Ontario Lesbian Premier Dumbfounded by Sex Ed Objections
July 9, 2015
(left, Wynne with Education Minister Liz Sandals)
In a meeting, Ontario Premier
Kathleen Wynne couldn't respond
to objections parents had to
the state sexualizing their children.
From Reality, July 2015
A delegation of family, religious and ethnic groups met Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne at Queen's Park on 29 April 2015 for 90 minutes to discuss her controversial sex education curriculum.
Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, was a part of the delegation and one of its speakers. The Premier seemed at a loss to come up with responses to our questions and statements about the curriculum. Ms Wynne appears to exist in her own bubble, where no one has raised these questions with her before.
For Example:
1. Ms Wynne informed us that, according a recent study, approximately 20% of children are engaged in sexual activity. We reasonably stated that this meant that 80% of children are not involved with sexual activity, presumably because of their families' values, ethnic and religious beliefs. We then politely inquired, what then, was the purpose of all students taking this course? Was it so that all children can learn how to become sexually active? Ms Wynne was unable to make a response.
2.When one of the members of the delegation asked why very young children (grade 3) were being introduced to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Ms Wynne stated that some children were living in same-sex families and they should not be excluded in discussions about families. When the delegation brought to Ms Wynne's attention that, in fact, less than 1% of children are living in same- sex families, so what about the other 99% of children? Ms Wynne was startled by this statistic, but had no response.
3. We raised our concern about teaching consent for sexual activity to, as early as, grade one (six year olds). We noted that under the Criminal Code consent to sexual activity is restricted to those 16 years old and over. We also referred Ms Wynne to section 21 of the Code which provides that it is an offense to: aid, abet or encourage an individual to enter an unlawful act. Would this consent provision then not set up teachers and school boards for future legal problems? Ms Wynne appeared to be unaware of these provisions in the Criminal Code and asked her assistant to make a note of them. Rather late in the game to do so.
4.When the delegation asked why the Premier refused to withhold the curriculum so that the parents could be consulted, her response was that there had been five years of consultation with the experts, and as a result, there could be no further delay in implementing the program.
The delegation's response was that it didn't matter if there had been 10 years of consultation, if the curriculum still wasn't right, it shouldn't be implemented. There was no response to this.
Ms Wynne does not grasp the fact that sex education establishes social and moral norms, and her curriculum seeks to change the current norms. It attempts to adopt values diverging from the wide spectrum of religious, cultural and social diversity in Ontario. In short, why is the province trying to set social and moral norms, rather than the parents, who properly have this responsibility?
It is significant that,in June,the Ontario Liberal government launched a $1.8 million campaign to "inform" people about the importance of the revised sex education curriculum.The ad campaign, however, is a farce since it doesn't even mention the sex education component, but merely promotes the program as being an update on health issues. It is a deceitful campaign meant to mislead the public.
If anyone is misinformed on the sex education curriculum, it seems to be Premier Kathleen Wynne.
--
First Comment from Dan:
I'm going to address two statements in the article that tend to mitigate Premier Wynne's culpability in what amounts to State sponsored child abuse.
"Ms Wynne does not grasp the fact that sex education establishes social and moral norms, and her curriculum seeks to change the current norms."
Oh no, she knows very well, that's the role of education. That's why she will not bend - she cannot. Getting deviant sex programming hard-wired to school curriculum is a "must be" and it's her personal life mission. It her motive for becoming Premier in the first place.
"Lesbian Premier Dumbfounded by Sex Ed Objections."
I'll grant you that she may think that the mothers who object to queering their children are 'unenlightened' like she is, but she's known there would be protest all along. Her job is to use all the power and guile at her disposal to ramrod it through over objections. Her pretence of being dumbfounded is an act, as if to demonstrate, "you heterosexual women are the crazy ones, why, the experts have decreed it's perfectly normal'.
I was born in 1955, before school boards and mayors subjected children to 'sex education'. It was taken for granted that children are immature. (that's an understatement!)
The rationale that "children are sexual beings" would have been answered with "So what?" Children might wander into busy traffic chasing a pretty ball, too. It doesn't matter if Kinsey 'proved' adults can masturbate children to climax. It only belies the reasoning of pedophiles.
Everyone's been a child so everyone always knew throughout history that some children are sexually 'precocious'. All it takes is an incident from which the child learns that touching himself "there" causes a pleasurable sensation. That's why up until the Kinsey era mothers told children to keep their hands 'above the covers' when they tucked them in at night. Doctors advised that masturbation can lead to insanity. That's been ridiculed by comedians and even doctors for 60 years but it's true. Masturbation addiction in children warps their emotional development. It alters their sleep cycle. It promotes addiction to fantasy. It develops the habit of objectifying others. In short it produces a Narcissistic savage with great impediments to reason.
It IS the root cause of arrested development.
Peter G said (July 10, 2015):
Kathleen Wynne and Liz Sandals both look like a couple of really bad villains from series one of Star Trek.