Note: Not all opinions expressed in articles posted on this website are necessarily identical with positions taken by British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life.

An Analysis of Some Aspects of the Provincially-Approved Teachers’ Guide Making Space: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice throughout the K-12 Curriculum

“First a ripple, then a wave” —to borrow a phrase from an old commercial. The release of the elective Social Justice 12 Draft Course may have been considered a ripple: a minor result of the Corren Settlement Agreement, having the potential to directly affect only a few students (though its indirect effects have the potential to be much greater).

Now, with the publishing of the approved teachers’ guide Making Space, we see the first wave resulting from this same agreement, which gave two pro-homosexuality activists a special role as prior advisors regarding all provincial curricula before they are released to the general public. Making Space, we are told, “is designed to help K-12 teachers in virtually every subject area find ways to promote awareness and understanding of the diversity that exists within our society . . . , ¹ ” The statement indicates the intention of its authors to affect the whole school curriculum. Promoting awareness and understanding of the diversity that exists within our society sounds like a laudable aim, but we need to ask, “Just what kind of awareness and what sort of understanding does this document encourage?”

Among the differences students should be concerned with according to Making Space (or Teachers’ Guide) are those of religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and gender identity.² So we see that some of the topics for consideration are delicate, and we need to examine how they are likely to be treated by a teacher following the promptings of the Guide. The researcher who is familiar with the use of the term “diversity” by various activists will want to inquire just how wide-ranging the diversity is that will be studied and what attitudes the teacher is expected to inculcate in the process of leading students in such a study.

There is no denying that some of the aims of the Guide are desirable: for example, “to ensure that differences among learners do not impede their participation in school, their achievement of prescribed learning outcomes, or their capacity to become contributing members of society.³But any positive aspects should not blind us to the way in which the guide empowers the would-be propagandist in the classroom.

The Guide provides the teacher with a “rating instrument” entitled “Self-Assessment: How I Address Diversity and Social Justice in my Teaching Practice.”⁴ One of the statements this rating instrument provides for the teacher to use as a means of evaluating his teaching practice is this one: “The guest speakers and visitors that form part of my instruction reflect the diversity within the local community.” This is in keeping with another criterion given: “My classroom activities [are] designed to promote social justice address and are inclusive of all forms of diversity (visible and less visible).” One can readily see the advantages of students being exposed to racial diversity when that is relevant. But the idea that classroom activities and guest speakers should reflect all forms of diversity found within a community poses a problem. Are all forms of diversity really to be represented? Surely not the diversity represented by those advocating the free use of recreational drugs, for example. It is unlikely that the authors of Making Space had such advocates in mind, but if the reader is familiar with the practice of bringing in speakers to reflect diversity in sexual orientation, he can readily see one likely effect of the policy of having speakers reflect all forms of community diversity.

One of the statements contained in the “ranking instrument” seems to suggest that the teacher’s value as a teacher may depend on his outside activities (ironical in light of the treatment meted out to Dr. Chris Kempling for his outside activities). The sentence is: “I support various national and international initiatives that promote diversity and social justice (e.g., International Women’s Day, International Day to Eliminate Racism, National Aboriginal Day, International Day of Disabled Persons, International Human Rights Day), and promote the activities planned within the school and district during that week [sic].” This sentence provides, in effect, a criterion for a teacher’s likely effectiveness.

While one may value a teacher’s participation in some of these activities, one questions whether it is a good idea to have a government document present such participation as a measure of a person’s suitability for teaching. Also, we note that these are but examples. Would participation include going to “gay pride” parades, which the school-sponsored clubs usually known as gay-straight alliances have encouraged students to attend?

We recognize the worth of promoting respect for individuals of widely varying kinds of diversity such as diversity of race or ability, for example. Nevertheless, we know that teaching respect for diversity has been used as a cover for inculcating a favourable attitude towards harmful forms of diversity. Principally we have seen, in recent years that it has been used to inculcate a favourable attitude towards sexual diversity in the form of homosexual activities. So if our suspicions are aroused by the repeated use in the Guide of the term “homophobia,” for example, we believe that we are not showing paranoia but exercising our judgement in the light of what we know is being advocated in educational circles.

That these suspicions are justified is confirmed for us in the latter part of the document we are considering. In “Appendix A: Learning Resources,” for Kindergarten to Grade 3, the document lists the book Asha’s Mums (infamous in British Columbia for its being promoted by pro-homosexuality activists in Surrey School District, an action that resulted in a Supreme Court of Canada case). ⁵

The bias of the authors of this document shows clearly in the list of websites given as references. The website addresses of “Status of Women Canada” is given, but no reference is given to any “REAL Women” website. The Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC (GALEBC) website is given, but none for any group with opposing views.

Throughout the document the Ministry of Education sidesteps acceptance of responsibility for their promotion of certain viewpoints and organizations in contrast to those of differing points of views. Regarding the website resources the teacher is reminded: “As with all supplementary resources, local approval is required before use with students...” (This is an appropriate reminder in itself, but when combined with the bias shown towards certain points of view, the repeated use of such disclaimers amounts to an abdication of responsibility.)

Sean Murphy shown admirable perception in writing the following ⁶ (Though it was written regarding the draft guide, his remarks may be applied also to the approved guide now published.):

             Despite the language used in Making Space, Giving Voice ("teaching diversity and social justice," "performance
            standards," "expectations"), it is not part of the provincial curriculum, which is limited to what the Ministry of Education purports to define
            specifically in ‘learning outcomes.’ Thus, it does not direct schools or teachers about what must be taught in the classroom. As its subtitles
            indicate, it is only a guide. From the perspective of the Ministry of Education, this is probably a convenient arrangement for several
            reasons.

First of all, while Making Space, Giving Voice conforms to the requirements of the Corren Agreement, the Minister can still assure parents that the curriculum is not being changed, even as her Ministry advises teachers to use lessons in other subjects to "[further] a social justice agenda."

