"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum
Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi
Germany. Under the British system rights are not
State-given, but God Given.
Buying
into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights,
is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will
likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days".
This is
completely FALSE. The Judges are Agents of the Crown
and they BY DEFINITION Judges
are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only PARLIAMENT
has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed
and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after
the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the laws and
customs of the various peoples of Britain.. This was done with a
view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,
into a unified body of Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners
in their administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and principles
of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a couple of
hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was
historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a
Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Instead their position to promote the "rights" of
a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, making NO distinction
between NATURAL PARENTS and wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of Victoria's
assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk Decision"endorses a
Heterosexual View of the Family and must be ignored",
legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative Child Adoption
Market They refuse to be hampered by prior obligations to that
pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United Nations and
Liberal Irwin Cotler's assertion that
the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent has
"NO RIGHTS", making the State, not
the Natural Parents the Protector of
the Child..
Without
Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
Svend Robinson (right) cries while being supported by his partner
Max Riveron. Robinson claimed "stress" caused him to steal
the jewelry he intended to give his boyfriend. Robinson continues
to practice law in BC following a deal cut with his
Special Prosecutor.
Svend's
Bill C250 added Homosexuals to the super class of groups in Canada's
retarded "Hate Law". who
can destroy in Criminal Court regular Canadians for exercising
Free Speech.
Even France has rejected Homo-marriage (preferring
France's homosexuals to emigrate to Canada?!). International societies
of Women Judges & Lawyers appear to have designated Canada as the
globe's Homosexual habitat of choice:
Meijers Latest news about globalizing Homo-Marriage & Homo-Parenting;
Coming up: 26-29 June 2005, Toronto, Canada, the conference of the
International Lesbian and Gay Law Association (ILGLaw),
Fabian Society, Communitarian
"Wolves in Sheep's' Clothing"
Globalizing National Socialism (Nazism) since 1884
In June 1989,
Gisele Marie Goudreault, 46 disobeyed a court order to hand her son
Orey over to his father, Rod Steinmann of Ponoka, who had been awarded
custody. She fled with the boy to Mexico and lived there for four months
before moving to California. ... Justice Peter Martin condemned
Goudreault's behaviour,
which prevented Orey and his father from being together during the
child's formative years. "They had the right to know and
love each other. "That possibility was totally and irrevocably
destroyed," Martin said. "What this woman did to this man and this
child is every parent's nightmare."2004-02-19
US teen 'discovers own kidnap', BBC
Darrel
should be able to sue Justice Southin PERSONALLY for DAMAGES, but will
that ever happen? All members of the Law Societies have sworn
their First Allegiance to their Society members.
Many
thanks to the
Western Standard for reporting Jeremy's Story. Jeremy is a
nominee for Equal Parenting's "Shadow-Parliament".
News 2010
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
'Groundbreaking' new law
will change definition of
family
30-year-old act not relevant
to today's reality, AG says
By Jonathan
Fowlie, Vancouver SunJuly 20,
2010
The B.C.
government plans
revolutionary changes to
family law to better
reflect the realities of
modern society.
Its
proposals to update the
30-year-old
Family
Relations Act
include revising the
legal definition of a
parent, changing
property-division rules,
making children's
interests the "only"
consideration in
parenting disputes, and
even replacing the terms
"custody" and "access"
with "guardianship" and
"parenting time."
Another key aspect of
the proposals is to
change the adversarial
aspect of separations,
making it easier for
couples to use
out-of-court options to
resolve issues such as
child custody and
division of assets.
"This is
groundbreaking,
absolutely
groundbreaking," said
Vancouver lawyer
Georgialee Lang, adding
many lawyers have wanted
to see these types of
changes for years.
"I think they've done
a very comprehensive
job."
In releasing more
than 170 pages of
recommended changes that
will be open for public
reaction and comment
until October,
Attorney-General Mike de
Jong underscored how
much families have
changed in recent years.
