February 24, 2015

Parents vs. "pansexuals" at Ontario sex-ed protest

Rebel Staff
 

Parents braved the cold to protest the Liberal government's new sex-ed curriculum outside Queen's Park.

Parents from many faiths and backgrounds told our reporter Hannah Vanderkooy that they weren't offered a chance to consult on the curriculum's contents, despite government promises to the contrary.

However, a counterprotester who described herself as "a non-binary pansexual" told TheRebel.media that she supported the new curriculum.

GET INVOLVED: If you think Ontario's sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government's morality on every Ontario family, then take action and visit our NEW site ProtectOurKids.ca to sign the petition.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-08-28 02:54:45 -0400
Charles stein… Please don’t combine and confuse Nazism with Germany..
That’s like saying every American alive today is responsible for slavery. Germany is a country of people who are hard-working God-fearing and love their families and children…
commented 2015-02-28 18:12:36 -0500
PLEASE, SIGN THE PETITION!

It is sad that we have to rely on immigrants for our moral compass.
commented 2015-02-28 18:00:00 -0500
Nice Job Hannah!

“When the Left, wins we ALL lose!

Right is wrong and wrong is right in the twisted, perverted minds of leftists!
commented 2015-02-26 14:12:02 -0500
This is all planned. every law is orchestrated. every political battle is already planned out. there has been an agenda since before the NAZIs. NAZI Germany was only a trail, like a planned event to see if the world was ready. the world wasn’t ready at that time, the world didn’t accept the trail, like a body it rejected the trail like it was a cancer. but now we (humanity) are getting closer to the desired result (something that should never be desired because it’s so evil), if something like NAZI Germany were to pop up out of no were, 75% to 90% of the world would accept it, adopt it, and enforce it.

NAZI Germany is not a thing of the past, it was only a small scale test. what we soon will go through is going to be on a much larger scale (Globally, World Wide, not restricted to one part of the world). it’s not a crystal ball, or just some stupid opinion, we all know that this is were the world is heading. just look at Europe (the Golden center of our world, now accepts and creates laws that they once opposed, they now accept NAZI views) no longer are they the Golden Gem of the world. and America and Canada always has a tendency follows European lead.

I don’t know who the power is that is controlling the Leftists, I don’t know who is ushering in this large scale NAZIism. but who ever they are… they are powerful and their influence spans Nations and peoples. and who ever they are, they are in a rush. (we have less then 50 years before everything goes down the drain) so who ever they are, they are speeding up their time table.
commented 2015-02-25 16:14:36 -0500
Chaz, I understand your feelings, and I have always been a nationalist at heart, but I think I see the writing on the wall. Our personal liberties have been taken and thrown under the Liberal bus in almost every way imaginable (for what is still known as a “free” country, at least). Look at our guns laws, our lack of property rights, our schools, the scandals that run rampant throughout our political systems, our systems of entitlement, the debauchery that goes on with Quebec…. the list goes on.

I would love to see Canada stay together, but I would rather be part of a strong, Conservative/Libertarian nation than part of a united Liberal Canada, myself. I don’t see Canada going towards Libertarian views, and even true Conservative views are so diminished that it’s also not going to happen, at least not with Ontario and Quebec.

Ontario, I have my doubts could ever be salvaged. The Liberal mindset is far too entrenched there. Quebec I’m 100% confident that they’re a lost cause. Even back in 1995 I was praying that they separate – that province constantly pisses on the rest of Canada with it’s elitist “We’re better than you” attitude, all the while begging for more at the trough. The fact that they have the audacity to demand “special treatment”, offer entitlement programs that the rest of Canada couldn’t afford, all the while being a “have not” province… it disgusts me. Quebec is the epitome of entitlement and socialism in Canada. I even wonder if Quebec was gone, would Ontario maybe not have gone so far?

I don’t know the political climate so well on the Atlantic Coast, but my suspicion is that it is largely Liberal there as well. Regardless of that, if Ontario and Quebec were out of the picture, it’s very unlikely that the Atlantic provinces could even consider joining a republic made up of Conservative/Libertarian minded provinces – the logistics would be neigh impossible.

Regarding Ontario and the “Conservative sentiment”, I would tend to disagree. Look at who has been in power in the provincial government for the last few elections. Look at the entrenched Liberal media that is rampant throughout the province. I have no doubt there certainly are a good number of Conservative minded people in Ontario, but clearly they are not close enough to the majority to make any sort of real difference – Ontario only lags behind Quebec at the Liberal end of things in Canada.

