May 04, 2015

Ontario parents pull children out of school to protest new sex-ed curriculum

Emily PrattRebel Correspondent

Ontario parents opposed to the Liberal government’s new sex ed curriculum took to Queen’s Park again in protest, but today they brought their children.

It’s part of a student strike where parents are pulling their kids out of class this week in hopes of sending a message to Kathleen Wynne.

What do you think of these parents' actions? Tell us in the comments!

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

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

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-06 14:37:42 -0400
Terry/mind your own business, when there’s obvious grooming and homosexuality being thrust upon innocent children you’re dam right this is the place to be drawing attention to the children’s sex ed brainwashing. Everyone is supposed to clam up and allow this third reich, S.S., perverted sex ed agenda? Not on your life. As far as gender distinction goes I don’t care what anyone wants to parade around in life as, none of my business. Just leave innocent children out of it.
commented 2015-05-06 07:34:54 -0400
Cathy/Karlheinz: I’m not sure you should be parading your apparent issues with gender distinction, at least in this thread.
commented 2015-05-05 20:09:24 -0400
John/Joan, we know you aren’t going away but you are the one who is rude and belligerent with the graphic details regarding anal sex by 11 and 12 year old boys and all the other homosexual perversions. This sounds like predatory behaviour to me buddy. Do us a favor and stop trying to make this sex ed look like it’s for the good of children. It’s disgusting and lewd and will mess with our children’s innocence. What about this aren’t you understanding you low life?
commented 2015-05-05 16:08:13 -0400
Ron, thank you for supporting my right to voice my opinion, based on my unique life experience. I support your right to your opinion too. Don’t worry, I have no interest in having anything to do with your family. Like I said, the government may well give you a hard time, as they have done other home school ventures in the past, but I wish you all every success.
commented 2015-05-05 16:04:54 -0400
Janice Glover – You need to re-listen to Paiken’s interview of Brown and Elliott. At between 10 and 12 minutes of the interview, Brown states his stand on the sex-ed curriculum and it is exactly the same as Elliott’s and the PC Party.

Brown says “I oppose the curriculum because there was no consultation”. He doesn’t say he opposes the content only that there was inadequare parental consultation. Elliott and Wilson say that too.

Brown says “I would have voted against it” – again because of the inadequate consultation. He does not say he will scrap it but only that, in the past, he would have voted against it.

Brown says he thinks we have an adequate sex-ed curriculum right now … except for a few modules that need updating. That is the very rationale for the Liberal changes to the curriculum. That a few modules needed updating. Brown specifically mentions mental health but be careful here. The rationale for updating the sex-ed curriculum is to educate kids in order to reduce youth suicide.

Brown says he trusts families to teach values. But again, so does the curriculum that is filled with references to families as the first teachers of values. He says the focus should be on math and science but everyone thinks that. Physical Education and Health is not a core subject. Never has been.

Brown has not said he will scrap the sex-ed curriculum. He has only said he will listen to families. Well, sure, okay. But that is not the same as promising to scrap the Liberal changes.

In fact, if Brown listens to PC Party members, which is his main promise for policy making, chances are the curriculum will not be changed one whit because most Conservative Party members have read the curriculum, know the enemy-written and circulated disinformation about it is false and intended to terrorize parents who haven’t read it, and will tell Brown to keep the curriculum.

Elliott has the right platform – fiscal Conservatism and Conservative compassion. No promises of union-bashing or of excluding any demographic protected under our Constitution, no promises of massive job cuts, no promises to arrest all the homeless and putting them in jail (that was what her former husband, Jim, wanted to do when he was in the Ontario government). Her platform is designed to be inclusive, to reach out to every demographic regardless of difference, to unite all of Ontario around core values of fiscal Conservatism and Conservative compassion.

Elliott has the right platform. I’m just not sure she is the right person to deliver it.

