Some people got sidetracked. This woman opined that her own children are too clever or savvy for the topics addressed. Though Soupcoff is a parent and a non-practicing lawyer, she lacks pedagogical training as well as an understanding of cognitive development-appropriate teaching methods. She also forgets there ARE adults who flail, fail and suffer from a dearth of basic life skills and knowledge.
Nadine Thornhill read it ALL. And she shared her observations, too.
Our friend Rick at Queer Thoughts also blogged about the new curriculum.
Premier Wynne was subjected to implicit homophobic baiting in the legislature; this is how she responded:
Speakers demanded that media not portray them as fringe religious zealots, and blamed the media for putting pressure on the government to update the curriculum (last version was 1998, way before mobile devices were available to children).
Sadly, this is how some protesters expressed their concerns:
Oh, remember (ex)Trustee Sam? His pathetic, delusional rantings have become testerical.
He appears oblivious to documented facts about pedophilia; namely that 68% of cases of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by family members. The curriculum will provide kids with information about being respected and heard - a big part of consent - and what to do if adults transgress their personal boundaries. Now why would that make Sam anxious?
Here is Nadine Thornhill again, this time providing parents with ways for broaching the issue of consent with their children. Her website is an amazing resource for parents who want to address the topics covered by the Ontario curriculum with their children, in advance of its September 2015 implementation.
And not unconnected to our provincial brouhaha, this happened in the Excited States:
Whoa! Does someone lacks basic knowledge of human physiology? Did Republican politician Vito Barbieri attend creationist abstinence anti-sex ed summer camp? Which led someone to wonder:
As it turns out, Barbieri was only using tactical trickery, adding to the treasure trove of dumb metaphors and analogies (whoops! I said anal) that anti-abortion crusaders deploy: parrots in cages, kidneys, balloons and many many others, as catalogued here by fern hill.
"I was being rhetorical, because I was trying to make the point that equalizing a colonoscopy to this particular procedure was apples and oranges," he said. "So I was asking a rhetorical question that was designed to make her say that they weren't the same thing, and she did so. It was the response I wanted."oookay.
THIS by the way, is a very, very good analogy. These two sketch the epidemiological effect of anti-sex Ed parents and their children on other families. This one is another take on the harmful consequences of anti-sex Ed, like anti-vaccination believers.
The last word on Sex Ed (Ed suggestive of Edwardian) belongs to Sir Francis:
UPDATE: Harper Cons are pushing all the hot-button issues for their fundraising and 2015 elections campaigning efforts. A CPC MP has added her bigoted 2¢ from the same anti-sex-education choir songs that *trustee* Sam and provincial RWNJ Cons are shrieeeking. Cheryl Gallant parroted its bizarre obfuscations in the House of Commons.
This is how the Reformatories show their contempt for Parliament: by using it as their sewage dump for the lies and delusional speaking points cranked out by the Politburo/PMO.
Gallant is no newcomer to anti-choice controversy; 11 years ago at the annual March for Lies she said this. Dean Del Mastro has also jumped on the anti-sex-ed bandwagon but news coverage for his grandiose gesture - signing Levant's petition - is curiously devoid of content, unlike the volumes posted about his criminal trial.
The last word of this update belongs to Ariel Troster and her inspired take on *concerned parents* privilege:
"[..]whether I like it or not, being a parent lends me some sort of credibility and authority to speak on issues that are relevant to children. And it gives me an opportunity to disrupt the bigots who use ridiculous “think of the children” logic to deny people’s human rights and promote discrimination.
The notion that children need to be protected from queer and trans people is an old trope. In the 1970s, Anita Bryant based an entire “Save Our Children” campaign on the idea that gay people could be hiding in schools and corrupting innocent kids. She played on the false association between homosexuality and pedophilia and built a national campaign against gay rights in the U.S. based on it. While this seems like a total anachronism to many of us today, this same vein of manipulation is still alive and well."