Second, the document provides a licence for teachers with a particular "social justice agenda" to impose it on their students, but does not require anything of others. This satisfies the Correns et al without the risk of generating opposition from teachers who do not agree with them . . . .

Within state schools (or compliant independent schools), Making Space, Giving Voice could be used as a basis for the legal and professional persecution of teachers who, in whole or in part, reject the Correns’ agenda for their students. A department head could impose it as a standard to be applied in teacher evaluations, threatening opportunities for advancement by those unwilling to inculcate approval of homosexual conduct and relationships. Activist teachers sharing the Correns’ agenda (or others) can cite Making Space, Giving Voice to pressure colleagues, department heads and administrators, and to overawe, mislead or intimidate parents who challenge them, but who are not aware of the distinction between prescribed curriculum and a teachers’ guide.

The course of action the Ministry of Education has taken may be legally clever, but it should not blind citizens to the fact that it has produced a document which, if adopted, is capable of exercising tremendous power in enabling activists to use the schools of British Columbia for propaganda purposes.

In spite of the innocuous or even commendable elements in Making Space, this document can be compared to an angel-food cake with poison pills. The public may be impressed by the innocuous or desirable elements in the Guide, but for students the indoctrination promoted in it could result in their ingesting harmful doses of dangerous propaganda.

E.S. (Ted) Hewlett
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Endnotes:

¹Making Space: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice throughout the K-12 Curriculum: “Introduction and Context: Background and Rationale,” P. 3 online. Links to the various sections of the guide are given at: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/program_delivery/ss.htm .

²Ibid., P. 3
³ Ibid., P. 4

⁴Making Space, Pp. 7-8

⁵For a comment on this case see: http://www.bcptl.org/gay.htm#Landolt

⁶ The quotation following is from Sean Murphy of the Catholic Civil Rights League, from a draft section of a review that was shared during an exchange of views about Making Space, Giving Voice. (A footnote given in his draft is omitted from the quotation.) Readers may contact Mr. Murphy by e-mailing him at ccrl-west@shaw.ca for the complete and final version of his review.

The following guest editorial was written by a member of the executive of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life:

A Chain of Consequences--Exodus from the Public Schools

The re-definition of the institution of Marriage was a devastating blow to society – the moral chaos that we are now left with severely impacts every aspect of our lives – our children and grandchildren, parental rights, education, health and health care, and finally the economy.

We now see a trend in education that is leaving public schools with an ever-increasing number of dissatisfied and upset parents and citizens. Responsible parents are moving their children from public to private schools, or even into homeschooling, despite the added expense and burden it places on them. As the education ministries throughout Canada try to exert an ever-increasing pro-homosexual influence in public schools by way of pro-gay curriculum, they will continue to see the schools emptying out.

What will the federal and provincial governments do? Will they follow a path of true democracy (as touted by many politicians), OR will they increase the pressure by way of human rights commissions, suppression of truth (in public schools), and bills to muzzle Canadians (hate crimes legislation)?

Canadians will now be left on their own to protect their children from those who would indoctrinate them--unless governments will take the responsible course and protect parental rights.

Deanna Fernandes

References for the article immediately above:

Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, March 25, 2008, "
Parents urged to protest teacher guide on
diversity: Catholic Civil Rights League claims
guide conflicts with values"

"Parents Opt to Send Children to Private Schools" (republished in CanadianChristianity.ca)

A Backgrounder
on the Motion Picture Brokeback Mountain

[This backgrounder is presented in view of the fact that a lesson aid has been posted on a British Columbia Teachers' Federation website. This factual backgrounder may help to decide if they should have their students see the film. We think parents should read it to see if they want their offspring to see the film.-- Editor of this website]

Brokeback Mountain is an Ang Lee directed adaptation of Annie Proulx's short
story, depicting the homosexual love affair of two Wyoming cowboys in the
1960's. Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) first
hook up while herding sheep one summer on the flanks of Brokeback Mountain.

Their initial sexual encounter (Ennis sodomizes Jack) is not graphic but there
is no doubt about what is occurring. [Teachers may wish to explain that there
is still a law on the books in Canada outlawing sodomy for those under the age
of 18--both sexes.] There are numerous passionate mouth on mouth kisses in
this scene and throughout the movie. The men have been hired to take turns
watching the sheep at night, but their desire to spend nights together results
in predators attacking the flock. Later on, when Jack re-applies for his old
job, his employer, played by Randy Quaid, refuses to re-hire him, citing his
failure to carry out his assigned duties. [A good object lesson for young people, actually.]

There is a considerable amount of heterosexual sex as well. Jack meets
Lureen, played by Anne Hathaway. She strips off her top exposing her breasts in the back seat of her T-bird on her first meeting with Jack. They
eventually marry. Ennis marries Alma (Michelle Williams) and has two
children. They have two bedroom scenes including one where Williams is nude from the waist up.

The level of obscenity and profanity in this film is prolific, with the F-word
being used by most characters on a frequent basis. All of the main characters
smoke cigarettes heavily, and drink whisky and beer frequently. One scene has Jack and Ennis toking on the same joint while they drink whiskey. There are several fight scenes, and two dead bodies, beaten to death with tire irons,
are depicted. Ennis describes the death of one man who was dragged behind a pick-up truck by his penis until it severed. His father takes Ennis (age 9)
and his brother to view the corpse, lying in a ditch, as an object lesson.

Ennis and Jack carry on their adulterous affair over 20 years, cheating on
their wives in regular "fishing trips". Alma is devastated and eventually divorces Ennis. Teachers may wish to comment that approximately 85% of
bisexual men do not inform their wives of their orientation prior to their
marriages. Jack regularly accesses homosexual prostitutes across the border
in Mexico. He also carries on another homosexual affair with a business
associate, the husband of his wife's friend.

On the bright side, Alberta looks beautiful as the scenic backdrop for the
film. In short, Brokeback Mountain is a strong story, well acted, especially
by Ledger and Williams. In the US it has a Restricted rating. There is
graphic violence, graphic sex, frequent male and female nudity, drug use, high
levels of tobacco and alcohol use, frequent obscene and profane language,
themes of adultery and promiscuous sex, including use of prostitutes.