I have not yet voted because I am waiting for Brown to respond to my direct question I sent him by email and Twitter, twice each time, about whether Sun journalist, Sue-Ann Levy, is correct that, if elected leader, he intends to marginalize the LGBTQ members of the PC Party. I got a reply from one of his staff that slurred Sue-Ann as a trouble-maker and said Patrick would get back to me if he has time. I get daily email from Patrick, frequent phone calls, invitations to events and, most recently, to his victory party … but no reply to my question. Which, I guess, is a sort of reply.

Some people say he may be trouble for Ontario because he has never married or had children. I’m not sure what sort of trouble they think he is because of that but that is not a deal breaker for me. Jason Kenney is a virgin. John Baird is gay. Not deal breakers for me.

I won’t vote for a leader who intends to marginalize any demographic protected under the Constitution Act of Canada, including the LGBTQ lobby of the PC Party of Ontario. If a leader will marginalize one group, s/he will marginalize another. So who is next? The disabled? The poor? Evangelical Christians? Jews? Everyone but a corrupt elite that misuses police to enforce corruption?

The sex-ed curriculum is not what will decide my vote. Both Brown and Elliott have the same position on that issue. The only way to deal with it is for parents who object to exempt their kids, continue to protest, keep the heat on until 2018 and hope a new government will address their concerns.

What will decide my vote is if Brown responds to my question which, at this point, seems unlikely.

commented 2015-05-05 15:41:54 -0400
I have no confidence at all in the public school system. The Ontario Liberals seem preoccupied with sex. Us primitive religious types have had enough of the government at any level telling us how we must think. At school I was told God was dead, evolution is true, abortion is good and bogus science trumps all. When at 15 I said here is what I think I was told by the teachers to sit down and shut up. I do not want the dictatorship of the majority. Thank goodness some folk out there are speaking up. No to the sex ed of children, no to the mocking of those who disagree with us. Joan can have her view. It may be the majority view. But keep clear of my family. Home education looks like the route to go.
commented 2015-05-05 15:05:52 -0400
Cathy – how ignorant can you be to dehumanize anyone else for expressing a different opinion? Ignorant, cruel, base and low – that is what dehumanizing others make you appear.

I will not go away.
commented 2015-05-05 14:50:55 -0400
Why doesn’t everybody ignore John, er I mean Joan. Maybe then it will go away.
commented 2015-05-05 12:49:50 -0400
To further quote Campaign Life Coalition, Christine Elliott is pro-abortion….she co-sponsored the NDP’s transsexual “Bathroom Bill” which grants biological males the legal right to access girls washrooms and showers, if they merely claim to be a woman in their minds. That puts women at risk from sexual predators and peeping toms." “Elliott…has publicly defended the graphic, early childhood sex-education curriculum.”
commented 2015-05-05 12:15:05 -0400
Joan Abernathy:
According to Campaign Life and PAFE (Parents As First Educators), Patrick Brown is opposed to this curriculum. In the TVO interview with Steve Paikin, Brown made the statement that he would oppose the curriculum.
In an email she sent to me (whether this was a standard composition), Christine Elliott said:
“As I have said many times over the past number of months, the sex-ed policy brought forward by the current government is an important topic and one that will raise the passions and opinions of many across Ontario. It is a debate that should be beyond partisanship and, so far, I am disappointed with how the Liberal’s have worked to make this a partisan issue. There are critical issues facing this province, but the Liberals insist on playing partisan games and trying to drive wedges between citizens. Politicising this issue was wrong when this issue was first brought forward and it’s wrong now.

The Liberal’s have, for reasons I don’t understand, consistently worked to limit consultation on this issue and to muzzle the voices of parents. This is the wrong approach. Parents are in the best position to make the right choices for their children.

