Thursday, September 07, 2006

Should parents have equal rights? - (With updates)

Some parents in B.C. are quite angry because it appears that the B.C. government has accorded gay rights activists Peter and Murray Corren more access and input into the school curriculum than parents.

A 15,000 name petition is now calling on the B.C. government to give parents the same level of input as the Correns who reached an input agreement with the government this past April, after dropping their human rights complaint.

Parents' ability to remove their children from the classes may be restricted. (Lifesite)

Canadian Catholic News says:

The agreement clarifies the government's present Alternative Delivery Policy, which allows parents to remove their children from content that conflicts with their beliefs and values in three specified courses: Health and Career K-7, Career 8-9, and Planning 10.

This opting-out provision has never applied to other courses. The agreement now explicitly states opting out doesn't apply to other courses, which in future may have new same-sex material added to them.



My question here is not whether gay curriculum should be taught in the schools, but rather should parents have as much influence as special interest groups in the process? That is all they are asking for.



Lots of links:
- Richmond Review
- Abbotsford News
- Vancouver Sun
- Lifesite



UPDATE: More controversy in Manitoba. Did you know that only 10% of the population is actually heterosexual? I sure didn't. Good thing kids will be learning that there, as well as some useful tips for lesbian sex.



H/T to Counter-Coulter for the following link with a great summary at the end:
Gay guarantee for provincial curriculum


It seems that some people can never be happy though -

The harshest criticism of the contract came from Xtra West, a gay and lesbian newspaper in Vancouver that accused the Correns of settling too soon for too little. "I want the government to liberally sprinkle queer content throughout all the course material where we are now conspicuously absent," Robin Perelle said in an editorial.


Update: Some parents may be scheduling medical and dental appointments at strategic times.

Link to the actual petition (pdf)
Link to Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association.



IMPORTANT UPDATE!!! Is this next? From the U.K. - "Abortion Lessons for Children Should be Mandatory..."!



Wednesday Update
: From "Activists and Educators" - National Post Editorial

"...the Minister of Education has no right to give privileged access to the school curriculum -- especially on a matter as sensitive as homosexuality -- to activists of any sort. The public schools are to serve the public good, not to advance particular agendas...."


"...It is possible to support public policies congruent with the push for gay rights while still acknowledging the reality that this is a far from settled issue in Canada. In the meantime, the public schools must recognize that they have no mandate to offend against the moral sensibilities and religious faith of many of their students and their parents...."
Amen.


Thursday Update: More from Proud to be Canadian.

98 comments:

PGP said...

There are many different types of special interest groups. Most rely on the desire of politicians to be accomodating and are very proficient at using the "Branding Iron" (labelling) as a weapon to cow those who dare to question their self proclaimed "rights".
Let's call this spade what it is, a minority of self important social deviants who want the world to accomodate their outlook to the exclusion of the majority.
Don't be afraid of the Branding and labelling. No one owes these people any special accomodation. And yes everyone who disagrees with them has every "Right" to do so!

Red Tory said...

You’re absolutely right Joanne, I think it’s appalling that heterosexual “special interest” groups should have such an inordinate degree of control over the sexual education of our children. These uppity straight activists have no right indoctrinating the tender, impressionable minds of our red-blooded youths into a bizarre and depraved lifestyle that involves prostitution, strippers, swinging, bondage, penis pumps, fingering, peep shows, sado-masochism, online porno, latex fetishes, pussy fisting and so on.

Oh, wait a tic. You’re talking about homosexuals. That’s a completely different kettle of fish then. Well, they’re just sick "social deviants." Screw them. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yes, Red. I'm sure that the Catholic Archbishop would love to see all that type of thing in the school curriculum.

And BTW, none of that occurs in the gay community? Your sarcasm is as acidic as ever, but your logic is faulty.

Ontario Lad said...

Red, no one is suggesting that homosexual people should have no input into the curriculum However, don't you think that parent's of those children should at least have the same right to that kind of determination?

We are talking about equality here, right? That works both ways, and that cry and hue doesn't only become available when its a gay person being discriminated against.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ontario Lad, thanks. That is exactly my point. Parents deserve equality.

It almost goes back to the popcorn and beer comment. Whose kids are these anyway?

Sara said...

Jo is right on this one, its not about what they are teaching it is about what the parents want.

I don't know about them teaching gay sex in school, but to lobby it probably not. I have gay friends and as long as I know it is done tasteful I'd probably agree yet if no one asked me I'd probably be a bit pissed.

This business about all year school pisses me off, if that happened while my kids were in school I'd be home schooling them. And I'm not a happy camper if I have to home school them. I might be a mom but that is too much for me even though I respect anyone with the guts to do it, I do not have that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I have gay friends and as long as I know it is done tasteful I'd probably agree

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to say, look we shouldn't call Jane names because she happens to like other girls in a romantic way, but to start supplying how-to manuals is going a bit far, IMHO.

If a child does want that information, and the parents are o.k. with it, then perhaps some source material could be made available to her/him.

counter-coulter said...

More of "the sky is falling" from the conservatives. You should try receiving your news from sources other than the Canadian Catholic News. From this article:

A six-page contract, signed by the Education Ministry and obtained by The Vancouver Sun, guarantees Peter and Murray Corren a significant voice in the revision of classroom lessons to recognize gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people and the creation of a new social-justice course -- to include teachings about sexual orientation -- for Grade 12 students.

It seems they want to *gasp* help teach respect for others of different sexual orientation. The fiends!

Kunoichi said...

Funny, all the research I've ever read have said homosexuality is 10%, not the other way around.

It's my opinion that NO ONE should have more access and input than the parents themselves when it comes to educating their children. It is, ultimatetly, the parents' constitutionally enshrined responsibility, which they happen to delegate to the school system of their choice.

While I'm all for encouraging moderate behaviour and tolerance of differences, I have major concerns about what's being taught in our schools. I know parents who've chosen to home school partly because their elementary aged kids would come home in tears, asking if it's ok to NOT be gay.

Extremism in all its forms is a danger, and it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging way too far already, and it shows no signs yet of stopping.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kunoichi, from what I've read, it appears that the Correns want to make sure their POV is taught by homeschoolers too. I'll try to find that link.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CC - Thanks for the selective highlighting. Here's another quote from the same article:

"The ministry has agreed to consult regularly with the Correns in developing guidelines for the curriculum review and setting priorities.

The Correns say the subjects that require urgent attention are social studies for K-7, health and career education for K-9 and -- to a lesser extent -- English-language arts for K-7.

Other members of the public, along with education stakeholders, will have opportunities to comment on the proposed changes but won't have the same guaranteed input."

