McGuinty is introducing clubs that foster homosexuality in all schools.
There is a very thin line between the acceptance of homosexuality in theory and in practice.
A collision soon will occur in Ontario, Canada over the imposition of homosexual indoctrination in all schools, regardless of the views of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, other religious parents.
Fall-out from this pending battle will resonate all across Canada as the premiers in the other provinces and territories are intensely watching this knock down, drag out fight.
In December 2011, Dalton McGuinty, the Freemason Premier of Ontario, a Liberal, ordered, by Bill 13, that all Ontario schools, whether public, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, set up programs to allow gay/straight alliance clubs, and to normalize and affirm homosexuality.
The program also provides homosexual activists access to Ontario schools. The pretext that this program will prevent the bullying of homosexual students.
This fools no one. Fierce opposition to this policy has come from the Catholic School Trustees Association, which has thrown down the gauntlet, flatly refusing the government policy, stating that only Catholic teaching on homosexuality will be permitted in Catholic schools.
The Catholic School Trustees are supported in this by the Evangelical Christian Fellowship and Shaarei Shomayim, a group of 750 orthodox Jewish families, under Rabbi Strauchler, who represents the rabbinical organization Vaad Harabonim.
Catholic schools in Ontario have, under the Constitution Act of 1867 and also the Constitution Act of 1982 (The Charter of Rights), the right to uphold only Catholic teachings in their schools. This constitutional protection has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on two separate occasions.
Ironically, Premier McGuinty is a [bogus] Catholic, one of ten children, and is a graduate of the Ontario Separate School System, as are all of his four children. His wife teaches in the same Catholic School System. What gives?
A possible explanation for this apparent hypocrisy is that Mr. McGuinty’s father, also named Dalton, had previously been a member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament. He was a remarkable man of strength, character and integrity – staunchly pro-life and pro-family. However, in spite of his obvious competency, he was never appointed to Cabinet in the then orange-tinged anti- Catholic Ontario, where his Catholic beliefs were still suspect. The son, Dalton, and another son, David, (a Liberal member of Parliament, Ottawa South) learned this lesson well. They have obviously decided to “ride with the herd” in order to achieve political success. Hence, Mr. McGuinty is pushing forward with the homosexual agenda.
MPP Elizabeth Witmer, the Ontario Conservative critic for Health and Long-Term Care, has dealt with the issue of bullying in a more sound manner. She tabled Bill 14 on bullying, in which all forms of bullying are objected to, without giving priority to any specific kind of bullying. The intent of the Bill is to provide measures to prevent bullying (without introducing extraneous issues), by requiring the Minister of Education to develop a model general bullying prevention plan.
BACKERS OF DALTON MCGUINTY’S HOMOSEXUAL PROGRAM (OECTA)
(a) Ontario English Speaking Catholic Teachers Association
The most vicious attack on the position of the Catholic Trustees was, unbelievably, from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA), which is controlled by Catholic dissenters. Last year it funded the homosexual activist group, EGALE and it has invited bizarre sexual deviants and Catholic haters to address its annual meetings. This union, of course, supports Mr. McGuinty’s homosexual program in Catholic schools.
(b) Ontario Public Service Unions
The public service unions in Ontario also used their compulsory union dues in the 2011 provincial election to fund another multi million dollar election smear campaign to support Mr. McGuinty, under the banner of “Working Families”. The name is a misnomer indeed. The banner would have been more accurate, if it had stated “self-interested union leaders of Ontario”. This union support unquestionably led to the re-election of Mr. McGuinty.
WHY DO UNIONS BACK MCGUINTY?
The simple answer is that he caves in to their demands every time. The Ontario Public sector employees’ salaries account for one half of all government spending, about $55 billion annually. The unions under McGuinty have been awarded increases outpacing inflation, which is one of the causes of the provincial debt of $241 billion, with interest payments annually of $10 billion.