And no, I agree, Albertans seem to be as stupid as the day is long when it comes to voting. I was disgusted when Redford won that election – the Wild Rose was a real alternative, and after everything that happened with the PC party, it was almost a given they would not win another election. Yet come election day, the sheep spoke and went right back to the fools. But I would also say that it’s pretty clear a “real” Liberal government would not stand a chance in Alberta. Yes, the PC party is far too progressive to work well, but it’s also not a full out Liberal attack (yet). I just have my suspicions that Albertans are more likely than Ontarians or Quebecers to wake up to the Liberal filth and see it for what it is.

I hope you’re right, that Canadians will stand together, but I strongly fear, and doubt, you are. I just do not see Canadians waking up en masse. I do see the larger Conservative minded population (per capita) that is out West getting fed up with the socialist/Liberal ways, however. What we do about it, that’s anyone’s guess, but I certainly can see the tension building.

As much as it would be nice to keep Canada together, some things run their course. It appears, to me, that the idea of a united and Conservative Canada will never happen, and again, I’d rather be a citizen of a smaller Conservative nation than a larger united Liberal one. Just look at what’s happened in the socialist/Liberal countries in Europe – people there are probably more brainwashed than we are in Canada, and it’s gone so far now that there’s very little (probably no) hope of Conservatives saving their way of thinking/life in that continent. I abhor the idea that Canada gets to that point, where we lose all hope of salvaging good Canadian values. It would be much better to keep Canadian values whole and break up the country than give up our values and identity and stay together.

Better to be on a life-boat and alive, healthy, and ready to be saved than it is to go down with the ship.
commented 2015-02-25 15:37:40 -0500
Unfortunately Premier Whimsical doesn’t read this blog
commented 2015-02-25 15:25:55 -0500
I am afraid this is where we part company Kevin. I acknowledge and empathize with your despair over the liberal dementia which is so pervasive in much of Canada, Ontario, Quebec and B.C., particularly; but, I am also a strong Canadian nationalist who is not quite yet ready yet to throw in the towel and break up the country.

Speaking particularly of Ontario, in which a strong, conservative sentiment still exists, we have not yet conceded our fair province to the malevolent designs of the madwoman currently holding the reins of power.

As we recently observed with Alison Redford being selected leader of the PCs and then go on to win a significant majority in the general election, Albertan’s themselves are not immune from the corruption of liberal dementia. Ms. Redford has been jettisoned now but the bad taste this entitlement obsessed CINO has left in the mouth of many Albertan’s should remind them that ’there, but for the grace of God, go I."

As Canadians, we will either stand together, or we fall together.
commented 2015-02-25 14:40:45 -0500
Chaz, I agree on principle with what you’re saying, but I fear it is far worse than that. I fear that we are just seeing the tiny tip of a massive iceberg that will inevitably sink Canada as a country. We have been headed down this destructive path for far too long, and far too many people in Canada have become mindless sheep, willing to do whatever the Liberal agenda tells them to do. As bad as this curriculum is, I think it’s just a minor blip compared to what we’ll see in the next few decades.

My biggest hope and prayer is that as this feculence is spread across Canada, Alberta (along with some other provinces) will wake up, secede, and form a Constitutional Republic that can withstand attacks against our society and morality such as this. There is a part of me that hopes this will spread across Canada, as my faith in Albertans and Saskatchewanians is far greater than my faith in the entire country. There are far too many mindless sheep for the tides to be turned, at least without divine intervention. But I could very well see Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and maybe NWT and Manitoba (doubtful for Manitoba though) wake up and realize this perfidious and malevolent evil has gone too far for us to remain a part of anymore. My prayer is it happens before too many of us Conservatives get sucked into party politics and support the Conservatives simply on the basis that they are not the Liberals or NDP, instead of on the basis that they are good for the country (they aren’t, I do not believe, they are just the lesser of the three great evils we have to choose from).
commented 2015-02-25 14:13:35 -0500
Agreed Kevin. It appears to be the default philosophical underpinning of today’s brand of liberals, that they are moral relativists. “You’re all right Jack, I’m a right Jack.” To which I respond, well, if one believes that nothing is sacred and nothing is absolute then one will accept any amount of absolute nonsense without discernment or qualification and the result will be Wynn’s demented sex-ed curriculum.
commented 2015-02-25 13:48:20 -0500
Chaz you’re right – our judeo-christian society has broken down into a fully secular and moral-less, evil world. We, and our children, are being bombarded constantly by the Liberal agenda which intends to rid us of all morals, leaving us with laws and leaders. A society cannot function properly without some form of moral base, hence why most all societies DO have religious values as a basis for most of their laws etc.
commented 2015-02-25 13:45:39 -0500
Steve, thanks for the logical response. I figured you were a libertarian – your post didn’t strike me as a nut job liberal, though I will say, the idea that morals are simply bad for society is a very liberal view (no offense intended here).