If any colleague runs this backgrounder by their principal, and still gets approval for their field trip, please let me know and I will send them a box
of licorice cigars.

Chris Kempling
Quesnel

Resolving Canada's crisis in education

Education in Canada is in a crisis. The crisis is national in scope-even
international. Therefore the solutions will have to be broader than the
jurisdiction over education given by the Constitution to the provinces.

The worst of the crisis is at the post-secondary level, but because the
universities train our elementary and secondary teachers - and our lawyers
(who become our judges) and journalists - the effect is felt throughout the
educational system and throughout society.

The crisis is ideological, but the effects are intellectual, moral, and
economic.

The cause and shape of the crisis was brilliantly introduced in 1980 by
Canadian educator Dr. Kathleen Gow in her exposé of "values clarification"
in her book Yes, Virginia, There is Right and Wrong.

That was followed by the late Professor Allan Bloom in his seminal 1987 book
The Closing of the American Mind.

Then came Dinesh D'Sousa's 1992 exposé of Political Correctness on campus
Illiberal Education and Martin Anderson's Impostors in the Temple in that
same year, and in 1993 William Kilpatrick's penetrating Why Johnny Can't
Tell Right from Wrong, in which he stated "Educational fads come and go, but
some stay long enough to do substantial harm."

Thos books were followed by Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals and Shadow
University by Professors Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silvergate, both
published in 1998.

These books, all by serious academics, take several different approaches -
from the corrupting influence of "values clarification" and the
anti-intellectualism of postmodernism, to the violation of students' civil
rights and intellectual freedoms by tenured 1960s-era radical professors.
But they all have two things in common: they all warn of the corrupting
influence of the illiberal education Establishment - and they were all
ignored by that same Establishment.

Over the years, the education Establishment, lavishly funded by the federal
governments of Canada and the USA, has built itself into an almost
unassailable fortress. From that fortress, it has resolutely attacked the
foundations of morality and civic responsibility upon which this nation and
western civilization were founded and built.

Students who dare to think for themselves are ridiculed, and their grades
are slashed; those who conform to the rebellious 1960s ethic of "flower
power" win the professors' approval - and become Teaching Assistants who
perpetuate the disinformation while the tenured professors do research,
lecturing and writing. Some, like Gerald Hanlon of Ryerson, supplement their
salaries by prostitution.

The politically correct atmosphere on university campuses has many sacred
cows: killing you baby is a "right"; homosexuality is described as "normal"
and a "civil right"; business, free enterprise and capitalism are "bad";
western civilization is "racist, oppressive, patriarchal and just dead
wrong"; socialism, communism and rebellion are "progressive". And so on and on and on...

Alan Bloom, who was still teaching philosophy at the University of Chicago
when The Closing of the American Mind was published, said there is only one
thing a professor can be sure of as he faces his freshman class: almost
every one of them has been taught to believe that there are no absolutes -
absolutely not! To them, "tolerance" is the only real virtue - and they will
not tolerate being told that there are any other virtues!

It's absolutely imperative that Canadians understand that unless this
anti-intellectual stronghold over "education" is broken, Canadian society
and western civilization will not survive.

How can the stranglehold of political correctness and postmodernism be
broken? The best answer is to find a way to stimulate true academic freedom,
in place of the fake variety that now dominates the nation's campuses. And
the best path towards that goal is through the introduction of free-market
economics into the fiefdoms of academe.

Because the Constitution gives provinces jurisdiction over education, the
federal government cannot legislate a change - even if we had a government
that understood the problem and/or cared, which none of the parties now in
Parliament seem able to do.

However, because the provinces have already agreed to accept . . . nearly 80 percent of post-secondary education, the federal government can accomplish a significant change merely by altering the mechanism for delivery of those funds: by giving education vouchers to the parents of . . . secondary students, and to students themselves for post-secondary education (including technical and trades training and apprenticeship).

The "consumers" of education could then direct those funds to the schools
that will provide an education they - the parents and students - consider
worthwhile.

Under such a regime, many parents and students would choose private (and
most often Christian) education; since the funds would be going directly to
the students and their parents, their governments could not mandate
anti-social courses, such as the study of "intergenerational sex",
anti-Christian bigotry and revisionist history... and schools would find
that such programs would no longer be useful. Indeed, the continuation of
the pap that dominates most of the "soft" sciences would threaten the
survival of those schools.

And that would be a good thing.

By RON GRAY CHPLeader@chp.ca

The following article by Royal Hamel, is addressed to his fellow-Christians--as will be immediately obvious to the reader.

CASTING OUT DARKNESS

By Royal Hamel

Recently it has come to my attention that only about 50% of Christians ever bother to vote. Anecdotal, to be sure, but from my own experience entirely believable. How else can we account for the fact that we live in a country that kills unborn babies, experiments on tiny human life, has now institutionalized homosexual “marriage”, and is considering legalizing prostitution?

Many conservative Christians believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and that all they need to do is just hang on until Jesus comes. They would argue that the only lasting help for the world is the preaching of the gospel, so why be concerned about lesser enterprises like getting involved in the great moral and political issues of our country. Many of these same Christians might agree that we should pray about moral issues, but would be very reticent about political activism.

The tragedy of the above portrait is that it doesn’t square with the New Testament. To abandon the world for individualistic piety denies Jesus’s call to be salt and light. When Christians abdicate their civic duty, and give over the power structures to secular humanists they effectively refuse Jesus call to, “love our neighbour as ourself.” For when politicians decree abortion a right, while Christians sit on their hands, we have failed to love our unborn neighbour. And when we cede political control to moral relativists, we set the stage where one day the daughter of our neighbour may be enticed into prostitution at a local legalized brothel. Yet, Christians might have blocked that brothel had they bothered to vote.

Institutionalized evil laughs at passive, pusillanimous Christians. Jesus doesn’t. He weeps.