"Increasing numbers
of children are living
with single parents or
step-parents, the
traditional
family structure has
changed, divorce and
separation are far more
common than they once
were and we have a far
better understanding
today than perhaps we
once did about the
challenges associated
with
family violence and
the impact that conflict
has on children," he
said.
"We have
family law built
around a very
adversarial model and we
think there is a better
way -- when a
family changes or
when a relationship
comes apart -- there is
a better way to resolve
some of those issues
then rushing off to
court," said de Jong.
"We will always need
the court, but we do not
need a system that is
primarily an adversarial
system."
Under the proposed
new law, couples seeking
a court proceeding must
first demonstrate they
have considered
resolving their issues
using other means. The
law will also make the
rules around negotiated
agreements more
predictable and easier
to understand.
Reaction to the
recommendations was
immediately positive.
Tracy Porteous,
executive director of
the Ending Violence
Association, said the
government "is
taking a big step today
to increase the safety
of women and children
with respect to
enforcement of
protection orders and
looking at the best
interest of the child."
She particularly
liked the proposal to
make the best interests
of a child the "only"
consideration in
parenting disputes, and
extending the definition
of those interests to
include factors such as
the history of the
child's care,
family violence and
consideration of related
civil or criminal
proceedings.
New Democratic Party
critic for the
attorney-general Leonard
Krog said he supported
the proposed changes,
and agreed the best
place for
family law cases is
outside the court.
But he said he is
concerned the B.C.
Liberal
government will not
provide enough resources
to support people going
through mediation or
other out-of-court
settlements.
"Given [the
government's] record on
broken promises, will
they provide the kind of
financing that is needed
to support this system?
Will there be accessible
and affordable mediation
services?" he asked.
"It's all well and good
to talk about trying to
keep people out of the
courtroom, well fine,
where are you going to
put them and how much is
it going to cost them?"
De Jong invited the
public to review the
detailed recommendations
and to submit comments
before Oct. 8. He said
once the consultation is
finished,
government will
finish drafting a bill
that can be introduced
into the legislature.
Coming after four
years of consultation,
the proposed changes
reach into a variety of
areas of
family law.
The proposals would
extend the rules of
property division to
couples who have been
living together as
common-law partners for
more than two years, as
well as to any
common-law couples who
have a child together.
That change would be
significant, as the
property division aspect
of the existing
Family
Relations Act
generally does not apply
to unmarried spouses.
The proposed new law
also changes the way
property is divided in
the event of a
separation, which the
government says will
create more certainty.
Under the new scheme,
a couple would split
property owned by one or
both spouses at the time
of separation, but with
some exceptions. Those
exceptions include items
such as gifts and
inheritances to one
spouse; pre-and
post-relationship
property, and
settlements or damage
awards from tort claims
involving just one
spouse.
Under the existing
law, property eligible
for division is defined
as that "ordinarily used
for a
family purpose," a
definition many have
said is too vague.
The new proposals
also seek to add legal
clarity to situations
where more than two
people may be involved
in the conception and
birth of a child, such
as artificial
insemination or in vitro
fertilization.
The new law would
state that a birth
mother would be the
child's legal mother and
could only give up her
parental status through
either adoption or
surrogacy.
In an assisted
conception that is not a
surrogacy, the law would
presume the birth
mother's partner --
either opposite sex or
same sex -- to be the
child's other parent.
Third-party donors of
eggs, sperm or embryo
would not be considered
a legal parent, though
they would be allowed to
apply for such a
designation and the new
law would allow for more
than two legal parents
to be named.
The proposed new law
would also replace terms
like "custody" and
"access" with
"guardianship" and
"parenting time," a move
many say will lead to a
less adversarial
process.
The law would also
make child access as
much a responsibility as
a right by allowing a
court to intervene and
take action if a parent
"fails to exercise the
parenting time or
contact without notice
to the applicable
guardian."