I hope I didn’t offend you by assuming there was some sort of abuse suffered on your part – it just struck me that you had been seriously affected by some form of abuse, either to yourself or someone you know. I fully agree that the abuse doled out by “apparent” followers of Christ is abhorent. And we DO need to learn from those events, just as we need to learn from and remember other serious atrocities in history. My arguement, however, is that PARENTS need to learn from it, as it is not “society’s job” to parent our children. A curriculum such as this one takes that right away from the parent and gives it to the state, which as you know can not stand.

I fully understand and appreciate your concern – it would be awful to have even one more child be abused at the hands of someone they trust and to think it could have been prevented by educating them. But it would also be equally awful (if not more so) to have many children confused over moral disagreements between parents and teachers. Yes, some parents are equipped and able enough to demonstrate and educate their children on why the morals the school is teaching are wrong, but many do not or would not realize they need to do that. Many simply try to instill their own values in their children and assume that the school would not do anything to contradict or harm that – they trust the system (big mistake).

I think we draw the line at the family unit, with respect to government intrusion in private affairs. It is absolutely not the place of the state, in any way, shape, or form, to instill or effect a moral system on me or my family. The state can educate my children, that is something I have no issue with. But I must be trusted to raise my children with morals that will allow them to function, operate, and succeed in society. Clearly some parents are not capable of that, and some children will fail as a result of that. But I would argue that more parents are capable than are not.

There is also the possibility of creating some sort of mechanism to have parents do more for their children, without directly interfering in exactly what they do for their children. Like I said, it wouldn’t be too far fetched to suggest that a parent should hold some responsibility for things their child does. It could be as simple as the parent having to attend court and explain their child’s actions in the case of a crime, it could result in the parent being fined for a child’s criminal behavior, etc. Would it solve all issues? Absolutely not. Would it address sexual abuse related issues? Not directly, but I would argue that any parent who becomes more involved in their childs’ life, and morals, would inherently become more involved in teaching their children how to operate in and react to different situations. It would likely become a cause and effect type situation – a parent who decides they do not want to raise a child who will turn out to cause the parent to take responsibility for criminal actions will spend more time and energy imparting good societal values to their child, and in turn, will be spending more time raising a “good” child. This will inherently support and strengthen the family unit, and will give children more confidence, allow them to feel more loved and cared for, and take care of a lot of the “confusion” and danger. Since we are so much more educated than my parents were, or their parents were, about sexual abuse, it would simply go hand in hand that a parent who has a real incentive to raise their child well would also address issues related to sexuality and sexual abuse.

In my mind, allowing the state to teach our children morals is very much the same issue as allowing the state to teach our children religion. I understand the biology portion of it, and would even accept high school age children being taught anatomy and biology, but morals can not fall into it.

I would also ask, how would you feel if your child came home and told you that they’re starting a Christian studies course next week and will learn about the Christian faith for the next month. The following month, the school will teach them the Muslim faith, then the Jewish faith, etc. Remembering that in one month of short classes, there is no way the school will be able to offer any sort of real support or guidance, and the course would merely end up being a history course with some theology and moral study. Any child interested in pursuing a studied religion would not have the tools to do so on their own, and since the teacher would not be legally allowed to be required to be a believer in that religion, they would not have any tools to help the child either. This would leave a child with a very basic understanding of parts of a religion, but no way to pursue it. It would open them to being very vulnerable and arguably would open them to being groomed by abusers or radical recruiters. I think any parent would abhor the idea that the public school system would teach their child about various religions on any level other than a basic historical level (and many parents would object to even that, on the basis that they may not agree with the historical interpretation the teacher/school/religion holds true). On that same token, we cannot allow the state to teach our children morals in other ways.

