August 21, 2015

An evening with the "rubes and homophobes" who oppose Kathleen Wynne's sex ed plan

Neil FlaggRebel Blogger
 

A room full of ungrateful immigrant rubes, misled by an uppity hick from the sticks, rallied to the words of American hate speech in suburban hell on Wednesday night.

At least, that is how Kathleen Wynne and her disgraceful regime of Ontario Liberal political nihilists might portray Wednesday night’s event in Mississauga, held to further inform opponents of Wynne’s Sex Ed curriculum update that is being forced on Ontario children this fall.

First, the immigrant rubes: The event, “You’re Teaching My Child WHAT?”, was organized by community consumer rights activist Jotvinder Sodhi, a Brampton industrial manufacturing technician who has served his school council and community for over a decade of public service. His organization, HOWA, offers the sage wisdom of Rabbi Hillel as its web site banner. Over 1,000 concerned citizens attended, with the promotional help of the Canadian Families Alliance, a grassroots organization that helped organize boycotts and rallies in Kathleen Wynne’s home riding last spring.

Next, the uppity hick from the sticks: the event was concluded with a speech from PC Party MP Monte McNaughton, the upstart political whiz-kid from a small-town Ontario community-minded business family, who went from sixth-place also-ran to Patrick Brown’s kingmaker in last spring’s PC Party leadership race. McNaughton was famously verbally assaulted by both Premier Wynne and Education Minister Liz Sandals in the Ontario Legislature for being homophobic due to his opposition to the sex ed curriculum changes.

Finally, the American hate merchant: keynoting the event was Dr. Miriam Grossman, who earned her MD from New York University, interned in pediatric medicine at Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan, completed a residency in psychiatry, and finished her education with a fellowship in child and adolescent psychiatry at North Shore Hospital-Cornell University Medical College. She spent 12 years on staff at UCLA’s Student Counseling Service office, where she became a leading scholar and expert on the psychological and physical impact of modern Sexual Education policies.

The upshot of Dr. Grossman’s speech, reported in great detail here at LifeSiteNews, is that Wynne’s new curriculum is anti-scientific indoctrination, certain to inflict harm and confusion on the children of Ontario.

So with such homophobes and hate merchants running around standing in the way of progress, is it any wonder Ontario is in such a deep hole of debt and private-sector decay?

Or is it possible that our legislature has been taken over by very craven, vicious ideologues, willing to denigrate, disparage, or just plain ignore, good-hearted concerned parents, activists, and worldwide experts, in order to cram an agenda down our throats that even Dalton McGuinty was smart enough to withdraw?

You be the judge.

 

Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government's morality on every Ontario family.
SIGN THE PETITION at ProtectOurKids.ca

Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.

JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-08-25 01:47:46 -0400
Jimmy, hardly. I don’t see people as bad or sick just because they disagree with me. I’m mainly concerned because the supporters of the new sex ed program have a ready-made platform, backed by the premier, while opponents with valid criticisms of the program are being trivialized and labelled as homophobes, just because they disagree with the premier.
I’m willing to listen to what they have to say, but the two articles you linked to below don’t even bother to address the opponents’ actual arguments. FYI, I am not one of those who thinks there should be no sex education in school, I agree that it’s necessary to a certain extent. I would just prefer it focused on biological truths rather than on advancing a social agenda, which is my main problem with Ontario’s new sex ed curriculum.
commented 2015-08-23 15:06:45 -0400
PIG WYNNE just grew Ontario’s debt another few billion by signing off on MOAR cash for teachers (professional baby sitters up the grade 5-6).
Ontario’s debt is $300 BILLION (that’s 0.3TRILLION) and climbing. Greek-style default is coming to Ontario soon.

Charter schools will fix education. In the meanwhile, ( and you idiot Ontario voters chose PIG NAZI WYNNE ), it’s pedophile training for Ontario students.