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC - Thanks for the selective highlighting. Here's another quote from the same article:


If you want to go down the selective highlight route, then you should have included the previous paragraph:

Asked what he hopes the six-page contract will produce, Corren replied: "Fair and appropriate reflection of non-heterosexual realities in the curriculum."

Oh no, you mean they want to teach children that homosexuals aren't social deviants that are to be shunned and marginalized.

As to your highlights:

"The ministry has agreed to consult regularly with the Correns in developing guidelines for the curriculum review and setting priorities.

Yeah, nothing stated here that wasn't covered in my highlight. The Correns are helping to develop guidelines as they pertain to gay and lesbian issues.

The Correns say the subjects that require urgent attention are social studies for K-7, health and career education for K-9 and -- to a lesser extent -- English-language arts for K-7.

Again, no big surprises here.

Other members of the public, along with education stakeholders, will have opportunities to comment on the proposed changes but won't have the same guaranteed input."

And this is different from the existing input that parents have today, how? You mean the parents can't lobby the school board anymore?

Or could this just be a way to muddy the waters by trying to throw in some bogus "parents sould have a say" notion as a way to restrict certain subjects from being taught?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CC, I'm just asking for an equal voice for parents. Is that so hard to understand?

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC, I'm just asking for an equal voice for parents. Is that so hard to understand?


I'm sorry, but that seems pretty disingenuous. Especially when you start throwing in the conservative, slippery slope talking points like:

...but to start supplying how-to manuals is going a bit far,...

...the Correns want to make sure their POV is taught by homeschoolers too.

So your concerned about parents having a say and you support that argument by throwing out scare tactics like these?? I don't think so.

Rick said...

I have gay friends

Do you have a black friend as well? That should cover all the tolerance labels. Good for you.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"This month, according to the Vancouver Sun, the Correns have helped draft a letter with the B.C. Education Ministry that requires school officials to enforce the Alternative Delivery Policy, which would permit parents to remove their children from certain classes discussing sexual orientation/identity, but still demands their children learn them through venues like home schooling or electronic learning." from Lifesite.

Of course you will discredit that source, CC. There, I saved you the trouble of replying. See, I can predict your arguments too.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Of course you will discredit that source, CC.


Well with a title like this, I think its self-discrediting:

Canadian Bishop Calls Parents to Action against Homosexual Indoctrination in Schools

I noticed too how they had no link the letter. I'd be really curious as to the language in that letter. Also, how does this address your "how-to manual" claims?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

how does this address your "how-to manual" claims?

That was a reference to the Manitoba link on the update. Do you read any of this stuff before you start yapping?

PGP said...

From Webster's: Deviant

Function: noun
: something that deviates from a norm; especially : a person who differs markedly (as in intelligence, social adjustment, or sexual behavior) from what is considered normal for a group


From Webster's : Minority
Function: noun

In part.....
... a part of a population differing esp. from the dominant group in some characteristics (as race, sex, or national origin) and often subject to differential treatment !

liberal supporter said...

I now agree that the CPC has no control over the Blogging Tories.

Steve is working on changing the Senate, which is something where there is a lot of common ground on all sides. It's the kind of policy wonk issue that would reinforce Steve's image as a policy wonk type (a good thing, people assume you know what you are doing), and get him away from the "intolerant" label.

I was concerned that he might successfully re-silence the so-con faction in the party, and so bamboozle his way to a majority.

Thank God I was wrong!

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
"how does this address your "how-to manual" claims?"

That was a reference to the Manitoba link on the update.


Oh, you mean the article that gives no references for something that is "reportedly being considered"? I think that's right up there with "some critics say".

But again it just goes to prove my point that this has nothing to do with your "parents need a say" stance, but rather its an attempt to try to scare people in to thinking that if homosexuality is mentioned in a class rooom that school's are going to become "indoctrination centeres".

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I was concerned that he might successfully re-silence the so-con faction in the party, and so bamboozle his way to a majority.

Yeah, because it sure is radical to expect parents to have equal input in their own child's education! What a far-out notion.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

rather its an attempt to try to scare people in to thinking that if homosexuality is mentioned in a class rooom that school's are going to become "indoctrination centeres".

CC, if you would like to take the discussion in that direction, why don't you post something on your blog on that topic?

My question is, "Should parents have equal input?" What is your reply to that question?

Cherniak_WTF said...

My question here is not whether gay curriculum should be taught in the schools, but rather should parents have as much influence as special interest groups in the process?

Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of mankind - it's been recorded and in many societies considered normal.

I have no problem with it being presented as an option some people choose.
I will not get into the debate of how it's presented - we can argue that some other time.

I see homosexuality as a biological fact.

When it comes to special interest groups such as www.canadianalliance.org, I see what they are trying to push as ideological garbage for the most part.
The difference is that one seems to push propaganda...
Would you let Neo-Nazis have a say in the school curriculum?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I see what they are trying to push as ideological garbage for the most part.

What ideological garbage exactly?

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC, if you would like to take the discussion in that direction, why don't you post something on your blog on that topic?


I was not trying to take it in that direction, it was already there. It was basically the title of an article you linked to. Or was this one of those "no blog, no say" lines where only those that operate a blog have a legitimate voice? But if you do not want to discuss this further, no problem.

My question is, "Should parents have equal input?" What is your reply to that question?

Parents already have a say today. Are parents not responsible for the election of their local school board members? Do parents not have the ability to put their child in to private schools if they don't like what's being taught in public schools?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Are parents not responsible for the election of their local school board members?

That's right. And their provincial counterparts. And I'm sure they will be exercising that right and responsibility when they have the next opportunity.

Nicole said...

If any sex is being taught, all sex and esp. safe sex should be addressed.
By addressing homosexuality in school, should help foster tolerence and I am all for that.
I also agree that it is biological.
Some will argue and say it is a choice and maybe for a few select it is, but not the majority.
I have a dear friend whom I love with all my heart. He couldn't even come out to his family until his father passed away because he wasn't "allowed" to break his father's heart. He said he knew by age 5 that he liked other boys.
If this was taught, think of how many children would feel "normal" instead of feeling like outsiders.
Of course it will be done tasteful, just as regular sex is tastefully taught.
And remember....
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Red Tory said...

According to your logic, parents who object to the Theory of Evolution should be able to object to its being taught in school. They should also be able to insist that “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” be presented as valid alternatives of equal merit. Parents who feel that Darwinian evolution as it is presently taught in schools conflicts with their Christian “values and beliefs” should then be allowed to have their children “opt out” of classes such as biology, social studies and earth sciences. You know, out of due respect for their rights as parents to exercise control over the content of the teaching curriculum.