I would even go so far as to argue that the schools should not be teaching our children “be kind to others” or “don’t steal” or “don’t lie” simply because that too is a parents job. The only argument FOR teaching those types of morals is the fact that they are pretty much universally held values which any person can agree makes sense. But on that note, it would also open the door to less universally accepted morals/values being introduced under the guise of “the majority agrees” which completely contradicts the freedom a parent should have to raise their child as they see fit. Hence, I believe all morals should be kept out of schools (laws, on the other hand, I have no issue with. “Thou shall not kill” is the same as “You can’t kill someone because it’s illegal” so long as it’s taught as a law and not a moral. Since we have laws in our society, there’s no reason children cannot be taught laws, but morals are a no go zone for me).
commented 2015-02-25 13:44:23 -0500
Forget religion. Let’s simply talk about rights. I couldn’t care less if you identify as neither male or female. I couldn’t care less if you think you are a goat in a human body. If you want to make out with your car’s muffler, or marry your horse. You go right ahead. However, you are not taking my kids down whatever road you consider normal. You want me to accept your “normal” lifestyle, then leave my normal lifestyle alone. While you are at it, forget EVER teaching my child that your “normal” is NORMAL. It is not, in my opinion. But, you go ahead and do whatever you want to do. Don’t let me stop you.
commented 2015-02-25 13:37:52 -0500
I cannot read about this sex-ed curriculum from a ‘Brave New World’ of lib/left group think or listen to some alien who claims to be a pansexual (whatever that is) without feeling that the traditions of normalcy and wholesomeness in what was once my Judeo/Christian society, are completely breaking down.

Christians (as I suspect do other religio/spiritual traditions) have expressions which says “I witness that” or “I don’t witness that”, well with respect to this demented curriculum and its sordid agenda, I don’t witness that, because it is meaningless gibberish to me, and it strikes me fundamentally as false and probably evil.
commented 2015-02-25 13:25:29 -0500
Its nice to see how thoughtful and well-spoken everyone is. Clearly, you are exactly what this country needs: good hearted people free to voice conflicting opinions without fear or censorship (until the thought police take over).

FYI – I am a libertarian, not a raging leftie. I believe in individual freedom, and I respect the right of parents to raise their children in the best possible way. The only abuse I’ve suffered is the pain associated with witnessing the sexual / clerical abuse suffered by my fellow citizens. We need to learn from their sad stories to protect against a repeat of this.

I understand – and share – the justifiable suspicicion that my fellow authors have towards government intrusion, particularly in private affairs.

But where do we draw the line?

I think religion produces a form of “us vs them” morality that is only a simulacrum of morality (many disagree with me on this point). Also, there are so many different versions of morality out there, some of which are highly offensive (ISIS, polygamy, communism, fascism….).

Perhaps we can agree on this: true morality boils down to love thy neighbour and love thyself.

Perhaps we can also agree that where moral systems overlap / conflict, we should let facts / science drive our decision making, and document this in the form of laws.

As a democracy, we use laws to manage common processes / risks / interests. Sexuality etc. is a private affair with major public consequences (disease, abuse, absent fathers, divorce, crime), and requires a public response. As a first step (and preventative measure), I think it is wise to arm our most vulnerable citizens with accurate information to protect against the predators that infest the world around them.

Here endeth my contributions to this debate.
commented 2015-02-25 13:12:16 -0500
How fricken ridiculous. I could care less if someone is pansexual, LGBTQlmnop. But keep your perverted beliefs to yourselves, and don’t assume you have the right to educate my children on moral subjects.
commented 2015-02-25 13:08:54 -0500
Steve: Kevin took the show so I cannot continue to argue. There is no fight in me left; the focus must be directed to those trying to forcefully push this through. But I hope that you are not past the point of no return. I’ll leave you with this:
If you insist on a science based approach then why is the realities of a child’s psycological innocence and vulnerability of their human cerebral development being brushed aside and ignored. I would leave that to the pediatricians and psycologists that can take an unbiased evidence based approach.
Also, your positions seem indicative of the likes of a Dawkins, Hichins, and Harris approach. I ask you, no I implore you to take a second look to assess what their positions are actually framed around.
What you will find is that they are not true scientific facts, but are instead cold, calculated, hostile, hatefull attitudes that only serve to paint caricatures of who and what is their sworn enemy. Is that truly science?
commented 2015-02-25 12:32:55 -0500
And Steve, again, to respond to your comment about WW1, WW2, the holocaust, etc, Those things were not because of morals, they were in spite of them. They were because the people behind the evil had no morals, or changed the morals of their society, to allow them to commit those atrocities.

As for your comment “Here is news: the world wasn’t created in 7 days, the bible is full of genocide, illness is not a punishment from God, and Jesus extended compassion to the outcasts.”, let me address a few things:

1. What does the number of days the world was created in have to do with anything, other than your obvious dislike for the Christian/Catholic faith? I would actually agree, it likely wasn’t created in what we know as 7 days – the bible references to “a day is as a thousand years”, and since God operates (or, if you don’t believe the bible, then we could say God theoretically operates) on a level fully separate and different from us mortals, then a day for him may easily be what we perceive as a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million years. Also, without a Sun, there would have been no reference for humans to understand what a day was. If the world was truly created by God, there would have been no reference for “days”. It is very likely that the 7 days refers to what God saw as days, or it could even be simply that God created different things in different “sections” of work, or different deliberate actions, and divided those up into “days”, regardless of the time frame.

