April 29, 2015

"The kids are truly traumatized": Parents disappointed after meeting with Wynne about sex-ed curriculum

Emily PrattRebel Correspondent
 

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne met with some parents at Queen’s Park earlier today to talk about the new sex education curriculum.

Wynne rejected their plea to withdraw or even pause the plan even after the mounting objection to it.

One parent noted that "if they want to give our kids a pizza slice, we have to sign a paper" -- yet somehow, parental consent isn't considered as important when the topic is sex education.

(This is especially ironic, since "consent" is one of the hot topics covered in the controversial curriculum itself.)

The parents I spoke to vow to "keep up the pressure" on Wynne's Liberal government.

Tell us what you think in the comments!


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

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government’s morality on every Ontario family.
VISIT ProtectOurKids.ca to sign the petition.
Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-06 22:14:55 -0400
Paul, good post. Spot on in my opinion. I think people who are promoting Wynnes curriculum, are doing it out of a misguided desire to appear politically correct, OR they have some issues nobody wants any where near children. When important decisions, rightfully made by parents are commandeered by the government, no one should be surprised at the outrage. Children are a parents responsibility, until they are 18. Most of us will fight to the death to protect our children. Wynne has clearly underestimated the strong will of a devoted parent. Parents who don’t pay attention will lose their children to the whim of Wynne.
commented 2015-05-06 03:19:25 -0400
Joan, incredibly, what unqualified gall. What, another string of deceit and lies trolling this site 24/7. You’re an obsessed zealot, a tool, duped to, in effect, slave fecklessly for the deceiving Wynne government as well. The same repetitive, weak, useless garbage about reading the curriculum. If you actually had your faculties you would interpret what somebody has written and actually fathom what they are saying. Instead you are such an ignorant boor to repeatedly put words in people’s mouth. When are YOU going to read it and COMPREHEND, it’s consequence and what people are telling YOU about it? Do you have the chops to read and digest? Educate yourself and understand it is unacceptable and don’t be doltish.

YOU are the one ‘bullying’ and badgering people, you are the one who is intolerant, you have been engaged in invective diatribe, you are a shameless hypocrite on a grand scale, you are trolling, spamming and spinning everyone with absolute nonsense, and you have no decency or basis for supporting a sex-ed curriculum for innocent children that IS age inappropriate. YOU are out of line. How can you challenge me when, obviously, you are challenged period. An embarrassment. You can’t have read this propaganda if you agree with it unless you are reckless or have issues. Your stupid questions are an absolute joke as to be astonishing.

We know what a Conservative is, I defined a significant aspect of it for you so you would understand, and they don’t want their children, de facto, brought up and owned by the state. Ask them and even a simpleton would realize this basic fact. Who would want their kids corrupted, their childhood stolen from them, and condone sweeping ideological brainwashing and social engineering. You are so over the top and deluded you can’t even be taken seriously. This curriculum is entirely as I have stated. Repeatedly. It’s invasive much more than you are insultingly trying to present as innocuous fantasy. I’m not going to run over the same old ground. You are incapable of listening.

A civilized society, a free society, a moral, and democratic society naturally permits adults to parent their children. A Marxist society turns them over to the government or State. As Patrick Brown said, the sex-ed was fine previously the way it was without this. What world do you live in where parents are all pimping and derelict? It’s another insulting moronic sentiment. But you routinely lie and distort because you are a fanatical ideologue. And what’s with the garbage about children and property? More foot in mouth disease. As to your ignorant comment, I consider you disposable though. What’s this “male-gullible”? Not female-gullible? What have you against males? Are you a feminazi or misandrist? Is there no bottom you won’t sink to?

We know 35,000 students have been pulled out of classes by parents. Again, get your facts right and your head out of your sweater. Even reporter Sue Anne Levy says Wynne is ramming her ideology down people’s throat and agrees it’s way too young for children in grade 3, and she’s a lesbian. So your Islamophobic and fear Muslim parents are using their kids as human shields to protect themselves? That’s nuts. From what? They are simply protecting their children. Educate yourself or you won’t exist. You’ll be a figment of your own imagination. Read and get rid of your prejudices. It’s chicken soup for the soul.