I realize this is a bit of a slippery-slope argument, but there is some legitimacy to it. As we’ve seen in the States time and again, special interest pressure groups organized by the religious-right can be remarkably effective at mobilizing outrage based on scare-mongering together with faulty and misleading information. In this case, it’s clear that the objective is not to create “indoctrination centres” but simply to raise awareness of sexual diversity and foster a spirit of tolerance and understanding. Doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to me.

Perhaps if that were the case we wouldn’t end up with people like “Sweater Guy” who feel it is perfectly acceptable to refer to homosexuals as “social deviants.” Notwithstanding the definition cited, PGP is being rather coy and thoroughly disingenuous. Here for example, is the definition Princeton’s WordNet:

adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert, deviate, degenerate]

To the ears of many, if not most, this is the implication of the word “deviant” not simply one who differs from the accepted norm.

I would suggest this reflects a narrow and, dare I say, bigoted frame of mind.

Sara said...

Parents already have a say today. Are parents not responsible for the election of their local school board members? Do parents not have the ability to put their child in to private schools if they don't like what's being taught in public schools?

Will you pay for that private school? Unless we are thousands of parents united no we do not have a say. Individuals do not matter to the school board.



wtf,

Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of mankind - it's been recorded and in many societies considered normal.

I'm not disputing if it is right or wrong I'm saying parents need more choice on what happens in the school. This kind of thing takes time to get used to, it really does. To force it on them might turn tragic, hate, biggotry etc... I'm saying let them tell you when they are ready.

I'm comfortable with gays and lesbians, so are my kids but some people are just terrified of it and if you push them too fast that is when the fighting starts.


Seriously with the schools, look at Christmas. Ok take it out because of religion but those kids lost the sight of Santa in their school too. A lot of kids and parents miss that. Christmas could of been based on Santa instead of Jesus just for the schools sake. Yet, it wasn't because we didn't want to offend anyone, well I don't like offending people either. But worse I don't like upsetting my children.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Don't be afraid of the Branding and labelling.
Yes, that right pgp, accept that "homophobic wind-bag" maybe apt....

Let's call a spade what it is.
Some people are only tolerant to one view. They have no qualms about injecting their own little views in the mistaken believe that by sheer arrogance and force of will, they will always be right....

PGP said...

Well RT - I do object to the efforts by the proponents of political correctness to normalize homosexuality.

Acceptance of individuals is entirely possible without endorsement of their proclivities ( I think ).

But beyond that the argument that minorities need special consideration and accomodation is something that I do not accept. And. my experience and observation is that all attempts to enforce or regulate social accomodation end up with very poor results.

Cherniak_WTF said...

I'm not disputing if it is right or wrong I'm saying parents need more choice on what happens in the school.

I agree with you up to a certain point. I have to option of removing religious teaching to my child and replacing with moral. This is rather painless to do.

There is a risk, as you point out, of going too far. Also, various school districts across the country don't operate the same way - some parents have TOO much influence.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm not disputing if it is right or wrong I'm saying parents need more choice on what happens in the school.

You got it, Sara. Everyone else seems caught up in the notion of it being taught in the schools; the point is whether the parents should have as much influence as the Correns (they're not even asking for more than equal, for pete's sake!)

Cherniak_WTF said...

But beyond that the argument that minorities need special consideration and accomodation is something that I do not accept.
So what you are saying is that we should eliminate Jewish school in Montreal (for example)?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, I have no problem with parents expressing their concerns over any type of thing, be it evolution, creationism or anything else.

What bothers me is when parents rights are usurped. These parents are not objecting to having some meaningful and tasteful curriculum extolling the virtues of acceptance and tolerance; they just want equal input into the content.

Why did the Correns get selected to do this, instead of a group of parents, teachers and experts? Answer - because they had the school board over a court-challenged barrel.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Why did the Correns get selected to do this, instead of a group of parents, teachers and experts?


Ummm...because their gay rights activists that were seeking balance in the school's curriculum that parents, teachers and experts had thus far ignored? Just a guess.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CC - And that mandate could only be accomplished by these two individuals for the whole province of B.C.?

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC - And that mandate could only be accomplished by these two individuals for the whole province of B.C.?


Apparently so. I mean who else was raising this issue, parents, teachers?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I read that many teachers were on board.

Sara said...

There is a risk, as you point out, of going too far. Also, various school districts across the country don't operate the same way - some parents have TOO much influence.

very true also not enough parents step up so the board takes it upon themselves... this is another problem..


I think we can all agree that it isn't the gay issue it is the choice issue.

Cherniak is right gay lifestyle has been around as long as the world and I think it is time to accept it but not force it upon people like we have with everything else. If we force it and people get mad, who pays? the kids... so we need something else.. I don't know but something. Having the books in the library is not a biggy to me because parents should know what books the kids are taking out and can decide in the home if it is suitable, but a class teaching it and we have a nutty teacher,,, that is an uncomfortable feeling for me or maybe I'm just too much of a control freak, that is also uncomfortable for me too hehe...

Sara said...

to top all of this off, WHY CAN"T THE PARENTS DO IT THEMSELVES... seriously why not

Joanne (True Blue) said...

WHY CAN"T THE PARENTS DO IT THEMSELVES... seriously why not

Oo-oo! I know that one, teacher! Because it wouldn't be the proper, politically-correct version.

Remember? Parents can't be trusted.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This is what started the whole thing -
"Corren said teachers are now required to notify parents if the subject of sexual orientation is to be discussed in the classroom. He calls that an out-of-date attitude and policy."

So, back in early 2005 the Correns took the Ministry of Education to court because they didn't like the parent's right to haul their kids out of a class that they didn't agree with.

Nicole said...

I'm not disputing if it is right or wrong I'm saying parents need more choice on what happens in the school. This kind of thing takes time to get used to, it really does. To force it on them might turn tragic, hate, biggotry etc... I'm saying let them tell you when they are ready.

I'm comfortable with gays and lesbians, so are my kids but some people are just terrified of it and if you push them too fast that is when the fighting starts


above is part of Sara's comment and before I ventured out for lunch, she called me long distance to discuss this.

If we had been taught gay sex ed when we were kids, you would feel more comfortable discussing this and it would not be an issue. You would have all the facts and would know that if your 2 year old is around a gay person they are not "going to catch it".
Everyone thinks that gay people will be all over each other and their kids might see....well, I don't want to see straight couples "going at it " either. give me a break!!
If it was out in the open it wouldn't seem like a big deal anyway.
This reminds me about racial tensions from the 60's when white people some out of ignorance and some out of bigotry did not want black students going to school with their white kids.

PGP said...

It's a sorry state of affairs that parents would have to feel the need to take their kids out of school over any curriculum.

How did we get to this situation?

Nicole - The analogy to the Racial issues is pretty persuasive .... social taboos are not immutable.