Fact is we are called not only to speak the gospel; we are called to live it. And the faithful living of it demands that believers involve themselves in their society to bring about substantial healing. Note that full healing must wait until the coming of Jesus himself. But lives that are salt-bearing and light-giving will bring significant healing to a sin-sick world at the present time. Faulty logic confuses many Christians at this point. For far too many say something like, “The real hope of the world is the preaching of the gospel, and that’s what we must do”. Now while it’s true that the ultimate hope of the world is Jesus Christ, it is error to imply that the Christian is to be involved only in preaching and teaching. For this is not an either/or proposition. It is a both/and proposition. Believers are called to preach and teach Jesus, but they are also called to live as disciples, called to love their neighbour, called to be salt and light to a world that needs both. To do only one is disobedience to the Master.

Francis Schaeffer, pastor, theologian, and founder of L’Abri Fellowship, saw this so clearly some 25 years ago. He was concerned about the loss of moral consensus in the USA particularly regarding abortion. And he was questioning the lack of participation from Bible-believing Christians. In an address to Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida in 1982 he said the following: “We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator… have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!”

Schaeffer’s words relating to the United States could just as well be applied to Canada over these last 25 years. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that our country is not irretrievably lost. In fact it is not. But the present moment may be the last opportunity for change. For we are in the midst of an election that will have weighty consequences for years to come. If ever there was a time for “salt and light” people to become involved in politics, study the issues, and to vote only for candidates who will uphold righteous standards, that time is now.

May God help us as believers to repent of our vast silence. And may we have courage to shine light into cultural darkness. For if Canadian Christians will leave behind their sorry voting record, and faithfully go to the polls, they may well change the future of Canada.

A Brief of the British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

to the Board of School Trustees of Surrey School District

Why Surrey School Board Ought Not to Approve Pro-Homosexuality Books and Other Pro-Homosexuality Resources for Use
as Teaching Materials in the School District

Introduction of our Position

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is an organization with members in many parts of British Columbia, including Surrey School District. One of our stated purposes is “to support the legitimate rights of parents as the prime educators of their children to determine the nature of their children’s education.” We have followed with great interest and concern the issue of whether the public schools should approve materials promoting a favourable view of homosexuality. It is our view that Surrey School Board was right at the time of its refusal to approve such materials as teaching resources. Extensive research since has only served to confirm in our view the wisdom of the School Board’s position. We note with approval the efforts of Surrey School District to ensure the safety of all students, no matter what their background. We now urge that Surrey School Board stand fast and refuse to allow the propagandizing of students for the viewpoint expressed in such materials.

Summary of Events

In 1997 Surrey School Board was taken to the British Columbia Supreme Court by pro-homosexuality activists over its refusal in April of that year to approve as teaching resources three books which had been submitted to it. These books had not been approved by the provincial government and the proper body to decide on such books was, therefore, the School Board.

The books rejected by the Surrey School Board as teaching resources were portrayed as innocent children’s books. However, an examination of Asha’s Mums and of One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads (two of the books in question) reveals a definite agenda of promoting a particular and controversial view. In Asha’s Mums, a classmate of the child hero says, “My mum and dad said you can’t have two mothers living together. My dad says it’s bad..” The child hero of the book replies, “It’s not bad. My mummies said we’re a family because we live together and love each other.” Thus the book redefines the family and contradicts the standards of many children’s parents. One Dad, Two Dads . . . is published by Alyson Publications—which, an end-note in the book proclaims, “publishes a wide variety of books with gay and lesbian themes.” By subtle association with the question of skin colour, the book portrays the homosexual life-style with approval.

The promotion of the books was in fact part of a much larger plan. Mr. Chamberlain had previously asked the Ministry of Education for approval of the books (but had received a non-committal response), and (according to Mr. Justice Mackenzie) “Mr. Chamberlain’s correspondence with the Ministry covered a wider list of resources than the three books at issue.” [The Honourable Mr. Justice Mackenzie in Section 46, Reasons for Judgement, in the case of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, heard later in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ] And, prior to the School Board’s being taken to court, the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia had launched a vigorous campaign which resulted in the BC Teachers’ Federation in March of 1997 voting to develop a program “to combat homophobia and heterosexism” within the schools.

The judgement of Madam Justice Saunders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia was an astounding one. In her judgement rendered in December of 1998 in the Supreme Court of B.C., she ruled, in effect, that a very large and diverse group of parents and other citizens were denied the right to influence Board policy in moral matters. Judge Saunders ruled that the School Board had erred in the way it arrived at its decision on the teaching materials precisely because it gave significant consideration to the fact that the books would conflict with the views of parents who are religious. She wrote, “I conclude that the words [in the School Act stating that schools should be] ‘conducted on strictly secular . . . principles’ precludes a decision significantly influenced by religious considerations.” In the rest of her “Reasons for Judgement” she makes clear that even the firm conviction of parents that educational materials are in conflict with their moral beliefs is not to be given significant consideration if those beliefs derive from religious teaching. (The judge quotes statements supporting the Surrey School Board’s stand from religious leaders who are Christian, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu; yet instead of acknowledging that these statements count in the Board’s favour, she uses the fact that they are religious leaders to discount their right to influence the Board’s judgement.)

The Surrey School Board had no responsible choice but to appeal the Saunders decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeals. In September of 2000, the judges of the Appeals court overturned the Saunders ruling. In what was in effect a stinging rebuke to Justice Saunders’ interpretation of the law, Mr. Justice Mackenzie wrote:

“Are only those with a non-religiously informed conscience to be permitted to participate in decisions involving moral instruction of children in the public schools? Must those whose moral positions arise from a conscience influenced by religion be required to leave those convictions behind or otherwise be excluded from participation while those who espouse similar positions emanating from a conscience not informed by religious considerations are free to participate without restriction? . . . . A religiously informed conscience should not be accorded any privilege, but neither should it be placed under a disability.” [The Honourable Mr. Justice Mackenzie in Section 28, Reasons for Judgement, in the case of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, September 2000] In what ought to be regarded as a major pronouncement on behalf of liberty, Justice Mackenzie also said, “No society can be said to be truly free where only those whose morals are uninfluenced by religion are entitled to participate in deliberations related to moral issues of education in public schools.” [Ibid., Section 34]

At this point, the refusal of Surrey School Board to approve pro-homosexuality materials as teaching resources stood vindicated in the courts. But the activists promoting the use of this material had not given up. And in October, 2001, in spite of missing the deadline, the complainants in the so-called Surrey Book Case won the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision sent gloom into the hearts of those of us committed to defending parental rights in education. The ruling was as follows:

"Held (Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. The School Board's decision was unreasonable in the context of the educational scheme laid down by the legislature. The question of whether the books should be approved as supplementary learning resources is remanded to the Board, to be considered according to the criteria laid out in the curriculum guidelines and the broad principles of tolerance and non-sectarianism underlying the School Act."

