June 06, 2015

Sex-ed protests spread to Ottawa

Brian LilleyArchive

Between 150 and 200 concerned parents gathered on Parliament Hill to protest Kathleen Wynne's new sex-ed curriculum.

Parent and organizer Stephanie McEvoy told me that special interest groups are pushing an agenda under the guise of sex education.

She also says that outside of the classroom, exposing children to some of this material would be illegal.

I point out that the progressive experts of yesterday were the ones who set up the residential school system. It was considered enlightened and advanced. Can we expect similar recriminations 50 years from now for inflicting this sex ed curriculum on our children?


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

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year.”

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

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-06-12 22:37:42 -0400
Good try Joan.
commented 2015-06-11 05:42:01 -0400
Liza – your link is to an anti-Harper propaganda fund-raiser that appeals, with falsehoods, to parents who they hope to influence to vote Libertarian to split the right and usher in a majority NDP government. A very clever leftist ploy, Liza, that may get a few dollars but that won’t appeal to most Canadian voters who care more about children than to teach them lies and hate.
commented 2015-06-11 05:35:27 -0400
Liza – teachers aren’t politicians. They don’t promote the curriculum. They are employees. They teach it.

The Catholic School board says its teachers will teach the new changes to sex ed so they are consistent with Catholic teaching. That is the whole point of giving teachers, boards, trustees the discretion to listen to parents and collaborate with them how best to teach their children.

Boards are listening to all parents concerned enough to contact them to negotiate what and how their children will be taught about sex instead of yanking their kids out of school to use them as human shields in their battle to confront the government with demands children be kept in the dark about facts that might expose them as abusers.

Parents who care about their kids will meet with teachers, boards and trustees and stop hurting their children by making them carry signs that say “masturbation” and anal sex". That kind of child abuse belies their claim that they don’t want their kids exposed to such concepts, doesn’t it?
commented 2015-06-10 23:48:23 -0400

Start at 12:00 if you want the short version. Or don’t watch at all. But it is pretty clear about the lack of authority teachers have to be promoting this curriculum to children. It IS all a big mistake.
commented 2015-06-10 00:27:59 -0400
Judy – The sex-ed curriculum is already being taught. The new changes won’t take any more time. It is a small part of the physical and health education – you know, phys-ed.

I agree parents should have been consulted. That is why I wrote this open letter to my MPP that was published in the local press: http://www.mykawartha.com/opinion-story/5606852-town-hall-meetings-necessary-to-educate-public-around-new-sex-ed-curriculum/

The sex-ed curriculum is so vaguely worded that it gives a lot of discretion to teachers who will modify what is taught according to the needs of the students. That is why I urge parents to meet with teachers, boards and trustees to express their concern and to say exactly what they want.

Too bad nobody listens to me.
commented 2015-06-09 23:11:50 -0400
Joan, this curriculum and the way it is being enacted is NOT “right”, as you say…it is not right since Lauren Broten declared that the government is CO-PARENTING the children of other people…NO REQUEST TO THE PARENTSJUST A DECLARATION THAT THEY ARE BEING CO-OPTED…you say you are in favour of human rights…I say the human rights of parents and children are violated by this LIBERAL governments decision to come between children and those who love them the most…their parents. How DARE they say that the miniscule time they spend with children is co-parenting…they barely spend 4.5 hours a day with a group of children. That 4.5 hrs/day divided by 20-30 children AVERAGES barely 15-18 minutes a day per child…to say they are co-parenting is ludicrous and dangerous…and a lie…they are TEACHERS – NO MORE THAN TEACHERS

Since Lauren Broten, succeeding promoters of this programme have made it clear that parents are INTERFERING with their agenda, and Broten even said that the parents will not be given a say nor are they to be told the time and place of the classes, AND that their hope is that the children will go home with their ‘teaching’ AND EDUCATE THEIR PARENTS.