However there is a big difference in how things came about re; racial integration and what is being argued by the Correns. Which is that their assumed right to promote their lifestyle through the educational system trumps everyone elses concerns.

As to what outcome you can expect from the nurse nanny approach being imposed.....I think your comments on backlash are very apt.

Sara said...

If we had been taught gay sex ed when we were kids, you would feel more comfortable discussing this and it would not be an issue

Don't you think we'd all have sore bumms!! hehhe


anyways you are right on that Nic, If I was taught it in school I might not have had to adapt to it later.

Yet, PGP has a point racial is one thing and sex ed is another but Nic still has a point oh now I'm just confused. Its up to the belief of the parents on what to do and yes parents need to make the decision, we can't take that away from them or we would end up with a nanny state. And you all know I am totally against that. Oh man you guys are enough to make me drink! dammit I'm getting some wine!

PGP said...

Sara... may I recommend California Barefoot Winery's Shiraz...
Ask for Barefoot at a Wine Store..I doubt if the LC has it...
Prize winning treat that goes for about 11.00 ....
I have some here now..;)

Red Tory said...

PGP -- I do object to the efforts by the proponents of political correctness to normalize homosexuality.

First of all, you're branding this with the dreaded term "political correctness" which I don't believe is applicable here. I have little patience for PC over-reaction either, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.

"Normalize" is a very loaded word in this context. I happen to believe that homosexuality is a perfectly normal part of human behaviour for a minority of the general population. A minority of heterosexuals feel that anal sex is quite normal. So how do you define normal? (That was kind of the point of the first comment I posted upthread. The one that Joanne said displayed "faulty logic.")

It seems to me that we get down to some very fundamental issues here that perhaps cannot be resolved between the various parties on either side of the fence. The foremost being the innate biological imperative for homosexual behaviour. If one cannot accept that premise, then the argument becomes one of choice. That sends the matter off in a whole other direction.

So let's look at the "biological imperative" argument first. In this case, homosexuality is regarded as something that is genetically inherent within a certain percentage of the population. To not acknowledge this and base our thinking accordingly would be bigotry and discrimination of the worst sort in just the same way as it would be to deride or exclude people of colour who may happen to "deviate" from the norm (that is, the population at large). For that matter, one could say that males are "deviant" because they're only 48% of the population. But we won't go there...

Now let's look at the "choice" argument that's favoured by Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives. In this model, it's argued that sexual orientation is guided by self-determination and environmental influence. In other words, people can be easily swayed this way or that depending on what sort of information they receive. From this we get the message that young people are essentially a blank slate that can be "indoctrinated" or influenced into a "gay lifestyle" and such nonsense.

It's a classic nature v. nurture argument, but I would suggest the facts and evidence are very much on the side of nature here. I don't recall too many penguins being persuaded into following a "gay lifestyle" although a consistent percentage of them are indeed homosexual.

Acceptance of individuals is entirely possible without endorsement of their proclivities ( I think ).

Well here's another interesting word... "proclivities." Again, it's one that's loaded with freight. "I have a procilivity for torturing small animals!" or "I have a proclivity for driving while drunk!" So, I have to take from this that you side on the "choice" or "nurture" side of the argument, although I could be wrong.

I wish people would come right out and state that they think homosexuality is wrong, sick, perverted and so on instead of politely dancing around the issue. It's pretty obvious that's what you think, so why not say it instead of hiding behind foils like "parental rights" and such things?

But beyond that the argument that minorities need special consideration and accomodation is something that I do not accept.

This is something so many people just don't get. Minorities do need special consideration and accomodation for precisely the reason they are a minority. Yes, the majority rules and all that, but shouldn't we be judged by how fairly we treat those who have been marginalized in our society, or this this a concept that's simply to alien to the conservative mind?

And. my experience and observation is that all attempts to enforce or regulate social accomodation end up with very poor results.

Fair enough. Give me two examples.

Sara said...

political correctness,

homosexuals are a minority in Canada, are we doing this to please them or educate our children?

Political Correctness is what it is but is it needed,

personally I think so but that is not the debate here

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, I agree. I said that at the onset. Nobody is questioning that we need to educate children to be tolerant of others.

It goes both ways though. At this point, the rights of the parents are being usurped by the activists. How is that "equal"?

Sara said...

ok here is a question,

we took Jesus out of the schools, many religions do not believe in jesus... ok its done.

To put in gay sex, hmmm many people do not believe in gay sex.


Rt,
Jesus was real to catholics yet no one else
gay marriage is real to gays yet not a lot of others...


I'm not against this at all, I'm just putting out the arguments.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

That was kind of the point of the first comment I posted upthread. The one that Joanne said displayed "faulty logic."

Oh, o.k. I took it to mean that only heterosexuals get involved in 'kinky' sex.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, good question. I am looking forward to the answer. Maybe we can throw in Santa Claus, Christmas tree, and all that other good stuff.

Red Tory said...

I really can’t see how teaching tolerance of diversity vis-à-vis sexual orientation usurps parental authority. It seems to me that the perceived threat here is that exposure to this information will somehow corrupt the morality of children and teenagers. I think this is a narrow-minded and, quite frankly, obtuse point of view.

As noted earlier, I don’t see this as an issue of “political correctness” at all, but I suppose we all have different interpretations of that term so I won’t belabor the point. To me however “political correctness” becomes obnoxious when, in catering to the rights of various minorities, the majority is deprived of their rights to some degree or another. This doesn’t seem to be the case here unless you define the rights of the majority as being to ensure their children are insulated from this information and regard homosexuality as an aberrant perversion according to their beliefs and values.

Sara said, “To put in gay sex, hmmm many people do not believe in gay sex.” And some people believe in invisible Sky Gods and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Homosexuality however is not a question of “belief” so to confuse religion with biological reality and existential fact seems a bit absurd. Obviously, some do not approve of it for a variety of reasons, to many their opprobrium is based on religious grounds, but that does not deny its existence, not can it make it go away. So what are we really talking about here? That some people find homosexuality objectionable and resent that a sort of moral equivalency taking place simply by virtue of acknowledging its existence and teaching that it should be tolerated. Now here is where things get funny because both Sara and Joanne have said that of course we should teach tolerance. That being the case, then what is the problem? Either you are being thoroughly disingenuous or you simply haven’t thought out what you’re saying.

By the way Sara, the gay marriage thing is a red herring, especially when you compare it to the imagined existence of Jesus by Christians and others. Marriage is completely beside the point in any case.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, the B.C. parents are only asking for equal input. They said they aren't asking for more input than the Correns; only the same level. The Ministry and school boards could not guarantee that.

To me that says that the Correns' 'rights' have trumped the parents'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sara said...

I understood Joannes point from the beginning. There was no point of gay or not just the rights of the parents.