2. The bible IS full of genocides, you’re right. But if you examine it, God always directed his people to kill because he knew that, down the road many years, the people he directed them to kill would eventually come and enslave/destroy his people. There are examples where God directed His people to go and slaughter every man, woman, child, and goat, who is in the nation of an enemy. He did this because he knew that, hundreds of years from that time, that nation would become an aggressive enemy of his people. His people did not follow his instructions, and they took some of the woman as slaves, and then turned them into their wives, and allowed the genealogy to continue, and those people ended up enslaving and killing God’s people. But yes, you’re right, the bible is full of killing. Can’t deny that. But look at who is dying – it is people who are corrupt, who are not willing to allow God’s people to simple exist.

3. You’re right, illness is NOT a punishment sent by God. Where in God’s name did you get that idea? You clearly have very little understanding of Christianity if you think that God has sent illness to punish us. The real answer, from a biblical standpoint, is that when Eve (and Adam) allowed evil and sin to enter their hearts, they allowed the potential for all bad things to enter humanity. Because of sin, things such as illness developed. In the bible illness did not exist before the Fall of Man – man was perfect and without fault. But because of sin, which lead to things that allowed illness to happen, we now have that illness. Take, for example, a theory that goes something like this: because of sin, people did things like had intercourse with animals. Disease or bacteria that was in the animals but not harmful to them was transferred to humans, to whom it was harmful. That disease/bacteria carried through humans, destroying or altering part of their genetic makeup. That followed through to some forms of genetic malformation/malfunction, cancers, whatever. It isn’t punishment by God, it is simply a byproduct of our sinful nature. God doesn’t want to punish us, but every action any person takes has a consequence to it. A good action generally follows with a good consequence (you finish a project at work early and under budget and get a bonus), whereas a bad action generally follows with a negative consequence (you kill your neighbor because he slept with your wife, and you go to jail for first degree murder and spend the next 25 years in jail). On that same token, man allowed sin to enter their hearts, and thus, the consequence is we were no longer perfect, we were no longer without fault. Again, not punishment, simply the effect of a choice.

4. Yes, you’re right, Jesus did extend compassion to outcasts. In fact, Jesus spent most of his time with sinners. He was constantly and regularly seen associating, talking, and eating with the lowest of the low in society. But he did not condone or encourage their sinful behavior, he simply showed them love. He knew that they knew their behavior was sinful in nature, he did not need to condemn them – they condemned themselves enough. He simply wanted to show them the love of God. In doing so, these people were convicted on their own – they saw that in spite of their sins, Jesus loved them, and it gave them reason to pursue a life away from sin. Hence, this is why so many who interacted with Jesus on a personal level became followers of him and did their best to turn from their past sinful ways. Not because Jesus condemned them or their sin, but because he loved them. But he also did clearly condemn sin, he just did it in a way that did not condemn the sinner.

On that same token, I would argue that Christians are not to condemn homosexuals or transsexuals – we are to love them and treat them with compassion and kindness. But we are also to know that their behavior is sinful, and we are to avoid it/not participate in it. The bible says we are to “be in the world, not of the world”, meaning we are to interact with sinners, we are to love them, but we are not to become like them. This does not mean we should teach our children that “gender fluidity” is a legitimate avenue for them to explore, it simply means that anyone afflicted with such confusion should be treated with love and kindness.

Regardless of if you believe what I’ve written above, I’m pretty sure you believe I have every right to believe what I have written. I also think you likely believe that I have every right to raise my daughter to believe what I have written. It is not the place of the state to tell me that my Christian morals and values are wrong or that I cannot raise my daughter with them.

You are confusing (strongly confusing) your own misinterpretation (or what you were wrongly taught) of the Lord and the Bible with what it really teaches. The churches/pastors who actively condemn and promote hate towards homosexuals are no better than the priests who rape children – they are not acting in a Christian manner. They do not represent 99% of the Christian faith.