You consider anyone who disagrees with you, the enemy? Narrow minded bigotry. YOU are compromising our children, their future and the sanity of our society. Self-admitted porn producing superstar, Benny Levin, was her handpicked DEPUTY Minister of Education, Wynne’s right-hand adviser, a leader in the team of architects initially levying this groundbreaking radicalization of age inappropriate sex-ed and you think he was a wallflower. Amazing. And they never talked either I suppose. Stultifying naiveté. The ‘new’ sex-ed has the old elements embedded from the McGuinty charade. Try reading. Another reason for him to run and hide.

As far as Ms. Elliott is concerned, as she moves forward, if she ignores Christian and religious groups and endorses this, they will condemn her for expecting them to brush-off the tenets of their teachings and their conscience. They are then be left to opt-out and protest. To many their religion is the ‘glue’ that holds their family together. She would consult and we’ll see what she would do from there. To tweak or adopt this Liberal/Marxist concoction. But you choose to marginalize them.

Mr. Brown mentions, “frankly if I look at education today I want to see, in the primary grades, the focus being on reading, writing and mathematics” and you are unable to understand it. Let me school you. Mr. Brown is saying exactly what he said. Bingo. No mention there of him agreeing with the newfangled sex-ed Frankenstein is there? In addition he says, “I trust families to teach values and I trust the school system to teach science and mathematics”. Nothing to see there either. Must be invisible because he seems to indicate schools are for teaching the 3 Rs and families to teach values. Sounds entirely correct. Ms. Wynne and her Marxist acolytes, with this curriculum so long kept hidden, has shown an aversion to even talk to parents so how do they respect their values?? Unadulterated balderdash. Patrick Brown refers to "adequate sex education right now for the most part.” The most part he explicitly related as “may be some worthy elements to do with mental health”. That’s it. Period. Clearly the Frankenstein sex-ed agenda doesn’t agree with him and he also would have voted it down. This is all self-evident to anyone from the man’s own words.
commented 2015-05-05 02:57:27 -0400
Paul Crosby – I agree that teaching what you think is the sex-ed curriculum is devious and unnecessary. Good thing the sex-ed curriculum is nothing like what you think it is.

Do yourself a favour. Read the curriculum for yourself. It teaches grade 7 students that anal sex is risky and advises them to abstain. Don’t believe me? Prove it isn’t true. Read the curriculum.

It teaches children that healthy relationships are based on mutual respect, that you don’t do anything in relationship without the other’s consent. I.e., don’t rape. Do you disagree, Paul?

A civilized society can never let “parents ultimately decide” because far too many parents cut girls, pimp boys out for drug money, and exploit children for their own sexual satisfaction.

Do you consider children property? Disposable?

The Toronto school where parents pulled out most of the students is overwhelmingly Muslim. Their use of children at the protest reminded me of how Palestinians use innocents as human shields.

A couple thousand children pulled from schools represents far fewer families (families having more than one and often several children) and is a minority of parents in Ontario. Ontario is a big province. You must understand there are many more than two thousand voters.

If the government caves to mostly Arabic-written and circulated disinformation intended to keep children ignorant about Canadian law that protects them from abuse, it will compromise our security, now and in tne future. Read the curriculum. Do not buy the enemy’s propaganda.

To claim Levin wrote this curriculum is hysterical. He didn’t. Neither is this curriculum the same as McGuinty’s. I read them both. They are quite different. Don’t believe me? Read it yourself.

Paul, what you dissent against does not exist. You are totally prejudiced. What you think the curriculum teaches and is intended to do to children is entirely false. Educate youself.

I do not want a leader who supports falsehoods nor do I want a leader who supports witch hunt protests based on falsehoods. Real Conservatives don’t do that. Real Conservatives love truth.