Rt,
I've said over and over again I agree with my kids learning it. That was not the problem, the problem was if all parents agree. The fact is gay sex is here yes, but many institutes believe it is a state of mind not body. Those who believe it can be washed away with councilling will not accept their kids learning about it. Do you force that on their children without permission because you believe or even I believe that love is love no matter who you are?
I think it should be left up to the parents, I really do. Like I said I would vote for it.

"I really can’t see how teaching tolerance of diversity vis-à-vis sexual orientation usurps parental authority. It seems to me that the perceived threat here is that exposure to this information will somehow corrupt the morality of children and teenagers. I think this is a narrow-minded and, quite frankly, obtuse point of view. "


I see it if their beliefs are not the same as others. I agree with it being a narrow minded and quite frankly obtuse point of view. But it is also a fact that some parents will not allow it. Should they be ignored because of the religious point of view? Should my rights be ignored because of open mindedness? No, so let the parents decide, take the majority. If it doesn't pass, the reasonable ones will teach their children, if it does pass then no one can complain it is a political correctness problem.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Murray and Peter Corren were adamant from the onset that their curriculum would be mandatory.

"Corinna Filion, spokesman for the Ministry of Education told LifeSiteNews.com that the agreement included provisions to bar some parents and students who had been opting for home education or other arrangements on topics of sexuality. While the province will still allow parents and students those alternative options when it comes to sex education (health and career courses), students will be forced to remain in classes dealing with sexual orientation outside of sexual education in spite of any objections students or their parents my have."

That's pretty straight forward (pardon the pun). ;)

I find it incredible that two people can so influence the curriculum and have so much power to dictate to the parents of a whole province how things will be done.

And once the precedent is established, guess who's next?

Red Tory said...

Well this has been lurking beneath the surface of this argument from the outset, but who are these 15,000 people who signed the petition and what is the “equal input” they are seeking to have? If they are simply objecting to the introduction of diversity and tolerance on the basis of moral or religious grounds then I don’t feel they should have “equal input” because this would serve no useful purpose in advancing a decision that has already been made by the B.C. government. The last time I checked the government represented ALL the people, not just some irate Christian evangelicals.

Red Tory said...

Joanne – You’re being a bit crafty and disingenuous in your argument here. Yes, the government has said that if same-sex issues arise in other classes, students will not be allowed to opt out. So, let’s run with your outrage here. Should parents be permitted to allow their children to opt out of History lessons that impart the knowledge that homosexuality was common in Ancient Greece? Or Art classes that recognize many great artists were homosexuals and that informed a lot of their creative efforts. Or Biology classes that acknowledge a certain degree of homosexual behaviour in animals (or even, god forbid, polyvalent and polymorphous sexuality).

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, for sure there are two issues here.

One is the fact that some parents feel it is important to be allowed to have equal input into the formation of the curriculum. I don't hear the protestors saying that it should be all of them specifically - that would be ridiculous. However, I would think that some type of parental committee would be reasonable.

Also, with respect to opting out, back in the days before any form of religion or Christianity was erased from public schools, my son's friend, who was a J.W. had to stand outside the classroom while they recited the Lord's prayer. His mother didn't want him participating.

That raises a couple of questions. Why was that o.k. then, but withdrawing your child if you disagree with course content is not o.k. now?

Also, what would happen if a Muslim family decided they didn't want their children exposed to a particular class that they objected to out of religious concerns? Which minority rights would trump then?

Just curious.

Red Tory said...

Look, when I was a kid we had daily Bible readings in class. Even though I was by then a professed atheist I had no problem with this. I thought it was quite charming actually and the parables were not altogether lost on me. Besides, I enjoyed the little discussions we had afterwards. I used to help design the set decorations for the annual Christmas nativity and I may even have played a “wise man” or something one year (No lines that I can recall… just standing around looking “wise” I guess. See, even then I was a wise guy… n’yuck, n’yuck.) So, that’s not really all that different from being a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon or a Muslim or whatever, because I didn’t share the same faith. But I was tolerant and respectful of all the Christian mumbo-jumbo regardless. I didn’t get on my high-horse and demand that MY absence of faith be taught and neither did my parents, who quite honestly, couldn’t have cared less. We just went with the flow.

But really, this is all beside the point. You’re conflating religion with sexual orientation. That’s not the case however. On the one hand we have a matter of “belief” and “faith” and on the other hand we have a matter of “fact” and “reality.” Just because it used to be okay many years ago for some JoHo wingnut to withdraw his/her child from a Bible reading in school, does not equate in any way whatsoever to parents withdrawing a child from a history class that acknowledges the existence of homosexuality in ancient cultures (as one example).

Regarding your Muslim family canard, if they disapprove of the curriculum and find it objectionable, then they should move their children to a school that teaches Muslim “values and beliefs” that are in accordance with their way of thinking. Much in the same way Catholics do. And if there isn’t one, well too bad, so sad. Get together with your community and start one. Provided that is, that it abides by the basic outlines and requirements of the government sanctioned curriculum. Obviously, we don’t want to be fostering fanatical madrassas.

Over the years my kids have been taught many things that I don’t necessarily agree with. Usually stuff that comes up in conversation and provoke a “Whaaaa? Where the heck did you get THAT from?” reaction. We talk about it, look at it from different perspectives and then I leave it up to them to decide what they think is the best take on the issue. I have no interest in “indoctrinating” my kids to any one point of view or to simply have them reflect my beliefs and values. Somehow or other, despite my secular heathenism and laissez-faire attitude towards such things, they all have a pretty good sense of right and wrong and are morally decent people. Go figure.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I may even have played a “wise man” or something one year (No lines that I can recall… just standing around looking “wise”

Awww, cute! I was an angel...

does not equate in any way whatsoever to parents withdrawing a child from a history class that acknowledges the existence of homosexuality in ancient cultures (as one example).

If that were all there was to it, I'm sure nobody would have a problem.

The parents aren't even allowed to preview that material.

I guess in your world, once a parent sends their kids to a public school, they rescind all rights.

That's great that your family has had discussions about what they learn in school. Sadly, that doesn't always happen. Glad your kids turned out to be decent people. I'm sure the dinner conversations were very spirited! ;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

More dissent from Chinese community:

"A rally to protest the Corren Settlement will be held in Vancouver. (The Settlement, dealt with in the last two BCPTL E-Mail Bulletins, gives two homosexual activists extraordinary powers of input regarding the British Columbia curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12.) The rally is sponsored by CASJAFVA, the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association. The organization has a great deal of support in the Chinese ethnic community in Vancouver. They would appreciate the presence of other supporters from the wider community at their rally."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So, Red. Should the Chinese community in B.C. find alternate education?

Red Tory said...