If you asked most any Christian pastor if he would be opposed to a gay/transsexual person joining his church, or if he would require them to give up that lifestyle before joining, almost all of them would say “absolutely not, I would welcome them to join my congregation and would love them and treat them as any other member of this church”. This is because that is the biblical way to treat others – we all live in sin, including every pastor, as we are all humans and all have sin within us. No man is in a position to condemn and judge others (as Jesus said, let the one without sin cast the first stone) – his point was that we all sin, including priests, pastors, teachers, criminals, judges, tax collectors, carpenters, and every other person on the earth. His point was that we do not need to condemn the person, though we can still recognize that their behavior is wrong and we can still not partake in it ourselves.

Hopefully I’m helping you to understand your misconceptions about the Christian faith – it hurts me to see how badly it’s been represented to you by others in your past.
commented 2015-02-25 12:11:32 -0500
Thanks Chris. I fully agree with what you said below. It’s abhorrent that the Liberal agenda, and our governments, want to pull down the walls of morality so that they can continue down their path towards a society who cannot think for itself and who simply follows government mandated “morals” (which are merely laws determined by an elite few that will protect the elite few but keep the rest of us in servitude towards them, as well as allow them to do anything they wish for themselves or to us). Thanks for your compliment and comment!
commented 2015-02-25 12:08:32 -0500
Steve, reading your other posts, I can clearly see you’ve been hurt severely by the Church. I even wonder if you’ve been abused by a priest or other person in religious authority? If so, I truly apologize (honestly, not being sarcastic, I’m truly sorry) for the abhorent things you’ve been subjected to under the guise of religion. But hear me clearly, they are not true Christians. Any person who uses Christ as a guise to abuse and act in depravity, especially towards children, will verily burn in the deepest depths of hell. Please, accept my apologies on behalf of Christians, for any hurt, physical or emotional, you were subjected to.

But please also understand that morals do not get in the way of intelligence, thinking, progress, etc. They are simply a check – a way to ensure we are not going too far. They are a way to ensure we, as humans, can evaluate if an action or procedure or test or study is beyond what is acceptable. By the logic you appear to espouse, it would be fully acceptable to test new unapproved drugs on children, simply because they could present a cure for a horrible disease, regardless of what the possible side effects or negative effects the drug could have on the children. This logic essentially says that “the ends justifies the means”. It says that we can do anything we wish, so long as our end goal is to help society/the human race. That is not what anyone should want for society. To intentionally cause pain and suffering to someone under the guise of “bettering society” is not at all what we, as a country or society, want (though it is what the Liberal agenda wants to see happen – look into it, do some research).

You appear to be somewhat libertarian in your views possibly? Talking about strangling the king etc, you seem to be very opposed to government? I’m right there with you – I believe government should be as small and as unnoticeable as possible to allow a country to operate. There should be NO intrusion into my private life without a distinct and immediate and serious justification, and even then it should be subject to balances. This means, to me, for example, that the government should not be allowed under any circumstances to come into my home, unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence that I’ve committed a crime and that there is likely to be evidence of that crime that would lead to a conviction of me. There are very few reasons that I think would justify government intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

Having said that, if you truly are libertarian at heart, the very idea of following a Liberal agenda should disgust you. Please, do some research, look at what the Liberal agenda truly is, and try to understand why they are pushing that agenda. Their agenda actually looks oddly similar to the justification past dictators/tyrants have used to enslave, torture, kill, and experiment on people. Hitler saw killing all non-Aryans as justified because he believed it would lead to a higher functioning human race. He was operating on a similar platform to the Liberal agenda – he got rid of morals within the framework of his ideology so that he could carry out atrocities without any sort of conscience objecting to these atrocities. He could direct his officials/doctors/officers carry out experimentation and tests, torture, murder, even rape, and other atrocities under the guise of “bettering society”. Is that really where you want our society to go? I would assume not.
commented 2015-02-25 12:08:10 -0500
Amen Kevin. Well said. I’m with you in everything you stated.
commented 2015-02-25 11:56:40 -0500
Steve, you are very wrong. Morals do not assign any power to any celestial, extra terrestrial, terrestrial, theoretical, or real diety, God, power, being, object, or anything else. Morals are simply a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, the knowledge of what category actions fit into. Unless you believe that there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong” (which, if you do, you are in the severe minority in our country, as even homosexuals and transsexuals understand and accept the idea of right and wrong, their view on what exactly is morally right or wrong is just different than the average Joe or Jane), which is an inane concept as clearly there IS right and wrong (murder of an innocent person is wrong, clearing the snow-filled driveway for your disabled senior neighbor is right or good). Regardless of if you feel there is no such thing as a moral or a right/wrong concept, that’s not what our society believes. If we did, we would not have laws.