Those interested in
seeing the
recommendations or
providing feedback can
do so at:
www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation
'Groundbreaking' new law
will change definition of
family
30-year-old act not relevant
to today's reality, AG says
By Jonathan
Fowlie, Vancouver SunJuly 20,
2010
The B.C.
government plans
revolutionary changes to
family law to better
reflect the realities of
modern society.
Its
proposals to update the
30-year-old
Family
Relations Act
include revising the
legal definition of a
parent, changing
property-division rules,
making children's
interests the "only"
consideration in
parenting disputes, and
even replacing the terms
"custody" and "access"
with "guardianship" and
"parenting time."
Another key aspect of
the proposals is to
change the adversarial
aspect of separations,
making it easier for
couples to use
out-of-court options to
resolve issues such as
child custody and
division of assets.
"This is
groundbreaking,
absolutely
groundbreaking," said
Vancouver lawyer
Georgialee Lang, adding
many lawyers have wanted
to see these types of
changes for years.
"I think they've done
a very comprehensive
job."
In releasing more
than 170 pages of
recommended changes that
will be open for public
reaction and comment
until October,
Attorney-General Mike de
Jong underscored how
much families have
changed in recent years.
"Increasing numbers
of children are living
with single parents or
step-parents, the
traditional
family structure has
changed, divorce and
separation are far more
common than they once
were and we have a far
better understanding
today than perhaps we
once did about the
challenges associated
with
family violence and
the impact that conflict
has on children," he
said.
"We have
family law built
around a very
adversarial model and we
think there is a better
way -- when a
family changes or
when a relationship
comes apart -- there is
a better way to resolve
some of those issues
then rushing off to
court," said de Jong.
"We will always need
the court, but we do not
need a system that is
primarily an adversarial
system."
Under the proposed
new law, couples seeking
a court proceeding must
first demonstrate they
have considered
resolving their issues
using other means. The
law will also make the
rules around negotiated
agreements more
predictable and easier
to understand.
Reaction to the
recommendations was
immediately positive.
Tracy Porteous,
executive director of
the Ending Violence
Association, said the
government "is
taking a big step today
to increase the safety
of women and children
with respect to
enforcement of
protection orders and
looking at the best
interest of the child."
She particularly
liked the proposal to
make the best interests
of a child the "only"
consideration in
parenting disputes, and
extending the definition
of those interests to
include factors such as
the history of the
child's care,
family violence and
consideration of related
civil or criminal
proceedings.
New Democratic Party
critic for the
attorney-general Leonard
Krog said he supported
the proposed changes,
and agreed the best
place for
family law cases is
outside the court.
But he said he is
concerned the B.C.
Liberal
government will not
provide enough resources
to support people going
through mediation or
other out-of-court
settlements.
"Given [the
government's] record on
broken promises, will
they provide the kind of
financing that is needed
to support this system?
Will there be accessible
and affordable mediation
services?" he asked.
"It's all well and good
to talk about trying to
keep people out of the
courtroom, well fine,
where are you going to
put them and how much is
it going to cost them?"
De Jong invited the
public to review the
detailed recommendations
and to submit comments
before Oct. 8. He said
once the consultation is
finished,
government will
finish drafting a bill
that can be introduced
into the legislature.
Coming after four
years of consultation,
the proposed changes
reach into a variety of
areas of
family law.
The proposals would
extend the rules of
property division to
couples who have been
living together as
common-law partners for
more than two years, as
well as to any
common-law couples who
have a child together.
That change would be
significant, as the
property division aspect
of the existing
Family
Relations Act
generally does not apply
to unmarried spouses.
The proposed new law
also changes the way
property is divided in
the event of a
separation, which the
government says will
create more certainty.
Under the new scheme,
a couple would split
property owned by one or
both spouses at the time
of separation, but with
some exceptions. Those
exceptions include items
such as gifts and
inheritances to one
spouse; pre-and
post-relationship
property, and
settlements or damage
awards from tort claims
involving just one
spouse.
Under the existing
law, property eligible
for division is defined
as that "ordinarily used
for a
family purpose," a
definition many have
said is too vague.