The above statement of the Supreme Court’s decision is followed by a host of statements betraying an extremely faulty line of reasoning. Nevertheless, we believe the Board can reconsider the question of the books’ approval as outlined in the decision above and still reject as teaching material the pro-homosexuality material designed to propagandize the students on behalf of a vocal minority. It is our hope that the Board will continue to defend the legitimate rights of parents and children in this way.

Cogent Reasons for the Rejection of Pro-Homosexuality Materials
as Public-School Teaching Resources

At this point we would like to state why we believe Surrey School Board and other public- school boards should refuse to approve of pro-homosexuality materials.

In the case of the Surrey School Board there is a special reason for the trustees to do this. Members of the Board who have been known for their opposition to the approval of the pro-homosexuality books and to the use of the schools for pro-homosexuality indoctrination have been elected time and again. The people of Surrey School District have overwhelmingly supported their decision regarding the materials, and expect the Board to continue to defend the schools against the misuse that these materials represent.

Secondly, the approval of these materials would not be the end of the matter. It is only rational to look at the logical result of such approval. Once these materials are approved for primary students, it is practically inevitable that advocates will come forward to demand approval for material of the same sort but geared for older students. It will be argued that it is certainly discriminatory to provide material for younger students and neglect the older. In fact, pro-homosexuality “education” across the board is already being demanded, and in many places, is already being implemented. It is only right that we look at the nature of the materials advocates of pro-homosexuality education are suggesting be used.

In the year 2000 the Surrey Teachers’ Association Ad Hoc Committee on Homophobia and Heterosexism published “Moving Beyond Silence” Addressing Homophobia In Elementary Schools. This book lists “Fiction and Non-Fiction Resources for Classroom Use (K-7).” Under the heading “Primary—Fiction,” one of the books listed is Daddy’s Wedding. The comment given by the STA authors is: “This picture book, a great discussion starter, follows logically from ‘Daddy’s Roommate.’ Dad and Frank have a commitment ceremony, celebrating with their supportive friends and family.” Daddy’s Wedding promotes among children a particular position with regard to same-sex unions.

A book on the list headed “Non-Fiction—Secondary and Adult” is The Gay Agenda—Talking Back to the Fundamentalists. The review of this book reads: “Spiritual and humanistic, this book provides powerful insights into the historical and current methods of persecution of queer people by the church. It provides a sometimes scathing but accurate critique of fundamentalist dogmas and shows how the feminist movement, gender roles, abortion issues, traditional family values, contraception, sex education and homosexuality are all interrelated in the eyes of the extreme right. A must read for anyone interested in understanding and learning how to better challenge the myths and negative stereotypes perpetuated by the extreme right.”

It appears the authors of “Moving Beyond Silence” are not averse to taking theological sides against the fundamentalists (who in the language of pro-homosexuality activists seem to be any religious people opposed to homosexual behaviour). In contrast to the desire to promote hostility to religious beliefs they disagree with, is the attitude the authors of the STA handbook expect of religious people. On Page 5 of “Moving Beyond Silence,” we read that "People with moral objections . . . are fully entitled to them--at home" [the right to remain silent?] and "Religious points of view have no place in the classroom and biases must be checked at the door." Is this desire to expose students to only one side of a question a sign of the intent to propagandize?

The effort to propagandize is very evident in Challenging Homophobia in Schools, a pro-homosexuality resource published in July, 2000, distributed to British Columbia schools, produced for BC educators, and financed by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, the BC Human Rights Commission, and the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia. Commending letters in the handbook come from the then president of the BCTF, from M.P. Svend Robinson, from Mary-Woo Simms, former Chief Commissioner of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, and from the executive director of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C.

Although the handbook makes the usual statements about intending to protect youth of all kinds (a laudable aim), this handbook like its predecessor, the Surrey Teachers’ Association’s “Moving Beyond Silence”: Addressing Homophobia in Elementary Schools, actually conveys the message that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, something that many thousands of B.C. parents object to on religious grounds and because they fear the dangers to health that are associated with this behaviour.

The quotations that follow, taken from the handbook, and some brief comments, serve to highlight some of causes for concern this resource creates:

“Asking parental permission to discuss homosexuality with their child. . . Usually guarantees that some children will not hear the information they need.” (“Rationale,” Page 18)

“For LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people it is natural to have sexual attractions and relations with members of one’s own gender. . . . . To act on those feelings is natural. Not to act on these feelings would be unnatural and would force people to hide who they are and cause them great pain. It is the quality of the relationship one is in that is significant, not the gender of one’s partner.” (“Background,” P. 17) (So much for the claim made earlier in “Rationale,” Page 18, that “Teaching positive values about homosexuality is not about teaching sex.”)

In a chart (“Background Page 44), under the headings "Ways in Which Oppression is Perpetrated: Homophobia and Heterosexism,” in the category of “Religion” are the phrases “—only heterosexual unions acknowledged” and “-viewed as abnormal; immoral.” In other words, the teaching that homosexual behaviour is immoral is identified as a form of oppression.