As a mother – if my boys were of the age that this curriculum is aimed – I would have insisted on having the right to offer my opinion on a matter such as this. All curriculums, including sex-ed curriculums, need to be updated on a regular basis with an aim to ensure that they are always improving and meeting the needs of an ever more diverse population in Ontario. Updates need to be done in a constructive, non-partisan and consultative way. There is no role for MPPs or Ministers in setting specific curriculums except to set policy that calls for high standards and inclusive curriculum development that respects the voices of parents.”
I don’t feel she is making her position particularly clear on how she would change, accept or oppose Wynne’s curriculum. She states parents should have a voice, but doesn’t say if she’d act on their concerns. Instead, she has, since the first debate, attacked Monte McNaughton and Patrick Brown on their ‘outdated views’.
She has the hands on experience, but I don’t see much difference between what she is proposing and what Wynne stands for, particularly on this issue.
Hope this helps with your decision making….
commented 2015-05-05 11:52:43 -0400
Liza – of course I enjoy posting here. Why else would I do it?

You can’t do it, can you? You can’t prove the lies your lobby spreads that the curriculum promotes perversion. Because you stubbornly and perversely refuse to read the document.

The curriculum does not teach what the enemy-inspired, Arabic-written disinformation claims.

The curriculum teaches grade 7 students that anal sex is high risk for disease and that they should, therefore, abstain from it. Would you rather they believed peers who tell them it’s dope?
commented 2015-05-05 11:47:11 -0400
Peter Babich, when we respond to posts, we name the person to whom we respond for the purpose of clarity. Hiding behind pretense won’t protect you.
commented 2015-05-05 11:07:30 -0400
Of course, I already indicated that. Make your statement, don’t make it personal
commented 2015-05-05 10:52:31 -0400
I believe that you get a thrill from being crass. You misrepresent and twist peoples posts. What you say is a joke. If your twitter friends think messing with a 13 year olds sexuality is acceptable, then your all….cut from the same cloth shall we say. You hide behind a false sense of righteousness, love your neighbour, God and country right? Fraud.

Post this one too.
commented 2015-05-05 09:46:26 -0400
Liza – anal sex – your favourite – is addressed in the grade 7 sex-ed curriculum. It tells students anal sex is risky, that it can cause disease, and that they should abstain from anal sex.

I challenge you. Prove that is false.
commented 2015-05-05 09:43:20 -0400
Liza – you made me laugh so hard I am going to post your views to Twitter so the whole world can have a good laugh.
commented 2015-05-05 09:42:01 -0400
Liza – 13 year-olds don’t get erections?? Bahahahahaha!!!!
commented 2015-05-05 09:31:07 -0400
Those grannies? there are a lot more where they come from. They speak the truth, you speak garbage.
commented 2015-05-05 09:28:03 -0400
Ron Zager – none of those you listed are the enemies of democracy.

The enemy of democracy is false beliefs.
commented 2015-05-05 09:26:02 -0400
Peter Babich, nope, you don’t admit you hate me? Do you love me, peter, as your Lord requires?
commented 2015-05-05 09:23:34 -0400
Terry Rudden – of course. My qualification was in response to your equation of some Muslims with Christians, not with some Christians. A semantic objection on my part.
commented 2015-05-05 09:20:38 -0400
Liza, my comment was about an old adult who claimed that when he was 13, he had no interest in or knowledge of sex. Quit trying to twist my words into suggesting I’m the pervert you want me to be.

And the grandmother who says her 13-year old grandkids have no interest in masturbation is dangerous. She is wrong and turns a blind eye to the truth. Like I said, dangerous.

As are the lies you tell. Dangerous.
commented 2015-05-05 08:17:29 -0400
Nope, you’re a bully
commented 2015-05-05 06:33:19 -0400
Joan, simple tribalism and fear aren’t the exclusive provenance of any religion, and any religion includes them.
commented 2015-05-05 02:07:25 -0400
Who are the enemies of democracy? Christians, Muslims, those who oppose the school reforms or The Rebel Media?
commented 2015-05-05 01:41:56 -0400
“13 year old people are sexual. Get over it.”
" Children" Joan, interesting choice of words. 13 year olds don’t need any interference, it is none of your business. Leave those kids alone.
commented 2015-05-05 01:34:37 -0400
Ron Zager – Islam is not a race.
commented 2015-05-05 01:33:09 -0400
Ron Zager – Terry’s point was that the video cherry picked the parents to make it appear the opposition is culturally diverse when, in fact, most of the virulent opposition is Muslim.