Ontario’s Liberal government led by lesbian Premier Kathleen Wynne announced yesterday that it will reintroduce a graphic and explicit sex-ed curriculum to be ready by next school year.
The curriculum, shelved in 2010 under the then McGuinty government after massive parent outrage, was developed while accused child-pornographer Benjamin Levin served as deputy minister of education and Wynne served as minister of education. The move comes despite sex-ed not being mentioned in the Liberal’s election platform that won them a majority in June.
“In our increasingly interconnected world, students often get information from unreliable and inaccurate sources,” said Education Minister Liz Sandals on Thursday in a statement to the press. “That is why an up-to-date, relevant and appropriate health and physical education curriculum is needed now more than ever, and is why we are committed to having one in place for the 2015 school year.”
If the reintroduced sex-ed curriculum is anything like its shelved forerunner, then:
- In grade 1, children will learn all of the sexual parts of the body by name.
- By grade 3, male and female children will learn about “gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” and to question whether they are in fact a boy or a girl. The program suggests for instance that it is possible to be a boy on the outside, but a girl on the inside.
- In grade 6-7, children learn about oral and anal sex. It is not clear at this point what kind of illustrations, if any, will be used. Masturbation is discussed as “common” and “not harmful.”
- Grade 8 students will learn that marriage between a man and a man is equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman.
Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, told LifeSiteNews that the proposed sex-education program is a “reflection of the disordered personalities who are at the helm of pushing it. This is disordered personalities pushing a disordered program.”
“The purpose of sex-education is to make children sexually vulnerable, to start them off early on sexual [explorations] when they are not ready for it emotionally, physically, or psychologically.”
Landolt’s statement corresponds to those made by former abortion clinic owner Carol Everett, who told a Canadian audience in May that sex-education has the effect of making children sexually active from a young age. She said the abortion industry used this to great effect to create a market for abortions.
Landolt said sex-education is better left to parents who know the needs of each child and can respond with appropriate information at appropriate ages.
Wynne is planning a public consultation in hopes of avoiding the same debacle McGuinty stands accused of, namely of ramming through a sex-agenda driven program without running it by parents. This will consist of one parent from each elementary school, handpicked by the school principal, to fill out an online survey asking questions such as: “I believe that it’s important for my child to learn about sexual health concepts before they face a situation where they may need the information.” About 4,000 parents will fill out the survey.
Peter Jon Mitchell from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada told LifeSiteNews that the problem most parents have with sex-education is that there is “no shared vision of the nature, content, and timing of what should be in the curriculum.”
“It’s really impossible to treat sexual education as ethically sterile and value-neutral. Every family brings their own values to the table. So, it’s really difficult to have a universal curriculum that’s going to be responsive to the needs of all children.”
Landolt called the survey a “silly” show since it will not get to the heart of the agenda the program is pushing on kids.
Jack Fonseca from Campaign Life Coalition called the curriculum a “not very hidden attempt by radicals in the education system and in the government to sexualize our children.”
“Clearly the Wynne government does not care what parents think. Parents were loud and clear in 2010 that this program was inappropriate and that they did not want it anywhere near their children. And here she is, bringing it back again. Given that the program was put together under the direction of an accused child pornographer, I’m sure parents are way less comfortable with it now than they were in 2010.”
“We know very well that this was written by sex-activists who champion sexual behaviors and practices that no parent would want their child learning how to engage in,” he said, noting that the main activist group lobbying for the curriculum’s return is the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association (Ophea), which partners with homosexual organizations such as Queer Ontario and Jer’s Vision, and abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood Toronto.
Fonseca said government-run sex-education in school ultimately fails children since it presents to them as ‘safe’ “sexual practices, such as anal sex, that ultimately harm the body of the individual who engages in it.”
Campaign Life Coalition is asking Ontario parents to once again say “no” to the sexualization of the children through the curriculum.
“Concerned parents across Ontario must flood their MPP with concerns via phone, email and face-to-face meetings,” Fonseca said. “Second, they need to persuade their school trustees to also resist this reckless, age-inappropriate curriculum. In the Separate Schools, trustees have a constitutional right under Section 93 of the Act, to reject any problematic curriculum. Finally, parents and other concerned citizens need to inform their pastor, and if they are Catholic, the local Bishop, and urge them to speak out.”
Find your Ontario MPP here.