Discussions around here are always “spirited” that’s for sure, especially when everyone decides to pitch into the fray. Then just watch the knives come out. Yikes! Personally I much prefer the one-on-one conversations with the kids where I can have a sensible talk without the peanut gallery just chiming in for the hell of it to score cheap points.

Perhaps I’m a bad parent, but my kids always understood my position when it came to their schooling. They’d bring their report card home and I’d ask them, “Well, Is there anything I should be talking to your teacher about?” (Usually they were full of A’s and B’s in any case.) And if they said, “No” then I’d say, “Okay then, it seems we’re done. No need to meet the creature.” Then we’d go on to talk about how we could get that B up to an A. If they should ever get a C+ or some such thing, I’d just say “I don’t EVER want to see this again, okay? There’s no excuse for this kind of shoddy grade.” And magically, by the next term they would improve. Go figure. As for all that PTA crapola, I really couldn’t be bothered or give two shits, for that matter. I’ve been danced around by too many fatuous, pissant teachers over the years to be bothered wasting my time with them. I actually had two of my kids held back a year because they were struggling in the early grades and you should have seen what a fight THAT was!

Sorry, I’m rambling. My point (and I do have one... somewhere here) is that I don’t advocate the abdication of parental responsibility by any means and quite frankly, I resent the statement “I guess in your world, once a parent sends their kids to a public school, they rescind all rights.” That is a wildly over-the-top mischaracterization. I’m not all jazzed up on this notion of “rights” in the first place, so rescinding them, whatever they may mean, seems like a bit of a strawman to me. I’ll tell you quite honestly, that I’m fed up to eye-teeth with people whining and moaning about their “rights.” I had a very wise (yet crazed madman) of a gym teacher in elementary school who told us that with every right comes a responsibility or obligation. Never mind that he used to whip us with sticks when we lagged behind in the grueling marathons he’d send us out on. But that little pearl of wisdom stuck with me. There is far too much emphasis these days on “rights” and not enough on the “responsibility” end of the deal.

Red Tory said...

And furthermore...

You are accusing me of “rescinding my rights” in my little liberal fantasy world when it could not be further from the case. I took the time to talk to my kids about what was going in school, what they were being taught and so on. There were things that I didn’t agree with, but as I said, we’d talk these issues out. If they were problematic for the kids, then I’d have been happy to advocate on their behalf, but as far as I was concerned, this was THEIR decision, not mine. My father had an interesting take on this. He decided that after the age of 8, you were an adult, fully responsible for your actions, thoughts and deeds. That was the standard we were held to. A little burdensome and wholly arbitrary, but it seemed fair enough to me and, for better or worse, I’ve adopted basically the same attitude. I let my kids make their own decisions (with a certain degree of informed consent).

Annoying busy-bodies who want to poke their noses into the school system to ensure their particular brand of orthodox or extremist way of thinking is enforced are thoroughly obnoxious pests as far as I’m concerned. I see nothing wrong in introducing tolerance and diversity into the school curriculum (if it isn’t already there), but this notion of “sprinkling queer content” throughout just seems laughably silly to me. I believe there was a similar proposal made in California not that long ago. Again, it’s ridiculous and should be regarded as such. Let’s have a little common sense here.

Red Tory said...

Pffffft. Can you say, “Fringe Group”? B.C. Parents and Teachers for Life. Ugh, I feel somehow diminished even for having typed that. Their website looks like it was designed by a six year old. What a horrific mess. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one Joanne.

The rally is sponsored by CASJAFVA, the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association. The organization has a great deal of support in the Chinese ethnic community in Vancouver.

CASJAFVA -- Puhleeze. Snore me a river.

I despise all of these petty little special interest groups and I don’t care what political rock they crawl out from under. The “Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association” is probably comprised of just enough wankers to count on both your hands. Urgh… I could go on, but what’s the point?

I loved this from their “Upcoming Events” section:

Aug . 3-7 Thu-Mon Abbotsford AGRIFAIR. Come and visit the Abbotsford Right to Life display booth set up in the Marketplace – “The fetal models attract many people, especially children…”

Yeah, kids love those “fetal models” – a real crowd pleaser!

And let’s not forget the WEEKLY PRAYER SERVICE FOR THE UNBORN (Interdenominational) Friday morning 10:00 at Gianna House.

Prayers for the unborn. I’ve always found that a rather curious turn of phrase. How does one define “unborn” exactly? And what should one be praying for? That they remain unborn, or actually not be born so they won’t have to suffer though the earthly tribulations of this temporal wasteland but can go directly to heaven, or purgatory, or limbo or some other such thing?

Joanne, I honestly don’t know how you can go diving in such fetid cesspits as the CASJAFVA website. Knock yourself out, but it does absolutely ZERO for me other than to provide a few cheap laughs.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, it seems I am providing a forum for you to vent here, and BTW I won't even charge for the visit.

I enjoyed reading that bit about your kids and the way you approached things during the school years. I might even say that you seem to be more plugged in than you give yourself credit for.

I totally agree that every 'right' is accompanied by an inherent responsibility. Seems to me that many people are screaming about the former, but ignoring the latter.

but this notion of “sprinkling queer content” Yes, it seems that the Correns' demands were the middle ground in this contentious issue.

“The fetal models attract many people, especially children…” Believe it or not, some kids are interested in biology. Guess what? It is part of human development! Contrary to what many left-wing activists would like us to believe, babies don't just suddenly "appear" on this earth. They are actually here in a physical presence, but not visible to the human eye, due to a layer of skin, fat, muscle and other maternal tissue which impedes our ability to see them without medical equipment.

But we're getting off-track here. Just because a particular source may be biased in a certain direction does not totally discount the validity of the content.

But hey, I'm enjoying the debate, and so far it's been quite civil. I appreciate that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And BTW, I guess your answer to my question in the title of this post would be "No". It would seem that you believe that if you send a child to a public school, you give up your right to have input other than with your own child after they have been exposed to sensitive class material. The school board and ministry has the right to dictate what your children must learn and will give you the right to withdraw them from the classroom only based on what they feel is allowable. Some items must be learned, such as the 3 R's, and sexual orientation in whatever format it is presented.

That is what I meant by "rescind all rights".

Red Tory said...

I was joking about the fetal models. It just struck me as highly amusing marketing angle for some reason. Actually, I love those things. Whenever I got to a doctor’s office I’m always fascinated by their models of the ear, eye, liver, or whatever. Then I kill the rest of the time reading their Pharmacopeias.

Red Tory said...

Joanne –- Come on, when am I uncivil? Even when I’m snarky and sarcastic, I still try to maintain a degree of civility.

And BTW, I guess your answer to my question in the title of this post would be "No".