Remember Ontario, you vote for a NAZI PIG LIKE WYNNE and you get one – in this case PIG WYNNE = PEDOPHILE!!!
commented 2015-08-23 12:37:38 -0400
Erin,

So what’s your logical view of parents that support it even if you disagree? Do you see their point of view even though you disagree or do you just write them off as bad parents and that they are sick?
commented 2015-08-23 11:26:56 -0400
Homophobes?

LOL

How about all those homosexual heterophobes?

Why are they never mentioned?

As Ontario goes – so will go Canada unless good people step up.
commented 2015-08-23 05:07:08 -0400
Thanks for the blog and the info, Neil. Thanks Liza, but it all came from Neil’s link. I try to follow up on links when they’re provided, and I just thought this one was especially worth reproducing given Dr. Grossman’s statements. And for the record, while I clearly disagree with Jimmy’s assertion that “most” parents support the new sex ed curriculum, I’d feel the same even if I was in the minority. I’ve read it, I’ve read what others have to say about it, both for and against, and I’ve given it serious thought, so I’ll stand by my opinion until I’m logically persuaded to change it. I highly doubt that “most” of the outspoken supporters of the curriculum can say the same. Case in point: see the two Huffington Post opinion pieces Jimmy linked earlier.
commented 2015-08-22 23:12:15 -0400
Funny, Jimmy Da Silva, NAMBLA mocks our concern over sex ed, too. Same with Ben Levin and Jared from Subway.
commented 2015-08-22 22:07:26 -0400
Jimmy and some others, 17:06.
commented 2015-08-22 21:51:42 -0400
What should be taught to a 15 year old, should be about the risks of becoming sexually active so young. ,as pointed out in Grossman’s talk. Wynne’s way is to encourage sexual activity, by desensitizing kids from a young age.
The small ones should be left alone. “A child’s innocence and modesty comes naturally and should be protected.” I believe that with my whole heart, and will fight to protect the kids I care about. That’s what adults are supposed to do, protect the little ones, not line them up to become desensitized by some Marxist agenda , "…. is not based in science but “entrenched in ideology,”

It is manipulation, and will not end well. Our children will become sick and hampered adults, mentally, emotionally and physically.

“Monte McNaughton, the outspoken Tory backbencher and only MPP to speak out in Queen’s Park against the curriculum, closed the night by thanking Grossman. Pointing out that he is the father of a two-year-old daughter, McNaughton reiterated his commitment to fight the Liberals’ sex-ed agenda, and emphasized that parents, not politicians, should decide what’s best for their children.”
commented 2015-08-22 20:38:35 -0400
It’s so funny how history is repeating itself. You had uptight and closed minded conservatives in the 50’s and 60’s complaining about things that no one give a shit about now – because you know, progress and a changing society and all that.

