Kathleen Wynne’s special mission

- January 29th, 2013

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.

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

21 comments

  1. Stephen Smith says:

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

    Maybe you failed English but evolve means ‘to change’. That means it could be an entirely revamped program, maybe even something you may approve of.

  2. bob says:

    Lets jump the gun and tell your followers that its gonna start in nursery school. Hey even if its not true , if questioned you can claim that because of a backroom deal they decided to start later and that she really wanted to start then and turn little Johnny or Mary gay

  3. Moongal says:

    Of course Premier Mom would support an explicit sex curriculum. She couldn’t figure out that she was gay until she was 37 years old?!?!?!?!

  4. dave p says:

    I remember one day talking with my father about the state of morallity in our times and the gay agenda thing came up. He suggested in his jocular manner “not to worry they don’t reproduce.” That bothered me because I knew so many and there seemed to more all the time. We all no they can’t phiscally and still no can prove there is such a thing as the gay gene. So whats their seceret? I’m pretty sure the reproduction is purely psychollogical. Implementing this kind of conditioning yearly in the curriculum will condition (brainwash) many more of their stripe and they know this.

    Give me four years to teach the childern and the seed I have sown will never be up rooted. Lennin

  5. JCas says:

    @ Stephen Smith.
    Maybe if you had actually bothered to follow the link provided to the article, you would have found that the first paragraphs states “reintroduce”.

  6. Bill Elder says:

    So far the only “mission” I see enunciated by Wynne is exploiting gender or identity politics for political advantage and maintaining the same old Liberal self-serving mediocrity and piracy which have brought this province to the brink of insolvency.

  7. Eleanor Houston says:

    I believe it’s important to remember that it is “radicals” who are causing problems, as they are only interested in getting what they want, regardless of others in society. As a Catholic, I know that all people are to be respected. However, if there is a threat to our rights and freedoms e.g. in this case, the threat to “parents as first educators”in
    exposing young children to certain lifestyles not in keeping with their beliefs, then it is incumbent on parents to speak out and protect them.

  8. Ted L. says:

    @ Dave P.:

    Your father was on to something. If “they” don’t reproduce, then they should be gone in a single generation. And strangely, “they” have always been about 10% of the human population.

    Since, nobody has been training kids to “be gay” anywhere, ever, I wonder where they’re coming from? Must be a natural thing.

    The reason that you feel like there’s more of “them” is probably because they don’t have to fear being insulted, bashed or murdered. Because they’re now allowed the same freedom that straights have always had.

  9. Brian Landon says:

    @Stephen Smith——- sorry but it always seems that the radical left of the gay movement is out to ‘sexualize’ young children. Interestingly enough, the majority of Ontarians opposed to sexualizing children(which you, Mr. Smith et al) seem to be obsessed with, came not from the religious right but from those from many faiths and yes, secular!

    I saw some of the material and its age inappropriate. If my son were in Grade 3 I’d be pulling him out of school! That is what many parents threatened to do. Maybe you should be more concerned about ‘teaching’ children basic skills(English, Math,etc) instead of worrying about your social and political agendas!
    As for the article, its obvious you did not pass basic reading skills in school–since youwere oblivous to the first paragraph about ‘reintroducing’ the program.

    Then again, all in the left/liberal movement try to deflect all the serious issues about the economy by obsessing over social agendas. But its no surprise since the left only cares about how much of ‘other people’s money’ they can spend.

  10. Toby Schmid says:

    As a secular father of three young children, I’ll be damned if I’m going to subject my children to the social re-engineering agenda of our “co-parenting” education system. Please, please stick to teaching our children the ABC’s and 123′s and leave the moral teachings regarding social ethics, firearms, religion, climate change, LGBT, etc to the parents. The state has no business in our bedrooms, nor sexualizing Gr. 3 students.

  11. Peter says:

    Oh my goodness, why are right wingers so afraid of sexuality? It is the 21st century, please stop with the “gay agenda” comments, and the “Premier Mom” derogatory language.

  12. James says:

    What everyone should realize is that they can request that their student be exempted from attending classes that may be offensive to them.
    Muslim students have been withdrawing from current high school health classes for quite some time. They spend the class time in supervised study.
    Their parents apparently want to be the ones that teach their kids about sexuality (or have them avoid knowing anything about it )
    They must write the same tests as the other kids however.
    Just means they are not in the room to hear what they consider nasty.
    In addition, those who teach the health curriculum will resist introducing some of these topics depending on their own sensitivities

  13. ETFO member says:

    As a teacher, I have to say I would support this new health curriculum. By the age of grade 3, a lot of kids have already decided what are things that “boys” do and what “girls” do. That kind of rigid behaviour conformity doesn’t help individuals.

    Kids are also becoming a lot more sophisticated when it comes to sex and sexual terms. My 8 year old uses the term “dildo” with his friends. He also wants to know what a condom looks like. Years back, I had a grade 5 ask me if animals could be gay.