The new proposals
also seek to add legal
clarity to situations
where more than two
people may be involved
in the conception and
birth of a child, such
as artificial
insemination or in vitro
fertilization.
The new law would
state that a birth
mother would be the
child's legal mother and
could only give up her
parental status through
either adoption or
surrogacy.
In an assisted
conception that is not a
surrogacy, the law would
presume the birth
mother's partner --
either opposite sex or
same sex -- to be the
child's other parent.
Third-party donors of
eggs, sperm or embryo
would not be considered
a legal parent, though
they would be allowed to
apply for such a
designation and the new
law would allow for more
than two legal parents
to be named.
The proposed new law
would also replace terms
like "custody" and
"access" with
"guardianship" and
"parenting time," a move
many say will lead to a
less adversarial
process.
The law would also
make child access as
much a responsibility as
a right by allowing a
court to intervene and
take action if a parent
"fails to exercise the
parenting time or
contact without notice
to the applicable
guardian."
Those interested in
seeing the
recommendations or
providing feedback can
do so at:
www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation
The B.C. government plans revolutionary changes to family law to
better reflect the realities of modern society.
Its proposals to update the 30-year-old
Family Relations Act include revising the legal definition of a
parent, changing property-division rules, making children's
interests the "only" consideration in parenting disputes, and
even replacing the terms "custody" and "access" with
"guardianship" and "parenting time."
Another key aspect of the proposals is to
change the adversarial aspect of separations, making it easier
for couples to use out-of-court options to resolve issues such
as child custody and division of assets.
"This is groundbreaking, absolutely
groundbreaking," said Vancouver lawyer Georgialee Lang, adding
many lawyers have wanted to see these types of changes for
years. "I think they've done a very comprehensive job."
In releasing more than 170 pages of recommended changes that
will be open for public reaction and comment until October,
Attorney-General Mike de Jong underscored how much families have
changed in recent years.
"Increasing numbers of children are living with single parents
or step-parents, the traditional family structure has changed,
divorce and separation are far more common than they once were
and we have a far better understanding today than perhaps we
once did about the challenges associated with family violence
and the impact that conflict has on children," he said.
"We have family law built around a very adversarial model and we
think there is a better way -- when a family changes or when a
relationship comes apart -- there is a better way to resolve
some of those issues then rushing off to court," said de Jong.
"We will always need the court, but we do not need a system that
is primarily an adversarial system."
Under the proposed new law, couples seeking a court proceeding
must first demonstrate they have considered resolving their
issues using other means. The law will also make the rules
around negotiated agreements more predictable and easier to
understand.
Reaction to the recommendations was immediately positive.
Tracy Porteous, executive director of the Ending Violence
Association, said the government "is taking a big step today to
increase the safety of women and children with respect to
enforcement of protection orders and looking at the best
interest of the child."
She particularly liked the proposal to make the best interests
of a child the "only" consideration in parenting disputes, and
extending the definition of those interests to include factors
such as the history of the child's care, family violence and
consideration of related civil or criminal proceedings.
New Democratic Party critic for the attorney-general Leonard
Krog said he supported the proposed changes, and agreed the best
place for family law cases is outside the court.
But he said he is concerned the B.C. Liberal government will not
provide enough resources to support people going through
mediation or other out-of-court settlements.
"Given [the government's] record on broken promises, will they
provide the kind of financing that is needed to support this
system? Will there be accessible and affordable mediation
services?" he asked.
"It's all well and good to talk about trying to keep people out
of the courtroom, well fine, where are you going to put them and
how much is it going to cost them?"
De Jong invited the public to review the detailed
recommendations and to submit comments before Oct. 8. He said
once the consultation is finished, government will finish
drafting a bill that can be introduced into the legislature.
Coming after four years of consultation, the proposed changes
reach into a variety of areas of family law.
The proposals would extend the rules of property division to
couples who have been living together as common-law partners for
more than two years, as well as to any common-law couples who
have a child together.
