|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE NEXT
BATTLEGROUND OVER HOMOSEXUALITY
The homosexual lobby group EGALE held a retreat
in March, 2005 to determine the next issues to promote, once
the same-sex marriage issue was settled. The consensus reached
at that retreat was that they would concentrate on:
- Changing the school environment on the
homosexual issue;
- Overturning Canada's so-called anti-sex
laws (See REALity, July/August, 2005 Homosexual Activists
Attacking Our Moral Laws p. 10);
- Obtaining human rights protection for
transgendered individuals (See REALity July/August, 2004,
Homosexuals New Agenda Transexuals, p. 6). Homosexual NDP
MP, Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) introduced a private members
Bill C-392, on May 17, 2005 to include protection for the
transgendered under the Human Rights Act.
As a result of the retreat, homosexual activists
are now focusing their efforts on public schools, viewing
them as an opportunity to change society's negative perceptions
of homosexual behaviour. That is, the activists believe that
by targeting the next generation they will be able to change
the culture, which, despite the media's biased coverage in
support of homosexuality, has not yet won over the adult generation.
A Leger Marketing poll of 1,507 Canadians over 20 years of
age, polled between May 3 - 11, 2005 found that 49% of Canadians
still believe that homosexuality is an abnormal condition,
while 46% said it was normal. The remaining 5% said they didn't
know or they chose not to answer.
The objections to homosexuality have been
maintained, even though the media have consistently failed
to report on the disturbing ways homosexuals actually carry
out their sexual acts, and the terrible medical consequences
of these acts.
Homosexual activists realize that promoting acceptance at
schools of either homosexuality or of homosexual sexual activity
would be controversial and meet with resistance. Therefore,
they routinely deny or downplay these aspects of their agenda.
Instead, they begin with the school policy proposals that
are likely, politically, to win the most agreement, and then
move from there, incrementally, to implement more aggressive
policies to affirm and celebrate homosexuality, and finally
to the ultimate goal - silencing all who disagree with them.
Thus, activists first attempt to change curricula
of schools on the pretense that they want only to promote
"diversity" and "tolerance" for all students
and to protect homosexual students from harassment and prejudice.
That is, homosexual activists, entering our schools to indoctrinate
our children, do so under the pretense that significant numbers
of gay, lesbian bisexual or transgendered (referred to as
GLBT) students are frequent victims of verbal harassment and
acts of violence from which they must be protected. The activists
also claim that homosexual youths are more likely to commit
suicide than their straight peers and claim this is the result
of harassment and discrimination against them. Because of
these alleged problems, homosexual activists argue that "sexual
orientation" should be singled out for specific protection
under school disciplinary codes.
Little Evidence to Support Homosexual Claims of Harassment
or Assault
There is little evidence of harassment against
homosexual students. A survey of gay teens by the US Gay Lesbian
Straight Education Network (GLSEN) 2001, updated in 2003 ,
found that 58% of such students reported no incidents of "harassment"
and nearly 79% claimed to have experienced not a single incidence
of physical assault on account of their homosexuality. Compare
these findings to those of the American Association of University
Women (AAUW) whose 2001 survey found that 83% of all girls
and 79% or all boys report experiencing some physical intimidation
or sexual harassment at school. Obviously sexual orientation
is not the cause of most harassments or assaults.
Little Evidence That Homosexual Youth Commit Suicide Because
of Harassment
There would appear to be no link between homosexuality
and youth suicide.
The suicide rate among youths in the Canadian
province of Quebec, which was the first province to include
protection for sexual orientation in its human rights legislation
(1977) and which is the most liberal province in Canada in
regard to both legislation and public attitudes toward homosexuality,
has a higher incidence of youth suicide than the province
of Alberta. The latter province is one of the most supportive
of the traditional family in Canada. Alberta did amend its
human rights legislation to provide special protection for
sexual orientation in 1999, but only because of a decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada requiring it to do so.
According to statistics published by Health
Canada on Suicide in Canada, Update of the Report of
the Task Force on Suicide in Canada (1994), Quebec's
youth suicide rates rose dramatically between 1977 and 1992.
By contrast, Alberta's youth suicide rates slightly decreased
in the same period.
Further, according to Statistics Canada, the
"teen" suicide rate in Quebec is the highest in
the Western world. In 1950, when Quebec culture was one of
the most traditional in Canada, the teen suicide rate stood
at just two per 100,000 population, about the same as the
national average. Then, in 1970, it started rising each year,
reaching 20 per 100,000, at the present time. By comparison,
the teen suicide rate in Ontario is 12 per 100,000, and the
national rate is 10 per 100,000.
There would appear, therefore, to be no correlation
between societal pressures against homosexuality and a high
suicide rate among homosexual teens. Rather, it would appear
that the high suicide rate among homosexuals is more related
to their own particular lifestyle and culture.
No Justification For Singling Out Sexual Orientation for
Special Protection
Singling out "sexual orientation"
for special protection cannot be justified on logical grounds,
but could unfortunately, have serious consequences. That is,
lumping "sexual orientation" together with "race,
color, national origin, sex, and disability" for special
protection is illogical because the latter qualities are inborn
(except for some disabilities), involuntary, immutable, and
innocuous--none of which is true of homosexuality, despite
the claims of its advocates. Evidence that homosexuality is
inborn (that is, unalterably determined by genetics or biology)
simply has not been proven, despite homosexuals' best efforts
to establish this. While same-sex attractions may come unbidden,
homosexual behavior and adoption of a "gay" identity
are clearly voluntary. The existence of numerous, former homosexuals
proves that homosexuality is changeable; and the numerous
pathologies associated with homosexuality demonstrate how
harmful it is.
All Harassment is Wrong
All forms of harassment are wrong, and all
forms of harassment--without distinction--should be banned.
In fact, singling out "sexual orientation," and
including it with traditional categories like race and sex,
serves not a "safety" function, but a political
one. When harassment based on sexual orientation is explicitly
banned, schools' staff and students are inevitably trained
to believe that the reason that such harassment is wrong is
not because all harassment is wrong or because all people
should be treated with respect, but because there is nothing
wrong with being gay or lesbian. Such an assertion is
not only offensive to the moral standards of most Canadians
(see Leger Poll referred to above) and to the historical teachings
of most major religions, it flies in the face of hard scientific
data showing the high rates of promiscuity, physical disease,
mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic
violence that often accompany homosexual behavior.
The Homosexual Campaign in Our Schools
Homosexual activists have initiated their
campaign in Canada to achieve changes in the school curriculum
by first turning to the two institutions that have proven
to be most reliable in achieving their aims - the Courts and
the Human Rights Commissions.
The Courts
In 1997 a homosexual kindergarten teacher,
James Chamberlain, brought a legal action against the Surrey
BC School Board for refusing the use of three pro-homosexual
books in kindergarten and Grade 1. Under the BC Schools
Act, the Minister of Education approves the basic educational
resource material, but confers on local boards the authority
to approve supplementary resource material. It took years
for the case to wind its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision handed down in
December 2002, read the words "tolerance" and "diversity"
into the BC Schools Act even though these words were
not mentioned in the Act at all. The court then held that
"tolerance" (meaning support for homosexual education)
is always age appropriate. The court further held that although
the board must consider the religious views of parents, books
cannot be banned on religious grounds. The court then required
that the Surrey School Board review again the disputed books
but refrain this time from using religion as a criterion.
The court also ordered the school board to pay Chamberlain's
legal costs, which amounted to approximately $500,000.00.
The school board duly reviewed the questionable books again,
but, found them unacceptable on grounds other than religion,
such as poor grammar, inappropriate contents, scope and depth.
Although the Board rejected the use of these particular books
in the Surrey Schools, it did instruct the Superintendent
to find more appropriate books to deal with "different
family structures" (See REALity January/February 2004,
p.1), as instructed by the appointed Justices of the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Since this was a decision by the highest court
in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, it applies to
all of Canada, with the result that all School Acts
must be interpreted to include "tolerance" toward
homosexuality.
Human Rights Commission
A homosexual couple argued before the BC Human
Rights Tribunal, that the BC school curriculum did not adequately
address sexual orientation. They claimed that this failure
was systemic discrimination through omission and suppression.
The claimants admitted, however, that the curriculum was not
in any way anti-homosexual. An especially disturbing aspect
of this complaint was that it included the demand that the
homosexual issue be made a mandatory subject for all students.