I can see nothing right about this…it is a complete abuse of the rights of Ontarians in the name of education. It would be nice with the few hours teachers have if the children could get a real education…how on earth do they have time to spend on this extra-curricular subject, WHEN THE CHILDREN HAVE TO LEARN MATH, ENGLISH, HISTORY, BIOLOGY, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, FRENCH with Home Ec. Shop, Gym, other languages, not to mention brainwashing into Union philosophy, ETC. IN BETWEEN TEACHERS’ STRIKES ON A REGULAR BASIS….We haven’t time for sex education…My nephew, a 90%+ student was struggling to keep up in first year university…his secondary school marks meant nothing because HE HAD NOT BEEN PREPARED FOR UNIVERSITY by these teachers with their BIG agenda… and they want to spend time on sex education?…the kids could probably teach the teachers more about sex than vice versa… A GOOD FUNDAMENTAL EDUCATION IN THE BASICS IS WHAT THE PARENTS ARE PAYING FORAND THEY ARE NOT GETTING IT!
commented 2015-06-09 21:52:39 -0400
No Levin fingerprints…..what ever you say.
commented 2015-06-09 19:02:25 -0400
Liza – that was a different curriculum. I read them both. They are not the same.

Levin was not involved at all in writing the 2015 curriculum.
commented 2015-06-08 21:30:37 -0400

from link above,
“Levin sent a memo on March 6, 2009 announcing he was taking direct charge of the province’s school curriculum. “Dear colleagues, I am writing to provide an update on our sector’s agenda. … I will be filling the ADM (assistant deputy minster) position previously held by George Zegarac,” he wrote. “The division formerly headed by George Zegarac will be renamed as ‘Learning and Curriculum.’ It will have responsibility for curriculum and for Special Education including Provincial Schools.”

A month later, he announced the first fruits of his labours: “Today, the ministry released its new equity and inclusive education strategy paper. … This province wide strategy has been a priority for our Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne and me.”

Two months further down the line he was claiming that the strategy, “Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy,” sets out a “vision for an equitable and inclusive education system.” The sex-ed curriculum that stirred a revolt among parents in 2010, with its premature instructions about abnormal sexual activity and its promotion of homosexuality, was an outgrowth of this “equity and inclusive education strategy” and designed to implement it in that subject area. "

It is beyond me that wynne can get away with this. There must be a way to stop her. A class action suit or something. A referendum , like the one to repeal the HST in BC. How much worse does it get? This curriculum was written by a convicted sex offender.

Dale W. I know what you mean,very few people I know in Alberta or BC, know of the Levin conviction.
commented 2015-06-08 20:49:36 -0400
Judy – there are more than a few children who need help. Read this: http://lauriescottmpp.com/node/430

Why must everyone demean the efforts of those of us who stand up for human rights by claiming we only do it for personal reasons because of some past grievance? If I stand up for gays, I am called a queer. If I stand up for Muslims, I am called a terrorist. If I stand up for abused children, I am called a victim.

Why can’t anyone care just because it is right?
commented 2015-06-08 20:43:54 -0400
Jamie MacMaster – I have more courage in my little finger than you have had in your whole life. I have stood up for the vulnerable where it matters – in court on behalf of my disabled clients against CEOs of a multinational corporation that were intentionally sexually abusing them to defraud them of disability insurance benefits they were entitled to. And for that, you want to tear me down, humiliate me by posting fantasies of you sexually assaulting me to the cheers of thousands.

My heart weeps for the victims, including child victims, you came across in your career as a cop.

Again, how much silver are they paying you?
commented 2015-06-08 19:19:47 -0400
John O’Neill Your parental rights been replaced. It’s that simple. You say not. I say so and this is how it all came about.

Pre-ceding birth; contracts with terms and conditions will steer daily routines after you’re born. As an adult; babies hold net worth capital (undeveloped intellect) and this future taxable equity is immediately secured by government at birth through years of guaranteed baby bonuses or child tax credits payments. The child’s body will be the responsibility of the manufacturer forever. After eighteen years adolescents adopt the legacy you inherited as a government investment. If for any reason an adolescent is unable to fulfill government expectations notification of their lack of performance can result in retrofitting to produce or reproduce. In as much as taxation it’s everyone’s duty to file reports by April 30.

Ontario has depleted its financial resources in a sparsely populated province for the last forty years. We have failed to produce or reproduce “Human Capital”. Over the next twenty years our baby boomers will fade away.

Ontario must appear globally wealthy. The Province mortgages expectations of your assets and your future generations’ net worth and then creates more regulations. This is done because previous generations were lazy and failed to work and future generations need to make it.

When the system seems transparent you see only through it, but not into it. Manufactures fulfilled their death contracts but their legacy lives on. We are finished and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Go and enjoy yourselves because God was also replaced.