That change would be significant, as the property division
aspect of the existing Family Relations Act generally does not
apply to unmarried spouses.
The proposed new law also changes the way property is divided in
the event of a separation, which the government says will create
more certainty.
Under the new scheme, a couple would split property owned by one
or both spouses at the time of separation, but with some
exceptions. Those exceptions include items such as gifts and
inheritances to one spouse; pre-and post-relationship property,
and settlements or damage awards from tort claims involving just
one spouse.
Under the existing law, property eligible for division is
defined as that "ordinarily used for a family purpose," a
definition many have said is too vague.
The new proposals also seek to add legal clarity to situations
where more than two people may be involved in the conception and
birth of a child, such as artificial insemination or in vitro
fertilization.
The new law would state that a birth mother would be the child's
legal mother and could only give up her parental status through
either adoption or surrogacy.
In an assisted conception that is not a surrogacy, the law would
presume the birth mother's partner -- either opposite sex or
same sex -- to be the child's other parent.
Third-party donors of eggs, sperm or embryo would not be
considered a legal parent, though they would be allowed to apply
for such a designation and the new law would allow for more than
two legal parents to be named.
The proposed new law would also replace terms like "custody" and
"access" with "guardianship" and "parenting time," a move many
say will lead to a less adversarial process.
The law would also make child access as much a responsibility as
a right by allowing a court to intervene and take action if a
parent "fails to exercise the parenting time or contact without
notice to the applicable guardian."
Reforms to B.C.'s Family
Act means government will recognize three-parent
relationships.
Steve Burri's two daughters are always outnumbered when
it comes to arguing with their parents.
That's because Jazz, 17, and Zea, 7, have two moms and a
dad, something the B.C. government has said it may
legally recognize as one of many proposed reforms to
B.C.'s Family Relations Act.
Under the current law, the government will not
recognize all partners in a three-parent relationship as
equal guardians of a child -- only the two biological
parents.
Under the new proposal, however, the law could
recognize same-sex couples and the biological mother or
father of their child as equal parents if all three
parties set out that wish in writing before the birth of
their child.
Burri and his former wife, Wendy, were married for
three years before having their first daughter, Jazz.
Four years after she was born, however, Steve and
Wendy ended their marriage and both came out as
homosexual.
Years later when Steve, Wendy and Wendy's partner
Coreen decided in 2002 to have another child, they
agreed that Steve and Coreen would be the child's
biological parents and all three adults would share
parenting roles for both children.
"At the time we avoided going before a judge because
the state of the law was so ill-defined and we felt we
were best able to manage our own lives," said Burri.
And so, with two biological parents and one "legal
guardian" listed on her birth certificate, Zea was given
her father's last name as her middle name and the last
names of her moms as a hyphenated last name.
But while Burri still lives within minutes of Wendy
and Coreen and evenly splits custody of the children
between the two homes, he said all three still harbour
doubts about such important things as whether their
legal wills will be recognized under current two-parent
laws.
"We've always been able to discuss our situation and
agree on things but we've always had concerns that if
something were to happen to one or more of us ... like a
death or an illness, then the law may not follow the
direction we'd want it to," said Burri. "Because it's
not clearly defined when you have a situation with more
than two parents, we've always been careful to let all
of our friends and family know what our intentions are."
John-Paul Boyd, a Vancouver lawyer specializing in
family law, called the government's proposal for
allowing more than two people full parental rights a
revolutionary departure from the province's 1850s-based
marriage laws.
He said he'd be surprised if such an idea had even
been mentioned anywhere else in Canada. "If these
changes are accepted, it will enshrine the legal concept
that there can be more than two parents [in a family]
and that is groundbreaking."
As they stood Monday, the proposed "parenthood"
changes in the government's report would still require a
written contract signed by all three parties before the
birth of the child for all three to be considered legal
parents.
Burri said that while he is optimistic about the
proposed changes to B.C.'s marriage laws, the
written-contract clause won't help most existing
three-parent families.