Under “Strategies” (Page 3) is this advice for the educator: “Use the word ‘couple’ to denote same-sex as well as male/female relationships; use ‘partner’ instead of ‘wife’, or ‘husband.’ ”

“There is a difference between tolerating and celebrating family diversity . . . . Celebrating lesbian, gay, or transgender-headed families means willingly supporting them and openly working on homophobia and transphobia within the schools.” (“Strategies,” Page 28)

“Ensure that books depicting alternative family patterns are included in school libraries.” (“Strategies,” Page 29)

Among the many men and women listed on six pages in “Lessons,” pp. 49-54, as “Famous Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals” are the following:

“Augustine (Saint) - (354-430) English Roman Catholic Bishop, Religious Writer”

The confusion of Augustine of Hippo, whose confession regarding his life prior to his conversion may be the basis of his inclusion on the list, with the later Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 604, may be indicative of the quality of research that went into the compiling of the list as a whole.

“da Vinci, Leonardo—(1452—1519) Italian Artist, Painter, Sculptor, Scientist

David—(1035? - 960?? BC) Israeli King, Biblical Lover of Jonathan”

Enough has been quoted from Challenging Homophobia in Schools to show, we think, that it is an example of a pro-homosexuality resource which gives sufficient reason for school authorities to beware of it for its bias and lack of factual accuracy alone.

The whole tendency of pro-homosexuality material is to inculcate the idea that homosexual behaviour is normal, acceptable, and safe. Though it is true that the primary material may not specifically mention sex, the picturing of same-sex couples as parental figures (for example, two mums or two dads) will undoubtedly have the effect of preparing young children to later accept homosexual behaviour as acceptable and normal.

A major reason for not embarking on the program advocated by pro-homosexuality activists is to ensure that the schools are not involved in encouraging behaviour which must be characterized as dangerous by objective, scientific standards. As evidence of this danger we may cite the following statistics from a website of the Centers for Disease Control
[http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm]. Though this is an American organization, the similarity between Canadian and American societies makes the data very relevant to us. We quote from their website:

The following data are summarized from the CDC annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Numbers are based on AIDS cases reported to CDC through December 2001. . . . .
Exposure Category Male Female Total*

Men who have sex with men 368,971 - 368,971

Injecting Drug Use Injecting Drug Use 145,750 55,576 201,326

Men who have sex with men and inject drugs Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 - 51,293

Hemophilia/coagulation disorder Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,000 292 5,292

Heterosexual contact Heterosexual contact 32,735 57,396 90,131

Recipient of blood transfusion,
blood components, or tissue Recipient of blood transfusion,
blood components, or tissue 5,057 3,914 8,971

Risk not reported or identified Risk not reported or identified 57,220 23,870 81,091

*Includes 3 persons whose sex is unknown.

It is evident that the exposure category of “Men who have sex with men” is by far the group at the highest risk of developing AIDS.

The health risk for male homosexual behaviour is not limited to the development of AIDS. The Washington Times website
[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20021101-63191947.htm] reported on November 1, 2002: “The U.S. syphilis rate rose last year for the first time in a decade, primarily because of outbreaks among homosexual and bisexual male populations, the federal government says in a report released today.”

Here is another significant quote [from a family Research Council website at http://www.frc.org/get/is01b1.cfm]:

“A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.⁷⁸ ” [Footnote 78: “Robert S. Hogg et al., ‘Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,’ International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.”]

School boards should not allow pro-homosexuality propaganda in the public schools. It is wrong to present as benign a behaviour that has many deadly consequences.

A related reason for refusing to approve or allow the use of such material is the danger of litigation against school boards. School boards might find informative the paper entitled The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools, published by “Citizens for Community Values” and available online from the Citizens for Community Values website [at http://www.ccv.org/Legal_Liability_of_Homosexuality_Education.htm]. Some of the general principles enunciated should be applicable in Canada, but some of what is contained in this paper will only be true for the United States. Since the recent movement to promote pro-homosexuality education in the schools apparently originated in the United States, the opposition to that movement has produced many more resources there than we are likely to find in Canada.

We foresee the time may come when students, exposed in schools to the physical and mental health risks fostered by a cavalier attitude to homosexual behaviour, will take legal action against those institutions which allowed them to be propagandized. This backlash against the public school system may result in massive penalties being levied against those who allowed such propagandizing to be carried out in the schools.

Finally, school boards need to refuse to approve or allow the use of the schools for social engineering by pro-homosexuality activists because to approve or allow it would be a betrayal of the rights of parents as those responsible for their children’s education to determine the most basic nature of that education. In “Per Gonthier and Bastarache JJ” —a statement in Chamberlain v Surrey . . . of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada judges who dissented from the majority in the Chamberlain v. Surrey School District Number 36 case—we read the following:
“This Court has reiterated the paramount parental role by construing the nature of the authority schools and teachers have over children as a delegated authority. The notion of a school's authority being delegated, if it allows parents to remove their children from the public school system, must also guarantee to parents the role of having input with regard to the values which their children will receive in school.”
This is surely a very important statement, and to fail to defend this principle is to fail in the first duty of a school trustee: to represent the legitimate interests of parents in the welfare of their children.

This Board is known for defending the legitimate rights of parents and students. There has no doubt been a cost involved. There have no doubt been vicious verbal attacks and misstatements of the Board’s intent. But we would urge this Board to hold fast and not to yield to pressure, but to stand once more and defend the rights of parents and the welfare of students in this School District, and in so doing make a stand for the rights and welfare of parents and students across the length and breadth of our land. n

Stories

[Note: Internet URLs given were checked June 2, 2003, to ensure they were accurate for the information given.]

Address to Christian Coalition Information Session at TWU April 9, 2005

By Ron Gray, National Leader, Christian Heritage Party of Canada

It’s good to be back on campus of best university in Canada!

. . . .

The reason I call TWU the best university in Canada: it teaches the various disciplines from a coherent world-view. J.I. Packer said on this campus, almost 20 years ago, that Canada’s secular universities had already been captured by what he called “a kind of goofy anti-intellectualism”—he was referring to the philosophy of postmodernism.