Show me any proof Elliott is intending to exclude Christians. You know, I find your claim so outrageous, I really think I need to ask Elliott herself. I will email her, tell her what you claim she intends to do, to exclude Christians, and see what she says in response. I don’t believe you. I want to hear it from her.

The concern that parents were not consulted is the official PC Party line, not just Patrick’s. Elliott says it as does Wilson.

The sex ed curriculum agrees with Brown. We do currently have adequate instruction … for the most part. It is the part not covered by the most part that the changes address. Patrick is no fool. He knows how to manipulate your prejudice.

The curriculum cites parents as the primary source of teaching values to children over and over and over again. By saying he thinks parents should be the primary values teachers, Patrick is supporting the curriculum while betting you have not read it and so don’t know that. Read it, Paul.

Patrick says he “would have” voted against it. Not that he’ll scrap it.

Paul, I will not sign a petition based on falsehoods. I will not be a party to a witch hunt.

Real Conservatives believe in the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada. Don’t lie to yourself, or to poor male-gullible Liza, about what a real Conservative is. Real Conservatives are informed and fair, not prejudiced bullies.

Educate yourself on what real Conservatives believe. Here is the Constitution :

http://www.conservative.ca/media/2012/06/Sept2011-Constitution-E.pdf
commented 2015-05-05 02:13:17 -0400
Liza – your link does not quote Christine Elliott say she supports the sex-ed curriculum. It quotes other people saying she does. Not the same thing.

Also, Patricks says he “would have” voted against the curriculum, not that he will bring it down if elected.

Youn have to read and listen very carefully to exactly what politicians say because they choose their words selectively to appeal to bias and prejudice to get your votes.
commented 2015-05-04 22:02:08 -0400
“And while Elliott has been “somewhat critical” of the Liberals’ consultation process on the sex-ed curriculum, “she’s never said she’s against any of the content,”
”https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christine-elliott-slams-social-conservatives-if-brown-wins-they-will-take-o">https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christine-elliott-slams-social-conservatives-if-brown-wins-they-will-take-o
commented 2015-05-04 21:50:25 -0400
Joan…To begin with, what part of "transgenderism, transsexualism, the pursuit of deadly anal sex for all youth, separate sex from ‘birth assigned’, and ‘enthusiastic sexual consent for 6 year olds’ can’t you get their head around? Or, being male or female is a social construct? Pure psycho-babble and philosophical tripe. Teaching children this is devious and unnecessary, and particularly, at the tender ages prescribed, and never should be the purview of the government to normalize it in the education system. Parents are the ones to ultimately decide and shouldn’t have to resort to removing their kids to protect them.

There are very large numbers of outraged parents who have pulled their kids this very day to protest and some will be doing it all week. A public elementary school in Toronto was left nearly empty. Toronto District School Board spokesman Ryan Bird said “1,220 of the 1,350 Grade 1 to Grade 5 students are NOT currently in class”. “We are sending them to have their science, math and English and whatever … we are not sending them for sex education,” said parent Fatima Haqdad. To sexualize children with age-inappropriate, graphic lessons that includes aberrations while marginalizing tradition and norms is inverted and brainwashing. Education Minister Liz Sandals said, in short, “the curriculum would be in place by September” anyway. Parents have said they will opt out at that time in large numbers.

Clearly, McGuinty put this on the shelf and it was hidden from view during the last election because it was admitted by them it was unpopular at the time by 60% against. It is NOT welcome and the so-called ‘public consultation’ is a tragic farce as the ‘new curriculum’ was hidden. The ‘new’ as the old is essentially the same drivel plus even more explicit than that written under the direction of confessed child pornographer Benjamin Levin, then Deputy Education Minister. To say he had no input is naive at best. Greasing the skids on our culture and society.