Now you are those people from the 50’s and 60’s complaining about things that no one will give a shit about in the coming years. I can hear it now – “remember when people used to complain about gay marriage and the sex education curriculum – that was some crazy shit”.
commented 2015-08-22 11:54:41 -0400
Closed ears = closed minds! Wynne and cohorts (and that includes wee Justie who seeks her advice) blindly march on in face of growing concern and opposition! She truly is fulfilling her role in Agenda 21!
commented 2015-08-22 10:12:27 -0400
I suspect if the law society/cops/politicians were not filled with pedophiles these folks would be in jail by now! Up to parents to decontaminate the minds of their kids. Evil fully displayed!
commented 2015-08-22 09:40:11 -0400
Thank goodness for Dr. Grossman! It sure looks as though parents could use her help. Thanks for posting those passages Erin, Thanks Neil for the blog.
I hope there is a way to fight back. I hope parents will realize how misguided Wynne’s plan really is, and the damage it will do for at least one whole generation.
A child’s mental and emotional health is at risk, and messing with them Wynne’s way is akin to child abuse.
commented 2015-08-22 04:10:31 -0400
Jimmy, those articles don’t prove anything, let alone your claim that most parents support the new sex education curriculum. What they do show are the points of view of two individual parents who have completely failed to grasp the real problems with the new curriculum. Dr. Miriam Grossman, who spoke at the Mississauga event, explained the issues rather well:
-—————
MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, August 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An American psychiatrist who has spoken and written extensively on sex-ed says the Ontario Liberal government’s sex-ed curriculum is not based in science but “entrenched in ideology,” and endangers children by not clearly presenting the consequences of sexual activity.
“The priority is not your child’s health,” Dr. Miriam Grossman told an enthusiastically grateful crowd of nearly 1,000 from numerous cultures and organizations in Mississauga last night, “The priority is to mould your child’s thinking and attitudes so they respect, affirm and are comfortable with all sexual choices and lifestyles.”
And while the curriculum’s view “may or may not be consistent” with parents’ values, “it most certainly is not based upon current knowledge about child and adolescent development, sexually transmitted disease, neuropsychology and many other areas,” she stated.
The New York-based child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist and author of “You’re teaching my kids WHAT?” and “Unprotected”, told the standing-room-only crowd Tuesday that it took three separate pleas from Ontario parents over the last six months to convince her to look into the Liberal government’s Grade 1 to 8 Health and Physical Education curriculum.
When she did so, Grossman was “amazed” – not by the curriculum, set to roll out in the province’s public funded schools this September – but by the groundswell of opposition to it.
“You may think that I’m here because the organizers found my work and they were impressed with me. I’m here because I discovered your work and I’m impressed with you.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” she said, adding out that she’s seen many groups upset with sex-ed curricula across the United States, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. “So I absorbed all of this information for about 24 hours, especially the phenomenal grassroots campaign and I decided, I’m coming to Toronto,” which resulted in loud applause and cheers from the audience.
Grossman said she came to provide parents with “ammunition in your battle,” and her hour-long critique outlined the major flaws in a curriculum she described as “entrenched in ideology” and “centered on indoctrinating the child with its set of beliefs.”
“Adults have to teach children biological truths that could save their lives,” Grossman countered. “We can’t, for the sake of an idealized vision of what the world should be in someone’s mind, sacrifice the health and yes, sometimes the lives of young people.”
“And I have to say that that is what going on in this curriculum.”
She criticized the curriculum for introducing biological details at inappropriate ages, noting that in her professional opinion, teaching the names of genitalia in Grade 1 is “not necessary.” Six-year-olds are “very little and they’re innocent,” she said. “A child’s innocence and modesty comes naturally and should be protected.”
“What’s really going on in this curriculum is an attempt to desensitize children,” she said, pointing out that it “confuses sensitivity and modesty with shame and negative self-image.”
It is sufficient, in order to protect children against sexual predators, to teach them “that we all have private parts, those that are covered by a bathing suit,” and that “anyone who wants to see or touch you there, that’s a bad person” and “you scream and tell your parents.”
Grossman added that the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry advises that in talking to their kids about sex, “parents should respond to the needs and curiosity level of their individual child, offering no more or less information than their child is asking for and is able to understand.”