Postmodernism has now captured almost all our Universities. There are a few other exceptions: The King’s College in Edmonton, Redeemer College at Ancaster, ON; St. Stephen’s University in New Brunswick. But the collapse of the intellectual core of Canada’s universities has had disastrous results: it has plunged Canada into a virtual civil war…

Postmodernism was originally an understandable reaction against the hubris of modernism which, after two centuries of the falsely so-called ‘Enlightenment’, produced the 20th century—the bloodiest era in human history.

People often warn against mixing religion and politics; but the 20th century gave us Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot, Nikolai Ceaucescu and Erik Honneker—who, in the name of atheism and paganism, killed more people than all the religious wars in history.

No, it’s the mixture of IRreligion and politics that’s truly dangerous

Alas, postmodernism, in fleeing from modernism, didn’t run into the arms of the Judeo-Christian Biblical wisdom upon which Western Civilization had been carefully built; instead, it fled into irrationalism, abjuring every trace of the canon of Western Civilization—all the way back to Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction: as J.I. Packer said, postmodernism tries to embrace mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously. That why postmodernism is actually anti-reason.

And that’s why it has produced, in Canada and elsewhere, a virtual civil war. The postmodernism that corrupted our universities more than a quarter-century ago has also affected the graduates of those universities, who became our journalists and our lawyers… and, as Gwen Landolt has lucidly pointed out, the definition of a judge, in Canada, is “a lawyer with good political connections.”

And so we now have postmodernists on the benches in Canada—including the Supreme Court—and in most of the newsrooms of the nation.

And that’s what has produced our virtual civil war.

Being a Canadian conflict, it’s been polite and bloodless so far—unless you count nearly three million babies cruelly dismembered in their mothers’ wombs; that’s been one tragic result of this not-so-civil war.

The heart of the conflict is actually about Canada’s constitution. And to explain that, I have to take you back to about 1980, when the late Pierre Trudeau conceived his project of patriating our Constitution. He first asked the Supreme Court of that day—not yet populated by postmodernists—to define Canada’s constitution; they told him that it consists of two equally-important parts: the written document itself, and a body of tradition that goes all the way back to Magna Carta.

There are two very important principles at the heart of that tradition:

• One established that there is a higher law, which even the Crown must obey—and that it’s found in the Bible.

• The other is the separation of powers of the government: the legislature makes the laws, the Cabinet and civil service administer the laws, and the courts settle disputes according the law, as they find it written.

And that’s where the conflict comes in; because after Pierre Trudeau switched Canada from its Common Law tradition to Europe’s Charter Law tradition, and entrenched the Charter of Rights in our new Constitution, the judiciary suddenly felt it had the scope to usurp the law-making authority that had previously belonged only to the elected legislature.

And that is exactly what has produced today’s conflicts.

Today—this very day, April 9—you can see the conflict in the streets: tens of thousands of Canadians are right now gathering in front of the Supreme Court and Parliament, and thousands more in front of MPs offices across the country, to demand the preservation of the traditional definition of ‘marriage’.

I have to tell you about these gatherings because there’s a very good chance that our postmodern media will censor the reports of these rallies—or much of the relevant information about them—right out of tonight’s news.

The postmodern press isn’t any more reliable than the postmodern judiciary, I’m afraid. And I say that as a former journalist who cares, passionately, about the free press—a free and responsible press.

The usurpation of legislative powers by the judiciary is a kind of civil war… and it threatens the end of constitutional democracy in Canada.

How did this happen?

To answer that, we have to look at the development of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It should have been a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, and it should have included the right to private property; but the Marxist bent of those pushing it onto the nation did not want either responsibilities or private property included.

But by the grace of God, however, the Preamble to the Charter still includes the unequivocal statement that

“Canada was founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

Unfortunately, the activist judiciary that has ascended the throne of the High Court has, according to Ian Hunter, Professor Emeritus in the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario, abrogated both of those principles.

When Parliament was drafting the Charter, and when the legislators came to Section 15—the ‘Equality Rights’ section —it was suggested that ”sexual orientation” might be added to the list of protected categories. It was pointed out by a lawyer-MP that the term ”sexual orientation” is so ill-defined that “it doesn’t belong in any legislation!”

They debated that one point for two days, and finally voted 22-2 to leave ”sexual orientation” out.

That was the form in which the Charter went back to Parliament; that was the form in which it was passed, and entrenched in the Constitution; that was the form in which it was sent to the provincial legislatures to be ratified; and that was the form in which it became the highest law in the land.

Without “sexual orientation”.

It wasn’t as though Parliament absent-mindedly forgot to include the phrase; they very deliberately decided that it didn’t belong.

But 13 years later, when the Nesbitt & Egan case came to the Supreme Court, the postmodernists on the bench blithely violated the Constitution and the traditional separation of powers by ordering that the phrase “sexual orientation” must henceforth be “read into” Section 15.

That was why the provincial courts in BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick had to rule that the Marriage Act was “unconstitutional” for excluding same-sex couples: they had been ordered to interpret Section 15 that way, by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In making that rule, the Supreme Court was, in effect, amending the Constitution.

But the Constitution has an amending formula built into it; and that formula requires, for even a minor change, the agreement of the federal Parliament and seven of the ten provincial legislatures, representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada. That’s for a minor amendment.

A major change—and I submit that this was without question a major change—requires the unanimous agreement of all 11 legislatures.

This change, however, was made arbitrarily by five of the nine judges. Unconstitutionally.

Our Constitution, in the Charter, also guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion; you’ll learn later from Chris Kempling just how valuable those guarantees are in Canada today.

Remember, the Constitution of the Soviet Union also guaranteed freedom of religion. But such guarantees are worthless unless they’re defended.

That’s why it’s urgent that someone now stand up and defend Canada’s Constitution from judicial activism.

A few years ago, I attended a conference about judicial activism on Parliament Hill, where one of the speakers was the admirable Senator Ann Cools. She said—and I quote—“The problem is not just judicial activism. It is also cowardice in the House of Commons.”