It’s meant to confuse the uninitiated, our children, with notions of special identities and orientations on top of the previous malfeasance. Whereas procreation was the meme or driver of the way sex-ed was taught to those around teen age or puberty, in the past, this proposes they should be irresponsibly taught, the start point, and low standard of sex without love or recreational sex apart from marriage including peculiar lifestyles. Outcomes from this profile are not even determined by the authors, they don’t know, but many already can see the risks involved and the fact society will be poorer for it. And what about huge dissent, religious and otherwise? Where’s the compassion and inclusion for them? Putting their kids at risk unless they opt-out defies logic, rejection, and will prove this experiment to be a failure when classes are empty.

If Conservative groups are largely fueling the opposition to the sex-education curriculum the Conservative party should not waver from the appropriate policy. Elliot saying parents ’weren’t consulted enough’ is not good enough. It’s only lip-service if not followed by acting to support protesters. Be real. If she goes against Christian tenets she’ll be vilified by them and she does appear ready to back it and exclude them. I don’t support her.

I agree with Patrick Brown. He is unequivocal. Believes it’s a mistake to be Liberal Lite when this has been proven not to work. That they’d be dead on arrival. Christine Elliot attacked his position on this; attacked him for attending the Queen’s Park rally and speaking against the curriculum. He states there “may be some worthy elements to do with mental health” but his concern is the promised consultation did not happen and says, “frankly if I look at education today I want to see, in the primary grades, the focus being on reading, writing and mathematics”. Absolutely. Furthermore Brown says, “I would have voted against the curriculum if it came up at Queen’s Park. I have to say, and I’ve said this across the province that I trust families to teach values and I trust the school system to teach science and mathematics. We have adequate sex education right now for the most part.” I support him.

Real Conservatives preserve their right to bring up their children as they see fit. If you are a statist, in this regard, you are not a real conservative. As for the vitriol, forget about it. The only person badly misinformed about this wrongheaded agenda is yourself. Don’t agree, then you and I will never agree on this. Haven’t signed the petition against this debacle yet? Do the right thing for the future well-being of our kids and sign it. Do something nice for a change. You’ll feel better about yourself.
commented 2015-05-04 13:51:38 -0400
Liza, can you provide me a link to Christine saying that? Some online are claiming she did not.

Do you object to Christine’s interest in being inclusive? Or would you marginalize the LGBTQ members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party?
commented 2015-05-04 11:16:25 -0400
Yes I know, but Christine’s stand is identical. She stands behind the curriculum, but thought parents should have had more say in it.
commented 2015-05-04 10:20:34 -0400
Christine Elliott’s platform is a dialectic – victory will result from the fiscal conservativism that allows us to practice conservative compassion.

Real Conservatives do not exclude others for their views or for who they are. Real Christians know they are sinners with no right whatsoever to misuse power to exclude and oppress difference, to hate gays, Liberals, even killers. We give to Caesar what is Caesar’s – we obey the secular laws of democracy and prosecute criminals – but we also administer to victims. We are

Eliott’s platform is entirely consistent with Christian values.

Exclusive politics cannot win an Ontario majority.
commented 2015-05-04 10:13:21 -0400
Liza, to take an informed stand on the sex-ed curriculum, interested Christians must first read it.

That quote you have ascribed to Christine Elliott is a quote from my post of a description of the view of my MPP Laurie Scott. It does not quote Elliott but never mind the facts.
commented 2015-05-03 22:18:28 -0400
It is an easy stand to take, there is no commitment . Where does Christine really stand on wynne’s sex-ed.
commented 2015-05-03 21:57:41 -0400
I am disappointed in Christine, she is making a mistake with that stand. I expected more from her. “supports the sex-ed curriculum but opposes that Wynne did not better consult with parents.”. Too little too late, and totally misguided. I don’t believe she means it. She should take it back. Not good enough.
We all know that you Joan , have the monopoly on character slurs. Wack-a-mole. Hit me.
commented 2015-05-03 16:33:45 -0400
And Paul, only those who have no points left to score resort to the sort of malicious character slurs you have levied against me in this thread.
commented 2015-05-03 16:29:31 -0400
For anyone who is interested, here is the latest and final public debate between the two candidates for leadership of the Ontario PC Party. The one hosted by Steve Paiken. http://youtu.be/0C0SKqNdSKM
commented 2015-05-03 16:26:27 -0400
Paul Criosby, do you live in Ontario? If so, did you vote today?