Perhaps, she suggested, a copy of this document “should be passed along to [Premier] Kathleen Wynne.”
She noted that, in marked contrast to how it approaches matters like diet, alcohol and tobacco use, where “the language is straightforward” and “the tone is firm and authoritative, we adults know more than you and we are warning you about the consequences,” the curriculum presents sexual activity as something a child decides on.
Grade 6 students contemplating sexual relationships are advised to consider “my comfort level…my personal limits, and the limits and comfort of others.”
“As if a sixth grader can possibly know that?” Grossman said, adding that adults struggle with such concepts. “This is not developmentally appropriate.”
And the Grade 7 document states that “having sex can be an enjoyable experience, it can be an important part of a close relationship when you are older.” Grossman pointed out the phrase “when you are older” which is used “everywhere where it talks about sexual relationships,” could mean Grade 8 or Grade 10.
“The message here is that the child will decide when they are ready, instead of being told: You are not ready.”
“And you won’t be ready until you are an adult.”
This approach ignores neuroscience, which reveals that the part of the adolescent brain used for decision making, problem solving and understanding future consequences – the dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex – is underdeveloped, and “won’t be fully mature until they’re in their 20s.”
Teens are not capable of thinking through consequences of their actions because, as one insurance company put it in an advertisement, “They’re missing a part of their brain.”
And this approach to the “human development and sexual health” component is also based on the “Marxist” view of a “ideal world” where “no one group should suffer more than another as a result of their choices.”
“There is a significant flaw with this approach,” Grossman said. “It’s not based in reality. It’s a dream.”
And it’s one with serious consequences.
In her 12 years of practice at a clinic based in University of California in Los Angeles, one of the largest campuses in the United States, Grossman treated “thousands and thousands” of young people, mostly women, whose “suffering was 100 percent avoidable.”
They had had abortions, were afflicted with sexually transmitted infections, lived in fear of contracting HIV or getting cervical cancer and wanted to know why they hadn’t been told this would happen.
That started Grossman on her research, books and current campaign against what she sees as a politically correct medical profession, and a sex-ed industry motivated by an ideology that “people are sexual from cradle to grave and they should act on their sexual urges at any time.”
Because of the prevalence and acceptance of this ideology, in the United States, “another young person between the ages of 15 and 24 gets a sexually transmitted infection every 3.5 seconds.”
Grossman pointed out that if the Liberal curriculum used the same approach with sex education as it did with diet or smoking, it would clearly warn students that even having sex once could result in a sexually transmitted infection that is lifelong in duration, or in a pregnancy, or in an HIV infection “which sooner or later becomes AIDS, and AIDS will kill you.”
And it would be clear that there is vastly greater risk to girls, and to those who engage in anal sex.
Girls are at greater risk in becoming sexually active because they have an immature cervix that is particularly vulnerable to infection from virus and bacteria, a fact confirmed by Atlanta’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
And they need to know this, Grossman said, scoffing at the curriculum’s suggestion that girls considering sexual activity should talk to their “partner.” So a “12- or 13 or 14-year-old girl is advised to talk to her boyfriend?” she pointed out. “It’s absurd. Who would think of that?”
She also faulted the curriculum for introducing students to “various forms of sexual expression” as if “all forms are the same risk,” but that is “simply false, that’s a lie.”
Anal intercourse, “in terms of HIV transmission, is at least 31 more times more dangerous than vaginal intercourse” according to New York City’s department of health, Grossman said, adding that this is a low figure.
The difference lies in the physiological differences between the vagina, and the rectum. The vagina has thicker lining, more elastic tissue, natural lubrication, a lower PH which can inactivate the HIV virus, and mucus with anti-HIV proteins.
The rectum has thin lining that is easily torn, no natural lubrication and is abundant with M-cells “which capture the HIV virus and deliver it into the lymphatic system, which is exactly where you don’t want it.”
Grossman says she tells young people that anal intercourse “is too dangerous. Don’t do it.” Gay men whom she’s told about this, she said, invariably thanked her.
Grossman also debunked the idea that condoms afford protection, pointing out that rates of infections even with condom use are “very high,” and that the two most common viruses, herpes and the human papillomavirus, “lives on skin not covered by a condom.”