Your idea that “smart” has anything to do with morals is exactly what is wrong with the Liberal agenda. Do you know what the Liberal agenda really is, or are you just some guy who’s signed up to a right-wing news site that is attempting to get real issues out there from a perspective other than the hardcore left wing mainstream media? The Liberal agenda’s main goal is to destroy and rid our society of morals. They have numerous reasons for this, but a couple of them are: without morals, genetic modification, testing, and cloning can move ahead without any sort of obstruction; without morals, government can intrude and control the lives of citizens as it pleases (if the average citizen no longer has any morals, then it’s up to the government to tell us what is right and wrong, so the story goes); without morals, there is no longer any problem with the elite controlling the rest of us; and there are numerous other points to it. Another major one is their desire to see all religions destroyed and not allowed in any schools or educational facilities. They’ve stated that as a goal.

You may not agree with religion, or you may simply have had a bad experience with it (Catholicism is a very hard one, as it teaches some good values and morals, but then it dumps all the guilt of the world onto the believer’s shoulders – it doesn’t teach forgiveness by God, it doesn’t teach that we all make mistakes and that’s ok, but we should do our best to avoid them and avoid sin, it doesn’t teach that God loves us as we are, regardless of our sin, our sexual orientation, our color, our intelligence, etc. I get why you’re hurt/put off of religion, after growing up Catholic, but there’s much more to faith than religion – religion is a rote, law-based/rule-based system, whereas faith is the understanding and belief that there is a being who is all powerful, who created you, and, for the Christian faith, loves you regardless of what mistakes you make, and who wants to truly know you and have you know Him).

Regardless of if you believe in religion or not, you cannot deny that A) we are a country that was founded on Christian morals, values, and principles, and B) that most all Christian MORALS and VALUES are inherently and universally recognized as good (yes, there are some, such as homosexuality, where there is disagreement, but even this disagreement only became significant when the Liberal/Gay agenda gained significant steam – before that, it was just understood, even by non-Christians/Atheists that homosexuality was an aberration and not conducive to a functioning and healthy society), and C) that we have freedom of religion, and as such, have the freedom to raise our children as we see fit. Thus, if I am a Christian father who wants to raise my daughter to understand, know, and believe, that transsexuality is an immoral and sinful act, and that it’s a desecration of the creation of God, but that we are also called to love and have compassion for all people, including those who identify as transsexuals, and that we ought not to treat them differently and certainly not poorly, but we are also to recognize, for ourselves, that the behavior is sinful and we should absolutely avoid behaving that way ourselves, then I have every right to do that, and I have every right to expect that what I teach my daughter regarding morals, values, and religion will not be contradicted or destroyed by the public school system. Regardless of if you agree with my morals, I think you would have a very hard time arguing that I do not have the right to have my own morals, and teach my daughter those morals. I think you would also have a very hard time arguing that I should be legally required to submit to the will of the State when it comes to raising my daughter, yes?

You’re idea, however, that smart and moral are even remotely similar is fundamentally wrong. Smart is a measure of intellect. Smart means that one is intelligent, that one can think critically, analyse, problem solve, and function at a high level of thinking. Moral means that one knows the difference between right and wrong, and acts accordingly. A person can be incredibly dumb, yet also hold very strong morals and adhere to them. On that same token, a person can be very smart, very intelligent, yet have no morals (look at some of the serial killers, the Unibomber, and others – they are murderers who apparently hold very few good morals, yet they are also very intelligent). What you said is exactly what the Liberal agenda wants all Canadians (and all humans) to believe – that there is no such thing as “good” or “bad”, only “smart” and “dumb”, or “good for me” and “bad for me” – without morals, there is no selflessness, there is no concern for others, there is simply a notion that each person should only concern themselves with things that benefit themselves. Again, exactly what the Liberal agenda wants us all to believe. If/Once we all believe that there are no morals, there is simply the law (and obeying that law is “good” since it means one will not contravene what the government decides is “right”), and there is simply self-centered behavior. There ceases to be any “social conscience” of any sort. That will not be a good day.

So yes, I see you’ve been hurt by religion, but that does not mean you do not believe that there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” behavior/actions. If you believe there are good and bad actions, behaviors, etc, then you inherently believe there are morals, and you inherently have morals. You will teach your children those morals, and do your best to instill a sense of conscience and desire to do what is right, in your children (assuming you aren’t a deadbeat parent who wants the school/daycare/nanny/state to raise your children, which I assume you aren’t, as you’re on this site). Hence, you have morals, you just feel that use of the term “moral” contradicts your displeasure with religion. It does not. You can be hurt and offended by what religion did to you as a younger person, but still know you have morals and believe there is right and wrong.

