Let’s talk about sex.
After all, your children are talking about it. And not just as children do in the school yard; they talk about it in the classroom.
As they have been for decades.
*WARNING: Some topics discussed in this article are of a sexual nature and include concepts such as “vaginal lubrication” and “anal sex”. However, the concepts raised in this article are the very same concepts students are conversing about in public schools across the province.
Biology classes typically held the field of discourse in the various biological components associated with anatomy and species procreation. The education surrounding the “birds and the bees” was based in the scientific concepts essential to Human reproduction. Students would learn in an objective, scientific manner the purpose of the male reproductive organ and female reproductive organs across the mammalian class of vertebrates. The discussions in development of the Human anatomy (i.e. puberty) were kept simple and concise and remained limited to just the physical facts surrounding this natural process — the extent of pre-2010 curriculums surrounding procreation were kept to the basics.
It’s important to note that pre-2010 curriculums surrounding the topic of human reproduction coincided with the beginnings of ages most children first experience puberty (i.e. in Secondary School or “high school”).
So what changed?
In January of 2010, the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training quietly posted an updated “revision” to the existing sexual education curriculum (a component of the broader Health & Physical Fitness curriculum) to their website.
Kathleen Wynne was the Education minister under then Premiere Dalton McGuinty. And this 208-page revision caused extreme controversy for the McGuinty Government. Another key individual involved in the crafting of this curriculum was then Deputy Minister for Education Benjamin Levin.
The government pleaded with the masses, citing such statistics as “The curriculum hasn’t been updated since 1998”, “times have changed, our respective curriculums must also change”.
The source of this controversy was not over the fact that sexual awareness and biological functions of procreation was already discussed in public schools, the controversy existed around the content of the new curriculum and the respective age groups of pupils targeted for this education.
The outrage showcased by parents forced the McGuinty Government to abandon the legislation. Many parents, various family-orientated activist groups and many religious groups vehemently opposed these changes to the curriculum and the plans were subsequently shelved.
Time passed; McGuinty subsequently resigned his post over scandals (such as, but not limited to, what became known as the Gas Plant Fiasco). Kathleen Wynne was subsequently elected to replace McGuinty as the Liberal Party Leader. She would become Ontario’s 25th Premier on February 11, 2013.
“As Premier McGuinty’s Education Minister, Kathleen Wynne introduced a sexual education curriculum in 2010 that had to be withdrawn within days due to popular outcry. Although McGuinty promised more extensive parental consultation to address the concerns, as Premier, Wynne shoved the same graphic curriculum down the throats of Ontarians without meaningful consultation in 2015” notes a popular grassroots movement called PAFE (Parents as First Educators), “The ‘new’ sex-ed curriculum is 96% identical to the one from 2010.”
During the PC leadership race of 2015, both leadership hopefuls Patrick Brown and Monte McNaughton came out strong opposing this “radical” sexual education curriculum. For their honest objections, the Wynne Government attacked these two individuals and labeled them “homophobic bigots”.
Brown went on and won the leadership of the PCs and assumed his office on September 14, 2015; preceded by PC interim leader Jim Wilson. To this current date, however, Brown’s perspective on the sex-ed curriculum is dubious at best — his approach at how best to deal with this new curriculum remains unclear.
Without sufficient public consultation, Wynne enacted this new legislation in 2015. Ontario’s first openly gay Premier decided to plow ahead with controversial sexual education crafted by a pedophile.
For the first time in history, students would be instructed as early as Grade 3 in such concepts as sexual identity and orientation. Most Grade 3 students are typically 8 years of age. Students in Grade 6 would be expected to learn about concepts such as “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse”. Most Grade 6 students are typically 11 years of age.
Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity writes in an article entitled Education and the Depths of the Sea, “Scandal is certainly an appropriate term, then, for events which in recent weeks have ignited controversy in Ontario regarding the efforts of the Ontario Provincial Government to re-introduce its lurid sex-education curriculum in public schools that includes, among other things, teaching six-year-olds sexual ‘consent’ and by twelve teaches them the intricacies of homosexual relations. The charge to enforce this culturally Marxist propaganda (and post-modern literary theory) on the ordinary lives of unsuspecting children in the province is being led by the openly lesbian premier, Kathleen Wynne, whose moral authority for guiding how children should understand family and human sexuality is non-existent from a Christian and biblical standpoint – her own life example should be clearly understood by Christians especially because human desires and ideas have real consequences for social and political life.”
Some critics of the new curriculum have argued that this isn’t pupil education, it is student indoctrination — especially when one considers the role that convicted pedophile Benjamin Levin had in crafting this new curriculum.
Levin, who is currently serving a three year sentence on charges of “making and distributing child pornography, counselling to commit an indictable offence, arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16″ has self-admitted that he had a significant hand in creating this new education plan. A convicted pedophile designed the very curriculum your children are forced to learn!
On July 8/2013 Levin was formally charged and arrested by the Toronto Police Service. While he had been granted release on a $100,000 bail, he had been a suspect since 2012. Levin pleaded guilty on March 3/2015 to three of the seven charges, namely one count of possession of child pornography, one count of making written child pornography, and one count of counselling a sexual assault.” He was sentenced to prison on May 29 of that same year.
Those same critics also argue that by showcasing fore mentioned concepts to an 11-yr old will desensitize the student to sexual concepts.
Enter the age of “Progressivism” or “co-parenting”. This radical sexual education curriculum is symbolic of a greater problem faced by today’s students in our public education system.
It was, and still remains, the government’s position that parents are not doing enough to educate their children in matters of Human sexuality. Thus, the government feels a moral imperative to impose a set of doctrines dubbed a curriculum to address this perceived lacking of parental involvement.
In a research paper entitled, The Evolution of Health Education in Ontario, 1960s until Present-day (authored by Alicia Gismondi, Eleni Dimaras, Jocelyn Yu and Matt Hurley), it was noted that, “While the ideas of progressivism, which originated from John Dewey, influenced the incorporation of sexual health instruction, the ways in which sexual health education was discussed illustrated the moral values of the 1950s.”
When times change, education must change. Education and values reflected within a society is a dynamic concept; it forever is changing.
But what fundamentally did change in the education systems was the process of being taught how to think critically to the process of being taught what to think.
Ask most students today and they’ll tell you that “cars are bad”, “we’re mean to Indians” yet they fail to explain why cars are bad, et all.
This marks a shift to change the process of “discussion” to the process of “instructed” — and thus the subsequently implied meaning. One concept implies open thought and discord, the other implies indoctrination — it teaches students WHAT to think and no longer HOW to think critically.
When one considers that students as young as six years of age are learning about abstract concepts such as “consent” or when one considers that students as young as eleven years of age are learning about extreme sexual concepts such as anal penetration, one can begin to truly fathom the perspectives of groups like PAFE. And perhaps most important, when one considers that the “father” of this curriculum is a convicted pedophile the contrarians to this “agenda” may be onto exposing some very valid concerns!
There is another element to this sexual education program. This element surrounds the Criminal Code of Canada.
Section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads as follows:
Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.
Teaching, showcasing or instructing minors in this radical sex-ed curriculum is a violation of that section.
Subsection 153(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.
Explaining the concepts of vaginal lubrication or anal penetration to an eleven-year old pupil would be a violation of the Criminal Code. The very persons our tax dollars employ to educate our youth could arguably be charged as “counselling” someone under the age of fourteen years — especially since those educators are indeed “a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency”.
There is a protest scheduled on September 21/2016. Look here for more information.
Share your thoughts.
It’s too much too fast and will only serve to desensitize our youth to the concepts surrounding sex.
Have your say. What do you think?
Here are some other interesting reads on this subject:
You can read the curriculum here: