The blogger Blazing Cat Fur, who breaks more education scandal stories than anyone I know, has tipped me off to the latest from Ontario’s new premier Mom.

She wants to have the talk.

According to Xtra, Canada’s Gay and Lesbian News, premier designate Kathleen Wynne is bringing back the controversial and explicit sex ed curriculum that premier Dad took away in 2010. See

“We are going to evolve the physical health and sex education curriculum,” she said when questioned by Xtra.

Wynne didn’t give a timeline on when the new curriculum would come back but she did promise to consult all the same people that supported this curriculum the last time.

So why was this so controversial last time round?

Could have something to do with teaching the concept of gender identity. The curriculum starts teaching children in Grade 3 not only about sexual orientation but also gender identity, the concept being that you choose your gender (male, female, two-spirited, transgendered, transsexual, intersex).

Really? You want to teach that in Grade 3?

Even if you believe this theory, which I don’t, Grade 3 is a bit young to be teaching that or sexual orientation.

In fact, most of the complaints that I heard from parents involved age appropriateness of the material. Many thought that it was too explicit or that some subjects should be left for parents to deal with but the majority that I talked to though the curriculum pushed topics too early.

Plenty in the Liberal ranks attacked those opposed as being from the religious right. To them I would advise reading page 57 of the 2010 curriculum. It said religious families were welcome.

In an environment based on the principles of inclusive education, all students, parents,
and other members of the school community – regardless of ancestry, culture, ethnicity,
sex, physical or intellectual ability, race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation,
socio-economic status, or other similar factors – are welcomed, included, treated fairly,
and respected.

I hope that attitude survives any questions or opposition about curriculum changes under Ms. Wynne.

I’m on the record as saying cops, at least at the upper level, are being way too political these days. Canada’s police chiefs have opinions on all matter of political issues and don’t mind sharing their opinions or lobbying for changes. Funny though, that advice is never more valued by the consensus media than when it contradicts the current government’s direction.

From today’s Red Star…..

RCMP feared ending gun registry would hurt investigations

OTTAWA—As the Conservative government prepared to abolish the long-gun registry, the RCMP privately expressed concerns about the negative impact that would have on its ability to trace long guns used in crimes, according to government documents.

The RCMP, in a memorandum marked “updated for (newly appointed) Commissioner Paulson — November 2011” and “under consideration for Cabinet Confidence,” outlined “strategic considerations” related to ending the long-gun registry.

All I want to point out is that when police support something like mandatory minimums The Star can’t seem to run a story.

I don’t think cops should be listened to on policy more than any other bureaucrat. We elected politicians to make decisions on our behalf and they act based on the mandate they receive from the people.

For good or bad that is our system.

I have a real problem though with the preponderance of stories out of Ottawa about how the government rejected this advice or that advice from some paper pusher whose job it is to present options. Bureaucrats propose, governments decide.

Maybe some of my colleagues would prefer to live in a country run by the bureaucracy….