls have in common is that they are willing to know you. :D
He is an expert because he was in a naive-slut-spotting club in college.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 12:20:35 PM
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
I find it amazing that Martim hangs out with so many rape victims. It's almost like he collects them.
Of course, I remember him explaining Portuguese society by relating how his grandfather would rape the maids at will. So I suppose it's some sort of family interest or something.
He'll get that Pikachu one day.
Quote from: Jacob on April 21, 2010, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 12:20:35 PM
What an amazing coincidence in his story that all the bad rapists were Americans. Whoulda thunk it?
I find it amazing that Martim hangs out with so many rape victims. It's almost like he collects them.
Of course, I remember him explaining Portuguese society by relating how his grandfather would rape the maids at will. So I suppose it's some sort of family interest or something.
Maybe he just follows Pat around.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:47:56 AM
Quote"I think it's a sort of infringement on parents, because you're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.
I can see why religious leaders would get upset at the idea of someone else "infringing on kids thought processes".
QuoteChristian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation.
Of course, teaching kids even younger than eight years old that their friends who do not share their religious beliefs are going to burn in hell for all eternity (or insert some other morally reprehensible religious viewpoint here) is perfectly reasonable.
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
Oh for fucks sake, give it a rest.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 06:20:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 08:47:56 AM
Quote"I think it's a sort of infringement on parents, because you're talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices," said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.
I can see why religious leaders would get upset at the idea of someone else "infringing on kids thought processes".
QuoteChristian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation.
Of course, teaching kids even younger than eight years old that their friends who do not share their religious beliefs are going to burn in hell for all eternity (or insert some other morally reprehensible religious viewpoint here) is perfectly reasonable.
No religious "leader" has any right to talk about what is appropriate and not appropriate to teach children. Their entire power structure is based on the brainwashing of children specifically prior to their ability to form independent and objective viewpoints on "faith".
Oh for fucks sake, give it a rest.
:lol: Oh, irony, where is thy sting?
Well...looks like Ontario has changed its mind.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mcguinty-backs-down-on-frank-sex-ed/article1543479/
PREMIER PULLS PLUG ON NEW SEX-ED PROGRAM
GAY POLISH LAWYER DISMAYED
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty acted unilaterally in pulling the plug on his government's new sex-education curriculum after he was blindsided by his own bureaucrats and a backlash from parents and religious groups.
Mr. McGuinty announced on Thursday that he will not roll out the new curriculum next fall. It was his fastest policy retreat in recent memory, coming just four hours after cabinet minister Sandra Pupatello vigorously defended the document during Question Period.
Sources said that the Premier had not been briefed on the curriculum and was unaware of its contents until the complaints began this week.
The new curriculum needs a "serious rethink," Mr. McGuinty said, and government officials must listen to parents on such a highly sensitive topic that touches children directly.
"For most parents, it came out of nowhere," Mr. McGuinty said. "They are obviously not comfortable with the proposal we put forward."
The political time-bomb that was his government's new sex-education curriculum ticked away on-line for three months until a Christian group led by evangelist Charles McVety issued a statement this week threatening to pull its children from school if the government did not abandon it.
Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education did not brief the Premier about the new curriculum, according to senior government sources. While he is not usually given details of curriculum changes, such a politically sensitive topic as sex education should have been brought to his attention, one of the sources said.
"I think there was a little bit of a failure in the system," he said.
With parents inundating government MPPs and opposition members with complaints, Mr. McGuinty decided to admit that his government got it wrong, said one of the sources.
Alex McKay, research co-ordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, said he was "disappointed" that the province bowed to loud critics who misrepresented what was actually going to be taught in Ontario classrooms.
"I think if people examine the curriculum closely, they will find it far less controversial than the highly charged discussion over the last few days suggested it was," he said.
Consultation on the new curriculum began in 2007, when Kathleen Wynne was education minister. The Institute for Catholic Education, which works with the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops in tailoring the ministry's curriculum for observant classrooms, was involved throughout that consultation.
"We had an agreement right from the beginning that we would be aligning their expectations with the Fully Alive family life program," said Sister Joan Cronin, executive director of ICE, referring to a 20-year-old church-endorsed version of sex-health education.
A first draft was released near the end of 2008.
Ministry spokesperson Michelle Despault said bureaucrats knew the changes would be controversial and, as a result, they did more extensive consultations than usual.
By the time the document was posted on-line last Jan. 18, the day that Mr. McGuinty shuffled Ms. Wynne out of education and Leona Dombrowsky in, ministry staff had received more than 3,000 pieces of feedback from every stripe of education insider and from parents.
There the document sat, a near-philosophical twin to its predecessor, but adorned with progressive talking points that suggested teachers might refer to same-sex families in Grade 3, or to anal intercourse as a way to contract a sexually transmitted infection in Grade 7.
As late as Thursday afternoon, as protests from Catholic parent groups and at least one bishop derailed the 208-page document, Sister Cronin and her organization were aligning the Fully Alive program to the new curriculum.
Catherine Fife, vice-president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, said boards are still open to delivering an enhanced and relevant sex-education curriculum after more discussion.
"I hope that it's not dropped altogether, because it's an important discussion for school boards to be having with parents and with children," Ms. Fife said.
lolz. Histrionic gays defeated at the Vistula. Day of thanksgiving declared.
Quote from: Josephus on April 23, 2010, 09:22:25 AM
Well...looks like Ontario has changed its mind.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mcguinty-backs-down-on-frank-sex-ed/article1543479/
There the document sat, a near-philosophical twin to its predecessor, but adorned with progressive talking points that suggested teachers might refer to same-sex families in Grade 3, or to anal intercourse as a way to contract a sexually transmitted infection in Grade 7.
As late as Thursday afternoon, as protests from Catholic parent groups and at least one bishop derailed the 208-page document, Sister Cronin and her organization were aligning the Fully Alive program to the new curriculum.
Of course a Catholic Bishop would be against teaching kids about anal intercourse in school. That sort of education clearly belongs in Church. :D
Quote from: Josephus on April 23, 2010, 09:22:25 AM
Well...looks like Ontario has changed its mind.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mcguinty-backs-down-on-frank-sex-ed/article1543479/
PREMIER PULLS PLUG ON NEW SEX-ED PROGRAM
GAY POLISH LAWYER DISMAYED
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty acted unilaterally in pulling the plug on his government's new sex-education curriculum after he was blindsided by his own bureaucrats and a backlash from parents and religious groups.
McGinty makes Obama look like Churchill! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2010, 11:52:02 AM
McGinty makes Obama look like Churchill! :lol:
Ironically enough given the subject, Ontario voters can't decide whether McGinty is being a pussy or an asshole by backtracking so fast. ;)
Malthus scores a good one. :D