I think I said as much in an earlier comment. I have a healthy contempt for the opinions of others in this regard and am leery about the impact their “equal input” would have. I’m happy to leave such things up to professional educators and I trust their good judgment to arrive at a fair and balanced approach. When I seriously disagree with them (which isn’t all that often), then I’ll take them to task or deal with the situation.

I’ll give you an example. My youngest daughter got involved in an experimental program called AVID that the Ministry of Education here in B.C. was running on trial basis in her middle school. I looked over the materials, checked out their website, then talked to my daughter about it. Personally, I thought it was a bit of a crock and advised against it, but she was keen to participate and her teacher was encouraging her to get involved. So, fine, into the program she went. Several months later she complained to me that it was a pointless waste of time and she felt nothing was being accomplished but a lot of “busy work” and moreover it was distracting her from her other studies. So, I got her pulled out. Mission accomplished. To me, that was a good experience. She made her own decision, came to the conclusion it was wrong and we got the situation rectified.

It would seem that you believe that if you send a child to a public school, you give up your right to have input other than with your own child after they have been exposed to sensitive class material.

I have to be honest and tell you that I don’t know what the heck “sensitive class material” is. I mean if they were teaching that the holocaust was a fraud; that all Muslims are evil; or engaging in outright political demagoguery, you can bet I’d be right at the head of line calling for heads to roll (so to speak). But if it’s simply a matter of teaching that there are different ways of expressing your sexuality or that some families have two mommies or two daddies, then no, I couldn’t give a flying fig, because to me those aren’t “sensitive” issues in my book. You’d have to go pretty far out of the mainstream to get my hackles up in that regard.

The school board and ministry has the right to dictate what your children must learn and will give you the right to withdraw them from the classroom only based on what they feel is allowable.

Yes, this is the way it should be. Again, I will leave it the professionals to make the right decisions. I’m not about to tell a surgeon how to carry out his operation, or advise a lawyer on the best course of action when it comes to matters of litigation. Why should it be presumed that I’m some sort of wunderkind in matters of education? And as for the Public School Trustees, perhaps if people weren’t such flaming hypocrites, maybe more than 8% of them would turn out to vote for these people when they come up for election instead of just moaning and whining about decisions they happen to make once they’re in office.

The decision to allow your child to “opt-out” is quite narrow, as it should be. Lines need to be drawn otherwise we’d be all over the map with some meddlesome folks wanting their children out of this or that program for whatever reason. The guidelines as they stand seem fairly reasonable to me.

Cherniak_WTF said...

“The fetal models attract many people, especially children…” Believe it or not, some kids are interested in biology. Guess what? It is part of human development! Contrary to what many left-wing activists would like us to believe, babies don't just suddenly "appear" on this earth. They are actually here in a physical presence, but not visible to the human eye, due to a layer of skin, fat, muscle and other maternal tissue which impedes our ability to see them without medical equipment.
That is of course if you think that the foetus is a conscious being.
I see it no differently than an appendage (like your appendix). So yes it's there, the debate is when it becomes a "human life".

I'd say when it can function autonomously.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I see it no differently than an appendage (like your appendix

Wow. Well, that just about says it all.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne (True Blue), you and I both agreed that there should be limits to when an abortion can be performed.

You assume that when the sperm meets the ovary it's somehow magically a "human being".

That is your bias - embrace if you want but don't force it upon others. Jews think that "personhood" happen at childbirth only - contrast that with those that think it happens at conception.

I think it happens late in the pregnancy.

So how do we answer that question?
We could use the reverse definition of when death happens. Modern definition is when there is no neural brain activity (at at this very weak). That would put limits at around 22 weeks.


The argument that life starts at conception is the equivalent that masturbation is mass murder because of the number of sperms..uhmm wasted then...

The homunculus argument put forth by anti-abortion proponents seems based on their morality and not facts.

So yes, you maybe shocked at my statement, but how far off is it?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And it's great that you were able to yank your daughter out of a program that seemed like a waste of time to the two of you.

You seem to believe that the Correns are credible "experts" that should be allowed to dictate the curriculum and what should be learned and when it should be learned to the whole public school system in B.C.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.


Cherniak, we not only don't have any mutual ground for discussion here, we're not even on the same planet.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne, for one that said that you agreed to the right to abortion it's telling that once something offends your sensibilities you seems to retreat into a little cocoon.

I find the right amusing because, let's face it, the only belief you have in one of a paternal form of government and values that border on fascism.
Your emotional triggers are much stronger than any logical and substantive argument.

You seem to be getting some Liberals on this site, which is good for debate, but when the best response I see is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you"....


As for the Correns, you are talking about a very specific and small part of the school curriculum. The outrage I see here is particularity telling. Teenage years are very turbulent ones and if you are a teenage homosexual difficult. These teens feel that they are not normal and most likely already ostracized. Knowing that there is an alternative that is acceptable to some is a relief to them.
Ahh, yes, we most not think of the children but justify parents own homophobia....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

for one that said that you agreed to the right to abortion

O.K. I need to clarify something here. I do not believe that abortion is a 'right'. I do, however, believe that in some cases, early on in pregnancy it is less problematic than later on.

I am not so naive as to believe that we should go back to the days of the old coat hanger, but there is no doubt that babies have some level of consciousness at the moment of birth, and that does not magically appear as they emerge from their mothers' bodies. So perhaps that moment is brain activity. Whatever.

Yes, I would be happier with a limit at 22 weeks, rather than up until the moment of birth.

But this in not a discussion about abortion.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- I know we’ve flogged this horse to death, but let’s have one more go at it.

I asked earlier who these parents are demanding “equal input” into the curriculum. Well, it seems they are every bit as much of a “special interest group” that you and other conservatives decry. Specifically, they are members of CASJAFVA which is a right-wing, Christian evangelical, pro-life, “family values” group. And what is the “equal input” that they want? From their website:

Holding certain principles regarding the family as the basis for our own teaching of our children, we desire that those principles should in no way be undermined. We hold as an ideal the concept of the family as founded on the life-long commitment of one man and one woman to one another in marriage and on their commitment to the welfare of their children. Nothing taught to our children in the school should undermine respect for this principle. The school should seek the welfare of all children entrusted to it and to the best of its ability protect all from harassment, but it shall in no way teach our children that concepts of the family diverging from our ideal are equal or superior to that ideal.

We hold to the belief that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and nothing taught to our child or children in the school should undermine respect for this principle.


I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this can be reconciled in any way at all on an “equal basis” with an acknowledgement of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. Perhaps you can explain how that would work.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red - From the Vancouver Sun link:

"Parents should be given the same opportunity for input into school curriculum as the Correns, said Roodnick.

"Parents deserve not more, but the same level of access that the Correns have," said Roodnick. "If every school board in the province established a parent's committee, we can set fairly democratic procedures in place to get parents involved."