You do not know what you are talking about. The Ontario PC Party supports the changes to the Ontario sex-ed curriculum. Monte McNaughton who opposed them was a candidate for leadership but he threw his hat in, because the numbers showed he could not win, some weeks ago.

My MPP, Conservative Laurie Scott, agrees with our party. She supports the sex-ed curriculum but opposes that Wynne did not better consult with parents. I agree with Scott.

In the latest interview of the two remaining candidates with Steve Paiken, Brown sidesteps the issue. Last week, on the John Oakley morning radio show, Sun News reporter, Sue-Ann Levy said she thinks Patrick Brown will exclude the LGBTQ members of the PC Party, if elected. I emailed Brown and sent him a tweet to ask him to state a response to Sue-Ann’s challenge but he has not replied.

Christine Elliott, the other remaining candidate, agrees with my MPP.

The PC Party of Ontario understands that people can disagree, even hotly disagree, about issues but still be good strong members of the same party.

Again, did you vote? If not, why not?
commented 2015-05-03 15:54:04 -0400
Lance I don’t know what you thought I had to do with it. It was Judy who posted the link for this blog in the first place.
The comment you cut and pasted was JENNA CHRISTIAN’S comment, not my comment, not my link, not in any of my posts.

This is the link from Judy’s post.
http://sites.psu.edu/peep/2015/04/15/a-reply-to-lauren-southerns-why-im-not-a-feminist-by-jenna-christian/ A Reply to Lauren Southern’s “Why I’m Not a Feminist”, By JENNA CHRISTIAN

April 15, 2015.This blog was originally published April 10, 2015 on JENNA CHRISTIAN’S blog, “Everyday Geopolitics Houston”
JENNA CHRISTIAN said,1. You ask: “Why don’t we see equal representation [by feminists] of both gender’s issues?”

JENNA CHRISTIAN said, " Feminism today exists as an agglomeration of past and present efforts to address forms of inequality facing women, including: the inability of women to be recognized as full citizens; women’s lack of rights over their own bodies; women’s lack of protection from violence in the homes and on the streets, and their unique experiences of violence in times of war; the restriction on women’s ability to pursue the same opportunities as men; the gendered norms that constrain women’s ability to freely express their gender, personalities and their bodies; the lack of attention and respect given to women’s voices and experiences; the devaluation of women’s labor; the lack of freedom to love who they wish and the assumption of their heterosexuality; the absence of women in the arenas of power where decisions are made about their lives; and, the pervasive inequalities shaped by race, ethnicity, colonialism, citizenship, gender identity, sexuality, ability, and language that work alongside gender. As you hopefully know, all of these issues remain deeply persistent sources of women’s inequality, and therefore addressing how they operate in the lives women remains at the heart of the feminism."
Thanks Lance.
commented 2015-05-03 15:42:01 -0400
Joan, your ridiculous comments to me are totally baseless and low intellect offensive. It doesn’t deserve a response. Your posts are filled with lies and distortions, not to mention, intolerant and an unsuccessful attempt to silence caring parents and individuals. My posts are in the best interests of children. We know what you are Joan. You say you’re a card carrying Conservative. Then you would be voting for the wrong party as they continue to oppose this radical sex-ed program for Ontario that you are so adamantly promoting. Again, your logic is flawed. Seek advice or help.
commented 2015-05-03 10:56:05 -0400
Liza – it sure as hell is not mine, which Lance claims.
commented 2015-05-03 10:55:05 -0400
Lance Humphries – I am not “a lefty” but a crad-carrying member of the Conservative Party, federal and provincial. Most Conservatives support protecting children from sex predators via education. I’m sorry to hear you want to keep kids uninformed about how to say no to predators.