Look up;

Michael J. Trebilcock
Ronald Daniels
Andrew J. Green
Roy Hrab

March 2004

commented 2015-06-08 18:26:25 -0400
Trying to read between the lines here, I suspect there are people who, having found their parents negligent in protecting them from sexual abuse, bullying, etc.,may believe that such a curriculum might go a little way to help children who are raised by parents who do not take their responsibility seriously enough…and open the gate for the child to go to the teacher for help when the parents are either not available, not interested or who are too naive to believe there is abuse going on…or worse, in denial about abusive relatives, etc.

However, while this is idealism that might, IN THE ODD CASE, be a helpful thing for children whose parents are so wrapped up in their own lives that they don’t take the time that these vocal parents intend to take, to protect their children,it is TOO much too early for most BELOVED CHILDREN. I sense that is why the accusation that we don’t care about children…perhaps, having been one of these ‘abandoned’ children in the sense above mentioned, they NEEDED their teachers to intervene on their behalf and might have benefited from opening up the subject to discussion…Perhaps in those cases some children NEED CO-PARENTING TEACHERS. I suspect this is the reason for the great divide here. Perhaps they are fearful that, like themselves, some children may desperately need to take these classes as an opportunity to ask for help. (Although without the classes, there is still room for a teacher to show compassion and interest in latch key kids.)

That is why there needs to be every effort for DEDICATED PARENTS who are knowledgeable and aware to be given every opportunity to exclude their children from these classes…but for those whose parents don’t care one way or the other about these classes, my suspicion is that many have the same laissez-faire attitude toward their children’s sexual lives as well…and in those cases, perhaps a teacher who focuses on these matters is better than parents who are so self-absorbed that they consider children not much more than a hobby, an entertainment, or perhaps even an interference or are naive enough to believe the child is safe when they are definitely not.

Just a thought.
commented 2015-06-08 15:02:56 -0400
Jason – you are a wiser man than I am (and many good people on here). Smart move. Cheers, bud.
commented 2015-06-08 14:58:49 -0400
I was going to fire a rebuttal, but after reading all those comments, I’ll just let it go. I’ve learned you can’t convince the close-minded.
commented 2015-06-08 14:12:07 -0400
Yea, Dale Warren, I know what you mean by people not knowing some of these issues due to the MSM not reporting on it, but if a Conservative farts in the wrong place, all hell breaks loose in the MSM.

I feel that either the CBC should be defunded or another network that is conservative/right wing should be established with a $1 billion publicly funded budget to represent the other side of the political landscape. Of course we know neither of those two things will happen, unfortunately.

The MSM is an immoral disgraceful blight on our Canadian landscape, like a puss filled boil.
commented 2015-06-08 12:16:21 -0400
Was at a gathering here on the left-coast on the weekend, mostly 50+ folks. Asked them if anyone had heard of the Sentencing of Ontario’s ex-deputy Education Minister and contributor to Ontario’s controversial sex-ed program that some in the BCTF want to introduce here. The blank stares and no’s were 100% . . .
Canada’s LameStream media is doing its jobs . . . NO ONE had heard of the 3 year sentence Prof Levin had received for creating and distributing child porn. Why do you suppose that is? Didn’t this guy sit with Justin and Wynn at a pride parade a couple of years back?
I suspect that that pedophilia will be the next misunderstood sexual preference that could joint the alliance in the next decade or so . . . and of course the children will be groomed and ready !
commented 2015-06-08 07:59:31 -0400
Well, I got about half way through and couldn’t take any more. Nutty as a fruitcake is the first thing that comes to mind. Starved for attention? Man hating complex? I shudder to think how much tax money went into that particular “commission”.
commented 2015-06-08 07:37:38 -0400
You’re on to it Maurice. And if any of the rest of you need convincing just Google “Joan Abernethy sexual violence harassment”. Read and heed. It becomes obvious that there is just no point. She can’t help it.
commented 2015-06-08 05:34:46 -0400
Maurice, treat me like an equal, then maybe I can consider your empathy sincere. Try using reason and evidence to defeat my arguments instead of exploiting what you wrongly think is my weakness.
commented 2015-06-08 05:31:09 -0400
Not one of you can cite any evidence to show the changes to the Ontario sex-ed curriculum are intended to corrupt children with a gay agenda. That is because you can’t. Because it doesn’t.

Not one of you cares about children. All you care about is your own prejudice. If you had any love in your hearts, you would not turn your hard hearts against the needs of children with gay parents, whom you condemn just for being, or against the needs of children who question their sexual identities because the parents you claim own them have used them for their own sexual satisfaction, or against the needs of the far too many children who kill themselves every year because no adult in their lives tells them there are other options. They need sex education to survive childhood. But you don’t care. They aren’t your flesh. Not your responsibility. Why should you care? Indeed.