That is, homosexual activists demanded that the opting-out
provisions of the current curriculum, which provides that
teachers are obliged to give advance notice to parents of
any "sensitive" issues raised in the classroom,
must be removed when dealing with the homosexual issue. This
activist complaint was subsequently amended in order that
it be applied to the curricula of private schools as well,
since BC provides some funding for private Christian schools.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal recently adjourned a hearing,
pending its decision regarding whether the complaint be extended
to private school curricula.
Hiding the Homosexual Curriculum from Parents
The key to successfully promoting the homosexual
agenda in schools is to prevent parents from finding out what
is being taught to their children. Although school board trustees
have been given only delegated authority from parents to teach
their children, i.e. have been given authority, in trust,
to teach children. It is now apparent that some school boards
have betrayed this trust and instead are using their position
to indoctrinate children on the issue of homosexuality
as a matter of right.
A long tradition however, recognizes the role
of parents as the first teachers of their children. For example,
the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
provides in article 26(3):
Parents have a prior right to choose
the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1990) provides:
Article 14 (2)
Parties shall respect the rights and
duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians,
to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his
or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities
of the child.
Article 18 (1)
1. Parties shall use their best efforts
to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents
have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development
of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians,
have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development
of the child. The best interests of the child will be their
basic concern.
It appears that these provisions have been
ignored by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), when
it passed the following resolution on April 13, 2005:
Whereas, the Board is well known for its support of equity;
and
Whereas, the Board is well known for
its support of the rights for all minority groups; and
Whereas, the Canadian Charter of Rights
guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, then,
consistent with these positions in which the Board supports
the human rights of all individuals;
Therefore, be it resolved that support
for equal rights for gays and lesbians, including their
right to enter into a civil marriage, be affirmed.
The resolution was passed 15 to 3, with 4
absent. The ignorance of the Toronto Trustees was profound,
in that clearly they did not know that the Supreme Court of
Canada specifically declined to make a ruling in the
reference questions on whether same-sex marriage was an equality
issue. The Board, apparently, has been so blinded by ideological
zeal that it did not bother to determine this important fact
before passing its subversive resolution.
The Toronto Board has a budget of $2.2 billion
this year, which is $217 million more than last year even
though enrollment in the Toronto District School Board has
dropped by approximately 20,000 students. Part of this money
is now being used for the open promotion of homosexuality.
According to an internal staff newsletter from a Toronto school
board junior middle school, the trustees used taxpayers' dollars
to pay for a bus for the 2005 Gay Pride parade for staff and
students. The Toronto District School Board also decided that
it will not let parents know what or when their children will
be taught about gays or lesbians. In short, the board
decided that the parents should have no say over their children's
education on the homosexual issue. This is outrageous. It
is a deliberate attempt to programme children on an ideological/political
issue. In no way can this provision of homosexual propaganda
be construed as "education". The disregard of parental
rights is part of a growing trend in the public education
system. It also proves that the Trustees are willing to misrepresent
the interests of parents on these matters.
The pro-active homosexual resolution and action
by the Toronto District School Board do not appear to be an
exception. For example, the Thames Valley School Board in
London, Ontario, voted to implement a Sexual Diversity Action
Plan in April, 2005, giving special recognition to homosexual
activities. This motion was passed, despite a petition bearing
2,500 signatures protesting the lack of parental involvement
in the drafting of the plan for action.
Similarly, the Hamilton-Wentworth District
School Board is currently developing an "Equity Policy"
on sexual orientation.
There is no question that other school boards
across Canada are also jumping on the pro-homosexual bandwagon
- using the Same-sex Marriage Bill C-38 passed in July, as
their reason for doing so.
What a Parent Can Do
Write a letter to your child's teacher politely
expressing your concerns about the promotion of homosexuality
in your child's school. It's important to state that you object
to your child being involved in any presentation which portrays
homosexuality as a normal, equal lifestyle choice.
In your letter, request that you be notified
of any presentation by school staff or outside presenters
which includes or is likely to include a homosexual component.
In your letter, request that your child be
exempted from any presentations in which homosexuality
is promoted or is likely to be promoted in any way.
Send a copy of your letter to the principal
and to the area superintendent. Provide two copies
for the teacher, and request that one copy be kept on file
and that the other be placed in the official Student Record
file in the office. Be sure to follow up with a phone call,
email, or, better yet, a personal interview with the teacher
and principal. Be prepared for serious resistance. But, remember,
as a parent, these requests are your right. Stand firm.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