It is telling that there is no research on the effectiveness of condoms in anal intercourse. She also noted that the FDA website used to say “condoms provide some protection but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice,” a warning that has been removed from the website.
“Did biology change?” Grossman asked. “What changed is the culture.”
Grossman also attacked the Liberal sex-ed curriculum for its approach on “gender stereotypes” and its undermining of the traditional family.
“This, in my opinion, is the most radical and disturbing sentence in the entire curriculum,” she said, quoting: “‘Stereotypes are usually formed when we do not have enough information….Not everyone has a mother and a father - someone might have two mothers or two fathers…"’ (Grade 6, p. 177.)
“Did I need to come all the way from New York” to tell people that everyone has a mother and father, Grossman asked, adding, “and the ideal situation is for a child to be raised by that mother and father.”
“The vision that is behind this sentence is that biological bonds are irrelevant…and that genetic relationships don’t matter.”
Grossman said she doesn’t dispute that there are many instances of loving parents who adopt, or use IVF technologies to build their families “but to deny the significance of the biological tie is preposterous.”
The International Declaration on the Rights of Children explicitly states a child has the right to be connected to his history, she said.
She also asserted that children conceived from anonymous sperm donors are speaking out. “And what they’re saying, many of them, is not at all pretty. They’re angry.” Many of these children believe that third-party reproduction should be more tightly regulated or “banned altogether.”
“I know the parents are in pain,” because they want a child and cannot conceive, Grossman said. “But the children come first.”
“I have many questions for Kathleen Wynne, but one of them is this, how is it that you acknowledge the pain and the tears of certain groups, but not others?”
She also criticized the curriculum’s warning against gender stereotypes, pointing out that current science is replete with myriad evidence of the “inborn and immutable” differences between the sexes.
“Every organ in the body is actually male or female,” she said, “because every cell” with the exception of red blood cells, “is imprinted with male or female because of the chromosomes,” with females XX, and males XY.
The mysterious male Y chromosome that was regarded as “a genetic wasteland” in the 60s, has now been mapped out in the human genome project, she said. That Y chromosome begins to have an effect on the brain’s development eight weeks after conception.
So “to tell kids that there’s nothing to the idea of gender stereotypes, that it’s all due to our culture and society that boys and girls, men and women behave differently” has “been proven false.”
Grossman concluded by urging opponents of the sex-ed curriculum to keep going, despite being ignored by the mainstream media or labeled “uneducated or a bigot,” pointing out that “science is in your corner” and that “parents know what’s best for their children, not educator activists.”
She also lauded them for their remarkable and well-coordinated efforts, which have included a 185,000-name petition, a school strike of over 35,000, and numerous rallies and protests.
Jotvinder Sodhi of HOWA Voice of Parents, which sponsored Grossman’s presentation with the support of Canadian Families Alliance (CFA) a grassroots coalition representing about 200,000 Ontarians, emceed the evening, which included brief presentations from representatives of CFA’s member groups.
Monte McNaughton, the outspoken Tory backbencher and only MPP to speak out in Queen’s Park against the curriculum, closed the night by thanking Grossman. Pointing out that he is the father of a two-year-old daughter, McNaughton reiterated his commitment to fight the Liberals’ sex-ed agenda, and emphasized that parents, not politicians, should decide what’s best for their children.
-
———————
commented 2015-08-22 02:35:00 -0400
Raise hell over this one! LoL. pro-choice people are a sick joke.. they never mean ‘choice’ , but MY choice. I have never seen a politician dump her/his own personal agenda, read: hangup , on the public like this sex ed programme. It is malicious, undermining and sophmoric. It will do damage! Parents must absolutely insist on it! As for Justin, how can he and his party members, in all seriousness, tell us he’s pro-choice, when he forbids members to run in ‘his’ party who oppose abortion? I think our country is a lot sicker than we are aware of!.. Now look at Planned Parenthood! c’mon Ezra.. don’t let them off the hook. These are the sex friends of Wynne, Trudeau and all of the NDP… if you view the videos in the US, you’d have a hard time showing the holocaust was worse. This is real bad stuff, Canadians! Wake up! I once learnt years ago in graduate school, from a highly respected rabbi and psychiatrist (and I didn’t quite know what he meant): “If sex is not used for life, it will be used for death”. Now I get it!.. Canadians, do you!?
commented 2015-08-21 23:37:43 -0400
Jimmy, thank you for exposing the Huffington Post perverts – Wynne loves them.
commented 2015-08-21 13:50:55 -0400
I wonder how many kids are going to show up for class in Sept.?