"I don't know that we could find a document before
the birth of our daughter that shows in writing our
intentions, although it was clear among ourselves as
parents as well as our friends and families that that
was what we were aiming for," said Burri. He added that
they had set out specific conditions with each other,
such as an agreement that they'd all live together for
at least two years after Zea's birth, after which they'd
be neighbours.
"We'd hope the proposals would be retroactive or that
there'd be a capacity to make them retroactive so that,
although our daughter is seven years old, we'd be able
to show that all three of us are legal parents to our
two children."
Family-law reforms pushing conflict resolution out of the
courtroom,
Jul. 19, 2010
Calling the current family-court system “the
most expensive dispute resolution” we have,
B.C. Attorney-General
Mike de Jong has released draft reforms to family law that
include a new emphasis on ways to resolve issues without going
to court.
Mr. de Jong said Monday he isn’t aiming to cut costs with the
reforms, part of the first major review of the
Family Relations Act since the 1970s. Rather, he said
in an interview, it’s time for change to take account of
changing family dynamics and realities over the past three
decades.
“In the past 30 years, relationships have changed, society’s
approach to relationships and what should occur when they break
down has changed. We have a statute that determines the law in
an area that affects more people and more families than probably
any other area of the law, and it’s out of date,” he said.
“The modernization of the statute is important.”
Immigration judge <Steve
Ellis> sentenced,
July 29, 2010
Steve Ellis, a former
immigration judge in Ontario, is sentenced for trying to coerce
sex from a refugee claimant in exchange for citizenship.
Ontario premier <Dalton McGuinty>
defends sex-ed curriculum, Apr. 20, 2010
"We
[can] provide it in a format and in a venue in which we have
some control," Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said
of Ontario's new sex education curriculum.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty defended the
province’s
new sex education curriculum Tuesday, saying children as
young as eight years old should be learning about a variety of
issues, including gender identity and sexual orientation.
“I think I speak with an understanding of
the information available to children today.
They
are going to get this information. We [can] provide it in
a format and in a venue in which we have some control, or they
can just get it entirely on their own and be informed by
potentially uninformed sources like their friends at school.”
The revised curriculum, which will be implemented in Ontario
schools beginning in the fall, will see Grade 3 students being
taught about gender identity and sexual orientation. This is the
first time this topic has been specified in the sex education
curriculum.
Students in Grade 6
will learn about masturbation and wet dreams while those in
Grade 7 will be taught about oral and anal sex.
The curriculum was developed after more than a year of
consultations between academics, students, educators and
ministries from other provinces. For example, children learn
about puberty, including menstruation, in Grade 4 in schools in
B.C. and Alberta.
Rev. Ekron Malcolm with the
Institute for Canadian Values said Tuesday that he and a
number of other “family-focused” groups have launched a campaign
against the new curriculum and are set to protest in Toronto on
May 10.
Rev. Malcolm said he has received more than 200 e-mails and
letters of support from concerned parents across the province,
prompting him and Charles McVety, the president of Canada
Christian College, to start an online petition.
“I can’t imagine a child now has to question their gender,
question their identity,” he said. “I think there’s enough
confusion among our children in the world, for them now having
to question themselves. This is where I would draw the line.”
Rev. Malcolm said his group is against the topic of sexual
diversity in elementary schools, and objects to teachings on
oral and anal sex until kids reach an older age.
“Schools don’t need to be teaching my children about sexual
orientation or sex education. Those decisions should be left to
the family, to the parents, to guide children. These topics can
be taught at the high school level, at the university level,
when children can make up their minds.”
Gary Wheeler, a spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of Education
said the curriculum covers a variety of topics, including
emotional and physical health, along with a focus on “the
uniqueness of the individual.” The aim of the document is to
provide teachers with clearer language and suggestions on how to
approach these subjects in classes.
“If there is a component of any course, in conflict with the
personal beliefs of the parents, something they don’t believe
in, the parents can withdraw the student from that component of
the course,” Mr. Wheeler said.