Cowardice. A harsh word. But in a civil war, when the defence of constitutional democracy is at stake, defectors from the fight deserve harsh criticism—if only to awaken them to their duty!

Martin Luther famously said:

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ...

“Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

As Senator Cools has noted, no one—that is, no party now sitting in the House—has shown the courage to confront the Supreme Court, draw a line in the sand, and say, “You’ve gone too far. Get back where you have legitimate authority, and come out no further than that!”

Until and unless Parliament is willing to do this, you and I no longer live in a constitutional democracy; we live in a judicial oligarchy. It’s a ‘krytocracy’—a dictatorship of judges.

Why, do you suppose, are these good men and women—many of them our brothers and sisters in the Lord—why are they unwilling to defend the Constitution and the truth?

I submit that it is because of their fear of man—specifically, the fear that the media may say something unkind about them.

And may I point out, with regard to public policy on marriage, that

(a) we must not submit the question to a referendum; for that would establish the principle that a vote of 50%+1 has the authority to turn ‘evil’ into ‘good’… which is nonsense.

No, the definition of ‘marriage’ was ordained long before the institution of civil government; and no court, parliament or referendum has the right to change it.

(b) recognizing homosexual ‘civil unions’ is just as bad as legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’; it still gives official approval to immoral behaviour. If Parliament approves immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behaviour, many young people—thinking, “It must be OK if the government says so”—will be tempted to experiment. Some of those who experiment will become addicted, and those who consent to public approval of immorality will share the responsibility for sentencing those children to a miserable life and a premature death.

Of course the media will call them names if they defend virtue! Because on the most controversial issue of the day, the courts and the media have already decreed that there is to be no debate. They have decided that “gay is good”, and no other opinion is to be allowed.

It is one of the clearest examples of “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

I’ve been encountering this personally; I’ve submitted several factual, peer-reviewed articles documenting the dangers of promoting the homosexual agenda in the schools, in the media, by perversity parades in the streets, and by legislation.

The editor’s response? He refuses even to read it! As far as the Abbotsford TIMES is concerned, the issue is settled. There will be no debate… no other opinion. He says that what consenting adults do in private is nobody’s business.

But when private behavior impacts the rest of society— whether financially, through the increased drain on the health-care system; or socially, through the impact on our children; or morally, through the degradation of public morals in the streets and in the news and entertainment media—it is our business.

What is desperately needed is someone with the intestinal fortitude to declare that it is our business—and a medium to carry that declaration to the people.

That’s why I’m grateful to the Christian Coalition for this informational meeting: it’s an opportunity for the people on the other side of this issue to become our own media.

It is not enough to stand aside and be neutral. In moral matters, there is no neutral ground; there is no fence to sit upon.

Dante Alighieri wrote, in his Inferno, that

“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

And if we’re willing to look to the classics of philosophy for guidance, Thomas Hobbes—arguably the first modern philosopher—wrote in Leviathan:

“… the foundation of all true ratiocination [by which he means ‘reason’] is the constant signification of words, which… dependeth not (as in natural science) on the will of the writer, nor (as in common conversation) on vulgar use, but on the sense it carries in the Scripture.

That’s something for our parliamentarians to reflect on, while they contemplate re-defining the word ‘marriage’. What Hobbes is saying is that reason—thinking—depends upon retaining the meaning of words… and not just their historic meaning, Hobbes says: he means the meaning each word is given in the Bible.

Even Hobbes, a modernist, recognized the unique authority of the Bible; for it is the very foundation of Western Civilization.

It is also, as Canada’s Constitution clearly declares and as history clearly shows, the very foundation of this nation.

Those who seek to revise that foundation are in danger of destroying what gives them the freedom to speak, and think, and act. We must warn them that they will come to regret their o’er-hasty and juvenile defiance of all authority.

The slogan of postmodernism—if it could clarify its thinking long enough to adopt one—would be:

“No one’s gonna tell ME what to do!”

It’s adolescent rebellion made into public policy. And it can only lead to social and moral disaster if Parliament continues to allow it free rein.

When my own children were adolescents, I used to tell them, “You must at some point come to terms with the fact of authority in your life. You can choose to recognize it in any of the successive spheres of authority that surround you.

“Closest to you, and the most gentle and loving, is the authority in your family. Your family loves you, and wants what’s best for you.

“If you choose to reject the authority of your family, you will encounter the authority of the State. The State will also, to some extent take care of you; but it cannot love you.

“If you defy the authority of the State, you become an outlaw; but you will still be under authority—the authority of the natural world, which is hard, implacable and unyielding.

“And if you step outside that authority, you’ve had the biscuit. You are dead. You will then come face to face with the authority of your Creator.

“But at some point, you must come to terms with the ineluctable fact of authority over your life.”

That’s true, too, for all the people clamoring to change our laws and morality to suit their own hedonistic willfulness.

About a year ago, the Prime Minister said, “The Constitution exists to protect minorities.”

I wrote to him and said, “No, Mr. Prime Minister, you are wrong: the Constitution exists to protect principles; if minorities adhere to them, those principles will protect the minorities; but if we allow anyone to abrogate the principles of the Constitution, nothing remains to protect any of us.”

We have to carry that message to Parliament. And if Parliament will not listen—and act—to protect the Constitution, then we must change Parliament.

At the beginning of this session, I introduced Arne Bryan of Prayer Canada. Arne has organized more prayer for the leaders of this nation than anyone I know. Sometimes, his prayer for them is, “Lord, either straighten out their thinking, or remove them.”

Let that be our prayer, and our purpose, as well.

No party and no politician… and I include my own party and myself in this… no party and no politician is worth the space they take up if they will not preserve the very foundation of our freedom—the Constitution and its recognition of ‘the supremacy of God’.

Thank you.

Kasserian Ingera—Standing Up For Our Children

Trinity Western University, April 9, 2005

Essays, Speeches, and Other Compositions

A Backgrounder on the Motion Picture Brokeback Mountain

CASTING OUT DARKNESS

A Backgrounder
on the Motion Picture Brokeback Mountain