The feckless Premier, Mr. McGuinty, is an easy prey for the unions and other special interest groups, such as homosexuals, since he desperately needs their electoral support. He dares not stand up to them, regardless of the provincial deficit of $16 billion. The unions are well aware of this. Consequently, Mr. McGuinty is using this anti-bullying policy to shore up his credentials with the unions and their special “friends”, i.e. homosexual activists.
Who will win this fight of conflicting values? It’s either Mr. McGuinty and his supportive unions or Christian, Jewish, and Muslim and any other religious observant parents. We must make every effort to ensure that the parents win this epic battle.
Please write to:
The Honourable Dalton McGuinty Premier Room 281, Main Legislative Bldg. Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1 Fax: 416-325-3745 dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
The Honourable Laurel C. Broten Provincial Minister of Education 22nd Floor, Mowat Block Ministry 900 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 1L2 Fax: 416-325-2608 lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Tim Hudak Leader of the Opposition Conservative Party Room 381, Main Legislative Bldg. Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A8 Fax: 416-325-0998 tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org
If residing in Ontario, write to your : Member of Provincial Parliament Legislative Assembly Queen’s Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A2
—
Abridged from an Editorial in The National Post, April 21, 2010
SEX ED UNNEEDED WHEN CHILD SEXUAL ENERGIES ARE DORMANT
Ontario is poised to inaugurate a new and explicit sex education curriculum in September. According to a detailed outline posted on the Ministry of Education’s website in January, children in Grade 3 will for the first time learn about “invisible differences” between people, including those of gender identity and sexual orientation, while Grade 6 and 7 students will receive information about “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse.”
….
You don’t have to be religious to recognize the incompatibility of early
instruction around sexuality with, dare we say it, the “settled” science
around the “latency period” of childhood. In this schema, the second sexual
phase in children following infancy and early childhood, from the age of six
to twelve, is a period in which direct sexual energies fall dormant. During
this phase, the child gathers his inner resources and develops mental and
physical strength for entry to young adulthood. Only at adolescence do
hormonal changes create the appropriate psychological context for absorbing ideas about “gender identity” and sexual ethics in a meaningful light. Until that time schools should butt out of sex education.
Latency-period researchers explain that it is precisely because children are
not dominated by sexualized thinking between early childhood and adolescence that they are optimally attuned to, and most highly educable in, the areas crucial to cultural self-realization: Readin’, Writin’ and ‘Rithmetic.
Bending children’s imagination in a sexualized direction they would not
naturally take distracts them from the work they should be devoting
themselves to, and raises fears in social conservatives, possibly
well-founded – for these are very uncharted waters, whatever liberal
theorists may say – that the curricula will promote early, indiscriminate
and amoral sexual experimentation.
Proponents of the program reject such concerns. Alex McKay, research
coordinator for the Sex Informationand Education Council of Canada, claims that “[Y]oung people who are very well educated about sexuality and sexual health tend to delay having sex, because they fully understand everything that’s involved….”
That’s not true, according to a recent study published in the Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the American Medical Association. The study found that abstinence programs that teach human sexuality as
predominantly psychological, emotional and moral rather than physical
dropped sexual-activity rates among teens by a third in contrast with
data-heavy “safe sex” programs.
If there were longitudinal, peer-reviewed studies attesting to the benefits
of exposing children in the latency period to sexuality-charged curricula,
we might be open to more experimentation along the lines proposed by
Ontario’s Ministry of Education.
There being none, we see the program as a political vehicle for special
interest groups obsessed with “social justice,” who perceive entrenchment of their libertine agenda in public school curricula as the quickest and most
efficient route to detaching children from morality-based sexual values.
In the end, we are on the side of the children, and feel that prudence and
parental privilege should be the watchword. Today’s world is so highly
sexualized and the gateways to inappropriate images and message so
ubiquitous, parents have their work cut out for them keeping their children
in a state of innocence (a word one can scarcely say anymore without ironic air quotes). To everything there is a season. Ontario should back away from this ideologically-driven program, acknowledging the right of children to be children as nature made them.