Sorry, that's the best I can do right now. My husband's computer just got fried. The power thingy fried the motherboard and the hard drive. Of course you always say you must back up stuff, but it's easy to put off...

You get the picture. Ughhh...

Red Tory said...

My 'puter is on its last legs, so I sympathize. I'm supposed to be doing a data-dump onto my son's computer in the next couple of weeks while I get this thing overhauled (just in case).

Back to the subject at hand. My point being that it makes no logical sense to allow “equal input” for a group that tolerates no deviance whatsoever from its own stated goals of ensuring that the “ideal family unit” is not undermined in any way at all (i.e., by teaching that there are other social relationships that merit equal respect, consideration and tolerance). This is diametrically opposite to what this group demands. If the government has decided on behalf of the majority of people that they want to introduce diversity and tolerance into the school system, then what’s the point of allowing “equal input” to the review process from people who are just dead-set against it? You seem to have a curious double-standard going on here.

The fundamentalist group in question allows for NO toleration whatsoever because that would “undermine” their beliefs and values. In other words, there can be NO negotiation and NO compromise. So what is the point of their input? I don’t see it as being constructive or helpful in any way at all. Yet you want to give it equal weight and that would result in what, exactly? Other than stymieing the policy that the government has already decided upon, that is.

You and Sara have both stated that you support the idea of tolerance. These people however do not. They see the proposed changes to the curriculum as a threat to their narrow-minded world view and concept of an “ideal family.”

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, where did you get the "CASJAFVA" reference, and that they were the only ones behind the 15,000 name petition?

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Don't you read the articles you link to? From the Vancouver Sun:

The petition, organized by the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJAFVA), is asking the provincial government "to defend and to preserve parental and children's rights" and to "stop selling out to special interest groups."

The statement of purpose I quoted is directly from CASJAFVA's craptacular website. They encourage parents to copy it and use it to bully their local schools.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Red. I guess I missed the part where it said that every signature on the petition belonged to members of that association.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

BTW, here's what I found under "Who We Are":

Our organization is committed to equality before the law and anti-harassment of any kind. What we are fighting for is to preserve social justice, to protect traditional family values, to safeguard parental rights with respect to education and upbringing of their children, to advocate and to foster constitutional rights and responsibilities of individuals both as citizens and parents, to advocate establishment of traditional schools and to safeguard citizens' right to have clean, just and upright governments.

Pretty scary stuff indeed.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Another quote of interest, from the CBC:

"This is an erosion of the rights of parents," said Concerned Parents spokesman Brian Roodnick. "We've got an advocacy group that has opened the door of a precedent and we don't know who's going to walk through the door next."

Roodnick also dismissed an allegation that his group's opposition to the course is anti-gay.

"We've gone on the record saying that we aren't anti-homosexual and we don't want the Corren agreement set aside."


Seems that there is more than one "right-wing, Christian evangelical, pro-life, “family values” group" involved. And you can add Defend Marriage to that.

Red Tory said...

I never said that every signature on the petition was from this group, just that they organized it and one would presume that those who signed on are either members of the group or at least in sympathy with their objectives.

There is a certain amount of "code" in that quotation you provided from their website. "Family Values" while it has a nice sounding, innocuous ring to it can encompass a lot of very curious notions.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

one would presume that those who signed on are either members of the group or at least in sympathy with their objectives.

I noticed a lot of Chinese on petition forms. Any comment on that?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And speaking of disingenuous code words (try to ignore the pic at the side of the young man playing with himself):

In April, the Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario and the Sex Laws Committee came out swinging against Conservative justice minister Vic Toews' plans. Raising the age would discriminate against the sexual choices of gay youth, they said...

Red Tory said...

Now you're just engaging in tactics of distraction to avoid the point. What does the Chinese community have to do with anything? How many of them signed the petion? What does the GLBT community opposing some legislation proposed by the Conservatives have to do with anything?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, your smokescreen suggesting that mostly only members of CASJAFVA would sign the petition is just as (ir)relevant . Why would they have the petition half in English and half in Chinese if they weren't expecting a large part of the Chinese community to sign, or at least be interested?

The other was in relation to your disgust of code words standing for a 'hidden agenda'. I see one in the objection to raising the age of consent.

Anyway, again we will have to agree to disagree. We are not going to change each other's minds. I think we are wasting our mutual time.

Red Tory said...

Yep. Agreed. A total waste of time.

I shall leave you to the back-slappers.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I don't see too many of them around any more, Red. Just you, me and the poltergeists.

I think we did well getting through a whole debate without calling each other names though. We're even still on talking terms!

Well, I've probably been demoted to Gormless Asshat again, but heck, I've been called worse.

Did you notice that you are officially on my bloglist too?

Red Tory said...

Heh. No I didn’t notice that. Thank you.

As I’ve said before, I don’t mind a little bit of name-calling from time to time. (Hey, if the shoe fits and all that…) I know you frown on it, so I try to restrain myself. This is your shop after all.

I suspect we shall agree to disagree on many, many things.

Red Tory said...

"Most Fearsome Foe"... LOL.

Good one. Take THAT JDave!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Good one. Take THAT JDave!

lol!

I discounted JDave because of his uncontrollable potty-mouth. I wasn't thrilled with that cute little name you hurled my way at your place, but at least you never tried it here, which JDave does consistently.

Also, you actually use logic for the most part, and give me quite a challenge, which I rather enjoy.

CM will probably return when JDave does, which is a pity.

counter-coulter said...

IMPORTANT UPDATE!!! Is this next? From the U.K. - "Abortion Lessons for Children Should be Mandatory..."!

Fearmonger much? Heaven forfend that teenage girls, and pre-teen since girls seem to be having their menstrual cycles earlier these days, receive honest information about abortion. From the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy:

The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy is a non-statutory body established in 2000 to provide advice to the Government and monitor the overall success of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, to reduce teenage pregnancy and increase the participation of teenage parents
in education, training and work.

Anonymous said...

Interesting discrimination here Red...

Regarding your Muslim family canard, if they disapprove of the curriculum and find it objectionable, then they should move their children to a school that teaches Muslim “values and beliefs” that are in accordance with their way of thinking. Much in the same way Catholics do. And if there isn’t one, well too bad, so sad. Get together with your community and start one.

So if people of Faith have problems in the public school. they should leave ...and set up schools at their own expense. Why does the same rule not apply to sexual orientation with equal justice?

Religion, race and sex are pritected from discrimination under the same article of the Chareter: Article 15 (1). Why does one group have to leave and the other get privilged acces?

Sounds discriminatory to me.....

You have still not answered the question put so many time: Do parents deserve equal access to the curriculm review process? Try for a 'yes' or 'no'.