I refuse to allow the state/schools/government to tell me what morals I can raise my daughter with. The day they try to force me to allow them to do that is the day I take my case before the Supreme Court, and if I lose, is the day we leave Canada forever. I will simply be pulling my daughter out of all sexual education type classes, and any other classes which attempt to teach morals. If the school doesn’t like it, they can sue me and take me to court – I would be happy to defend my constitutional right to religious belief at the Supreme Court level. Forcing parents to allow the school to teach their children that there is any such thing as “gender fluidity” is a direct contravention of my religious beliefs, and is a direct contravention of the rights of a parent to determine how their children are raised. It’s an unacceptable and unreasonable and unjust attack on Canadians.
commented 2015-02-25 11:38:18 -0500
So Steve are you asserting to teach 5 and 6 year olds about sexual consent in combination to self defence is smart not moral?
commented 2015-02-25 11:23:58 -0500
Thanks Eileen. Your front line view is worth more than comments from the back row (like mine).

Can you please give us an example of the political baggage in the curriculum? These days, everything – including the weather – seems loaded with hidden agendas.

Thanks!
commented 2015-02-25 10:54:36 -0500
Quite enlightening to read the many comments. I taught school for 44 years, and I do believe that a sex-education curriculum should be in place. However, it needs to be age appropriate; it needs to be approved by parents; it needs to take into account the cognitive development of the child; etc. This particular sex-ed curriculum has too much background and political baggage that it needs to be scrapped and a different one developed.
commented 2015-02-25 10:54:18 -0500
Not moral. Smart. There is a big difference. “Moral” assigns power to the celestial anger monster. Smart assigns power to the individual.

I would rather our kids be smart than “moral”. Then there would be a rapid decline in beheadings, Burka’s, and abuse by priests.
commented 2015-02-25 10:17:49 -0500
That’s an interesting comment you made on morality. Are you saying that it is moral to teach 5 and 6 year olds about sexual consent in combination to self defence?
commented 2015-02-25 10:08:05 -0500
Morality is the true red herring. Worse, it is a poison that kills thinking, intelligence, and wisdom.

Teaching 5 and 6 year olds about consent is a fantastic idea. Add self defence lessons and you have a blockbuster combination.

Both pieces of information would have been handy to legions of children who had been sexually abused by adults and so-called “moral” leaders.

As someone better than me said: Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled to death with the entrails of the last priest.
commented 2015-02-25 09:52:39 -0500
Steve McHugh, bravo well done! You are the king of the red herring. I like how you divert the conversation from a curriculum that will teach1st graders about how to prepare themselves to be sexually ready and how to give consent between them and their sexual partner to the evils of religion, WW1, WW2, slavery ect. Keep up the good work. Here’s a tip, If you could link bible believing heterosexuals to the cause of global warming that might get you even more sympathy from a even wider demographic.
commented 2015-02-25 08:59:12 -0500
Parents that care about their children had better consider reputable private schools or home schooling. Parenting belongs to parents , not to some pedophile getting off on teaching your grade 6 child about anal sex.
commented 2015-02-25 06:46:02 -0500
Wow – information is a slippery slope to sex slavery. Who would have thought? Silly me.

And morals – wow – what a great idea! Wish we had those in place before we slid into WW1, WW2, the holocaust, slavery, etc.

Morals without facts and science produce superstition and fear, which seems to be the dominant emotion in the comments below.

Oh, what comments! Aggressive pan sexuals? Have you ever been young? Sex is an embarrassing, sticky, shame-filled taboo. They aren’t going to use this information to make a spectacle of themselves. They will use it to protect themselves against humiliation.

Honestly, I think some of you have pornographic imaginations. Perhaps you should write your own versions of 50 shades of grey.

As for extending compassion to the other side, well, pity is my dominant emotion. I reserve compassion for those who are innocent and helpless, which you certainty are not. Information empowers. Religion and “morals” seems to produce (and celebrate) ignorance, bigotry and hostility.

Here is news: the world wasn’t created in 7 days, the bible is full of genocide, illness is not a punishment from God, and Jesus extended compassion to the outcasts.

Finally, by all means home school your children.
That would be my preference too. Just be prepared to answer questions about sex, sexting and who knows what they find on the internet. Given my ignorance on these matters, I would prefer a little help…..and maybe an instruction manual….with pictures…..yeah….lots of pictures….in colour….yeah….3D colour pictures…..with scratch and sniff…..