Alex McKay with the Sex Information and Education Council of
Canada said although the teachings seem controversial, the move
only puts Ontario in line with sex education curricula from
other provinces.
“It is developmentally appropriate for students in Grade 3 to
have an awareness that not all people are heterosexual,” he
said. Before any type of education takes place in the schools,
many kids are going to be walking through the doors with that
awareness anyway. The curriculum is appropriate and knowledge is
preferable to ignorance.”
Mr. McKay said this new outline for teachers is based on “sound
scientific education methods.”
“The issue is that we live in a culture that is saturated with
sexual imagery and that it is more important than ever that
young people have a solid foundation of basic knowledge about
human development and sexuality, and that this curriculum helps
to deliver that,” he said. “It would be compromising the health
and well-being of our youth if we shy away from providing this
important information and skill set.”
It turns out
Rahim Jaffer mightn’t be the only person in Canada thinking
he was hung out to dry last week. The abrupt spin-a-rama
by Premier
Dalton McGuinty on his government’s proposed
new sex-ed curriculum left a few of his ministers and staff
flapping in the breeze.
The premier himself spent Tuesday explaining why the initiative
— which
would
have introduced Grade 1 pupils to the correct terminology for
genitalia and Grade 3 students to lessons on homosexuality
— was the right thing to do.
On Wednesday, his Education Minister,
Leona Dombrowsky, spoke at length on the merits of the move.
Not least of the points she made was how thorough the
consultation process had been. “We began work in 2007. We
have consulted extensively with all partners, certainly
including parents. We have received some 2,400 responses to the
curriculum document.
“This document is not one that was devised totally in ministry
offices,” she said. “We received a lot of input from people. We
have listened to them.”
There may be those opposed to the plan — “the extent of
consultation notwithstanding,” she said — but “I have the
responsibility of talking about why it’s important to change” a
curriculum that’s a dozen years old and has been overtaken by
revolutionary change in media and society.
On Thursday, while the premier was in London, cabinet minister
Sandra Pupatello firmly carried the same message in the
Legislature.
“Tell
me you are not in the Dark Ages,” she scolded PC critics.
Former education minister
Kathleen Wynne, the first openly lesbian cabinet minister in
Ontario history, called the PCs“despicable.” “You’re
aligning yourself with homophobes,”she shouted.
At noon on Thursday, all seemed on course, a McGuinty staffer
distributing a letter from the Ottawa Catholic School Board
saying it “was not opposed to the new curriculum.”
Just a few hours later, McGuinty announced his conversion on the
road to southwestern Ontario. The new curriculum was being
withdrawn, he said, to be given “a serious rethink.”
It’s easy to see the politics at play. McGuinty already
has trouble looming with the implementation July 1 of the new
Harmonized Sales Tax. He’s in the midst of a war with
pharmacists in the province. The last thing he needed was a
third front opening on the incendiary battleground of schools,
sex and religion.
Politicians are always loath to reverse themselves. The same
opposition critics who demand a change will immediately denounce
a government as weak and vacillating the minute it does so.
McGuinty can, as he has, portray it as a simple matter of having
listened to the public and responded.
The trouble is that the reasons he gave for doing so rendered
laughable the words his ministers were uttering just hours
before.
It would be entirely understandable for Dombrowsky, Pupatello
and Wynne — three of his strongest women ministers — to feel
embarrassed by McGuinty.
Dombrowsky talked about extensive consultation. McGuinty said it
was inadequate.
Pupatello said opponents were in the Dark Ages. If so, her boss
apparently needs a flashlight too.
Wynne accused opponents of siding with homophobes. Within hours,
McGuinty aligned himself with them, not her.
It would hardly be unreasonable if ministers so burned found
themselves less eager to sell the next bright idea the boss puts
on their plate.
The premier might have rid himself of a political hot potato.
But he’s probably got some steamed colleagues on his hands.
Jim Coyle's provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday
and Friday.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.