    Frankly, I think a lot of teachers will still refuse to touch a lot of these issues. They’re too controversial. Just because it’s in the curriculum doesn’t mean teachers ALWAYS get to cover it. However, putting that language in the curriculum means protecting teachers if questions about sexuality or gender identity or homosexuality do come up.

  14. Brian Stewart says:

    My god, how did we ever get by with just math, science, english and a standard load of courses? How did we ever manage to grow up, have families and become useful members of society without this grotesque sex ed indoctrination? Good lord I have no Idea what half of the stuff Wynne wants to force on our kids is and frankly I don’t want to know.

    Get back to basics so our kids can have a chance in life at finding a good job.

  15. Brian Stewart says:

    @Peter

    When you left wingers stop forcing your views down our throats.

    We don’t care who or what you sleep with just keep it to yourself.

  16. john says:

    To Ted: the 10 per cent figure is long out of date–unless, of course, you’re surveying the prison population from which Kinsey plucked his numbers. 1% to 3% is the number in acknowledged in the liberal democracies of the western world that encourage and engineer the alternate lifestyle.
    To ETFO: Those of us who are committed to not allowing moral junk into our homes via the various for-profit purveyors peddling it would rather not have the public education system do what we keep our TVs and computers from doing. Degrading minds using public funds does not aid my children’s development.

  17. Ken says:

    There are comments here about what the proposed curriculum indicated had to be presented in grade 3. Most of this misconception comes from Charles McVety claiming that eight year olds (average age of a grade 3 student) would be taught about homosexuality and anal sex. This is simply not true.

    In fact, the word “gay” is not even mentioned in the curriculum until grade eight. And it does not promote homosexuality. In fact, it does not promote sex in any fashion. For example, this is a quote from the grade eight curriculum: “They need to understand that the only 100% sure way of not becoming pregnant or getting an STI, including HIV, is not having sexual contact.”

    Before people blindly accept what McVety or anyone else says about a subject they should go to the source.

  18. Murray says:

    @ Peter…your comment…”Oh my goodness, why are right wingers so afraid of sexuality? It is the 21st century, please stop with the “gay agenda” comments, and the “Premier Mom” derogatory language.”

    I don’t think anyone said they were “afraid” of sexuality. It’s a natural thing…however, ones right as a parent to be the one who discusses this with their children instead of a government based curriculum is a fair thing to desire. I believe that teaching such things to kids is absurd. If a child wants to know about it they can ask their parents. I know for a fact that this stuff will be heard outside of school time by friends of students it’s going to happen it’s that simple. Let the parents answer the questions.

    @ETFO…I am glad you are okay with teaching suck things and your 8 year old talking about dildo’s with their friends. However, that doesn’t mean parents have to be okay with a school curriculum about the topic. I don’t think you need it in the curriculum to “protect” teachers as you just put it either. A student asks a question that isn’t suppose to be answered by you…you simply tell them to ask their parents when they get home. Don’t see how an answer like that can get you in trouble as a teacher and I am sure you can’t get in trouble for a student asking a question.

    I live here in Ontario and I thought the first time around and I still think it now that this “curriculum” is an agenda push and nothing more and should stay out of our schools.

    As for those of you who will simply take this as a “right winged” answer…not every one who sees things the same way are as you like to label them so take this as simply a concerned citizen who does not believe the school or province should be teaching children such ideals…that the parents should be responsible for it.

  19. Brian Lilley says:

    Funny thing @ Ken, I don’t see McVety’s name in the post anywhere. There is a link to a website he runs that has the full proposed 2010 curriculum posted but that was a PDF created by the Ontario Ministry of Education.

    So what are you trying to do here?

    You are trying to distract.

    Many parents would take issue teaching “gender identity” in grade 3 which is when it is introduced. If you teach the topic you must define it and explain it.

    How is that done in the document? By saying that gender is fluid and that gender identity includes – male, female, two-spirited, transgendered, transsexual, intersex.

    Is that age appropriate? As the parent of two children in grade 3 I would say no.
    You are trying to discredit those that disagree with you by building up a straw man and knocking him down. It won’t work.

  20. Big Irish says:

    Kathleen Wynn…keep your hands OFF MY CHILDREN…I dont personally give a damn if youre gay-straight-bisexual-trisexual-alien-sexual…keep your hands OFF MY CHILDREN…let them be “children”…keep your sexual agenda where it belongs…file it under F – for – filth.

  21. Larry Bennett says:

    John is right about the 2-3% figure, though if the unnatural is taught enough , young (men mostly) will likely give it a try. There is the old saying that so-and-so would screw a rock pile if he thought there was a snake in it. Not very nice, but some people will do just about anything to reach climax, especially if the conscience is compromised!

Comments are closed.