The Sermon on the Mount seems to have had no impact on any of you.
commented 2015-06-08 04:56:42 -0400
Joan, you can’t even recognize sincerity when you read it. Instead you lash out against everyone who even tries to show empathy. I was not being condescending. Now I really do feel sorry for you. I’ll keep you in my prayers tonight and I hope you do the same for me, but I don’t think I’ll ever reply to your posts or acknowledge your comments again. It’s just not worth it.
commented 2015-06-08 04:43:45 -0400
Maurice – personal insult where none exist? You haven’t been paying attention, Maurce. Did you not read what Jamie MacMaster and Shawn McRae posted – a graphic descrition of Jamie violently forcibly sexually assaulting me? You don’t think that is insulting?

You deny any personal insult which means you don’t think your dripping sarcasm, including in your last post, is insulting.

Look into your own heart and quit being so damn condescending, Maurice. You may not have ever starved for food – you may struggle wth gluttony instead – but your spirit is poor. You try to use condescension instead of evidence to defeat my argument on the topic of the Ontario sex-ed curriculum. “Poor Joan, so injured she can’t possibly have a point”. What poverty that reflects.

Grow up, Maurice. You are the one with the log in your eye.
commented 2015-06-08 00:29:16 -0400
Joan, I was just going to let this thread of conversation drop and move on, but then I started to think about it, and this single minded, highly emotional narative, that attempts to steamroll over every objection and contrary view is so unlike you. Your accusations of personal insults where none exist (I certainly know I didn’t hurl any insults at you) is definately unusual. I can only conclude that it must be coming from a place of deep personal hurt and pain. If that is the case, I just have one thing to say: I’m terribly sorry for what you must have gone through. I’m definately not going to say, “I know how you must be feeling” because I don’t. Though I’ve experenced what some would call poverty, I’ve actually had it pretty good. As long as one isn’t a drug addict, they can still live comfortably even on wellfair, compared to third world countries. From your discription of what you went through, I’ve had it easy. So just let me take this oportunity to say, I’m so sorry for what you went through. There’s no caviot to that, I mean it sincerly.
commented 2015-06-07 23:18:09 -0400
Liza Rosie – It’s not my definition. It’s the definition in the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Citing the Constitution that guides everything Harper stands for does not bad-mouth him. Assuming you know what Harper stands for without ever checking if you are right is what hurts Harper.

I am a long-time member of Harper’s Party. Are you?

I have read the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada. Have you?

I know what our values are. Do you?

Have you ever bothered to read the Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada, Liza? It is not made in your image and is exactly as I described it.

Go ahead. Read it. It really won’t hurt you.

Here it is. Again: http://www.conservative.ca/media/2012/06/Sept2011-Constitution-E.pdf
commented 2015-06-07 22:36:29 -0400
You do not get to make that definition for the rest of us. Stop bad mouthing Harper, he would never stand beside your agenda.
commented 2015-06-07 22:20:09 -0400
Liza Rosie – you are not among the majority of Conservative thinkers. You are a real outlier.

Conservatives are inclusive and accepting. We care about the downtrodden. We believe in fiscal responsibility, freedom, and democracy. Small government. We care about human rights too. We do not abandon children to parents who pimp them for drugs like too many hard-right so-called Libertarians do. I say “so-called” because I contacted the leader of the Canadian Libertarian Party over Shawn and Jamie’s vicious views to ask if Libertarians thought such attitudes would get them votes and he wrote back that his party absolutely does not support those views.

Conservatives defend freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and we do not bully those who are different nor do we try to silence them or cleanse them from community, including from online community.

Conservative arguments rely on reason, logic and evidence, not spidey-sense biases.

Your prejudices do not represent Conservatives and PM Harper would never endorse them.
commented 2015-06-07 22:04:22 -0400
You are so confused. And I take exception to you using Harper as a scapegoat in this agenda you are clearly willing to die for. Have at er, but don’t bother trying to take the Conservatives down with your twisted rhetoric. Nobody is buying it.
commented 2015-06-07 22:01:42 -0400
Conservatives are better than the hate-motivated condemnation of children with gay parents and children who have been abused expressed by so many on this thread.

My Conservative MP and MPP care about children abused by organized crime. They are the Conservatives Canadians voted into power.

Canadians will not vote for your brand of hatred. Thank God it is such a minority.