Where did I say Liza “kicked tail”? What a dirty falsehood to place in my mouth.

You have not studied the issue and your ad hom against me is embarrassingly ignorant.

The core value of feminism is gender equity. Do you oppose that, as you claim? If so, you are in good company with the Islamist enemies of democracy who favour gender segregation.

You know, no more smart women competing with unqualified men for engineering jobs.

Marc Lepine would applaud you.
commented 2015-05-03 09:33:14 -0400
“As to your notion that Liza kicked tail regarding Laren Southern, let’s just take a paragraph from her post;”
Lance your post makes it sound like that is my comment. It is not.
commented 2015-05-03 02:34:23 -0400
I think you have an inferiority complex Joan, like most lefty/feminists. You just have to respond to every tiny little thing and, like Wynn, call others bullies all the while bullying them. I don’t even see what there is to argue about with these ppl, after all, they want it left up to the parents, which btw, would include you. So if you wanted to indoctrinate your child into the Alfred Kinnsey lifestyle, you could. Or you’re just too lazy to do some of your child’s educating yourself?!?! As to your notion that Liza kicked tail regarding Laren Southern, let’s just take a paragraph from her post;

Feminism today exists as an agglomeration of past and present efforts to address forms of inequality facing women, including: the inability of women to be recognized as full citizens; women’s lack of rights over their own bodies; women’s lack of protection from violence in the homes and on the streets, and their unique experiences of violence in times of war; the restriction on women’s ability to pursue the same opportunities as men; the gendered norms that constrain women’s ability to freely express their gender, personalities and their bodies; the lack of attention and respect given to women’s voices and experiences; the devaluation of women’s labor; the lack of freedom to love who they wish and the assumption of their heterosexuality; the absence of women in the arenas of power where decisions are made about their lives; and, the pervasive inequalities shaped by race, ethnicity, colonialism, citizenship, gender identity, sexuality, ability, and language that work alongside gender. As you hopefully know, all of these issues remain deeply persistent sources of women’s inequality, and therefore addressing how they operate in the lives women remains at the heart of the feminism.

There isn’t a single ounce of truth to anything said in that paragraph. It would take too long to rip it apart, but if you actually believe a single thing in that paragraph, you’re brainwashed!! All that silly woman did is prove why Lauren is relevant!!
commented 2015-05-02 22:43:26 -0400
Liza – I got bored with Lauren’s story but I see Judy didn’t. She took over where I left off and got the same abuse from you that I did. http://www.therebel.media/why_i_am_not_a_feminist

You really need to learn that bullying won’t work on this site. It may work with your familiars, but it won’t work with us. You are just going to have to learn some tolerance of difference.

Who knows? If you’d open your mind, you might learn something.
commented 2015-05-02 22:20:47 -0400
Jamie – Liza runs and hides every time she knows her ass is beat.

Just like she did with Gavin’s rant on the heels.
commented 2015-05-02 22:19:23 -0400
Jamie – Like I told you before, I read the curriculum. You are too lazy to read it, like you admitted before. What you hate are homosexuals and a fantasy you have created about what you think is the sex-ed curriculum. You worship your own hatred of queers as if that is something to be proud of.
commented 2015-05-02 22:16:58 -0400
And Liza, learn to spell. I am neither the cookie nor the comic.

Ignorant bigotry, your hatred of everyone who thinks differently than you do.
commented 2015-05-02 22:14:24 -0400
Hey Liza – only cowards talk about their opponents behind their backs. Take me on face to face.
commented 2015-05-02 22:13:14 -0400
Liza – when do you say girls first have their periods? When do boys first ejaculate? Not until their 18th birthdates?

It is very, very ignorant of you to deny the facts about when children mature. Positively pig-headed. Dangerous.

Of course I enjoy posting my views. Don’t you?

Oh, I see. Again wth your STFU bullying.
commented 2015-05-02 05:32:27 -0400
LISA. Yup. For all her Conservative pretensions, she’s just another Wynnebag. Same morals, same care for the truth.