Links to Pages in this 

New Home Page

Old Home Page




Contact Us

Essays. Speeches, and Other Compositions

& Related


Help for



News and Views 

ling in the

Opposing the Pro-

Sex Education--
Issues Regarding

Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society

Take Backo
the Schools


"Life Views"

Exposing and Opposing the Pro-Homosexuality Agenda

Table of Contents for "Opposing the Pro-Homosexuality Agenda" Page

Does This CDC Report Say Something about the Danger of Legitimizing Homosexual Behaviour to Our Youth?

Powerful Video on the Corren Agreement and Parental Rights

Are Anti-Discrimination Policies Bullying Christian Schools and Families?

Out in Schools: Debate . . .

Out in Schools deletes link to sex pictures

Who are the Supporters of "Out in Schools?"

Pornogate!" [news release from Culture Guard, September 12th, 2011]

Teacher of the Year Suspended for Facebook Comment Against Same-Sex Marriage

ACLU Granted Access to Catholic Charities Lawsuit, Represents Lesbian Couple.

California Governor signs law mandating "pro-gay" curriculum

Victory for Evangelical church over ‘hell-raising’ gay anarchist group

NDP’s targeting of ‘ex-gay’ groups a ‘potential attack’ on all Christian charities: Evangelicals

Burnaby parents: Burnaby School Trustees to get a lesson in law and democracy

Toronto school board: Parents can’t opt kids out of pro-homosexual curriculum

Top gay rights leader: kids of religious families are ‘target demographic’ of anti-‘gay bullying’ ad

Federal Legislation Threatens Faith-Based Adoption Agencies  [in the U. S.]

Hamilton school board ‘religious accommodation’ policy would exclude moral beliefs

Thousands of BC parents and students join Burnaby petition drive to put ‘Families First’

Burnaby Parents Hold May 24th Rally Over Concerns About "Homophobia/Heterosexism" Policy

Burnaby Parents Concerned About Proposed "Homophobia/Herosexism" Policy Unite 

BC public school parents angered at ‘homophobia/heterosexism’ policy

Christian psychotherapist found guilty of professional misconduct for reparative therapy

Vatican statement on sexual orientation 

Ontario's big brother is watching you

Homosexual Group GLSEN Yanks Links to Pornographic ‘Gay’ Hook-up Site

Burnaby School Board Votes for an Extensive “Anti-Homophobia” Policy

President Obama’s Support Emboldens Same-Sex Marriage Activists

Ontario Government Equity Policy 

Canadian Catholic school board ‘bullied’ into scrapping pro-family policy

Catholic school board [committee] votes to [recommend move to] abandon Catholic teaching on homosexuality

. . .Ontario Catholic board voting [on move] to repeal ban on homosexual clubs . . .

'They'll have to fire me': Sask[atchewan] marriage official

Catholic board bans gay-straight student alliances

University: Dump Christian beliefs on homosexuality, or else

Study: 18% of Vancouver gay men have HIV

European Parliament wants EU countries to recognise existing same-sex unions

Michigan Teacher Reprimanded in ’Free Speech’ Flap

Paraguay Rejects Homosexualist 'Youth Rights' Agreement

Homosexual Conference for Youth Held in Surrey, British Columbia

"Supreme Court to hear gay sex discrimination case"

CDC: 20% of Gay Men Have HIV, and Nearly Half Are Unaware of Status

Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling

[U.K.] Teacher Kicked out of Tory Party for Christian Views on Homosexuality Issued ‘Warning’ by School

[Vancouver] School Board Supports Pride Events

US Administration Launches All-Out International Homosexual “Rights” Offensive

President Obama Proclaims Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

Williams Lake school district restricts anti-homophobia events

"Queer posters demand respect"

Angry parents plan sex-ed protest;  Will Rally in Toronto May 10

Day of Silence, Day of Truth Make Bid to Influence the Nation's Youth  [in the U.S.A.]

Ugandan social workers back anti-gay bill; Exodus opposed

School board rallies gay activists [in Vancouver, B.C.]

  Dare to Stand Out Conference a Success--According to Pro-Homosexuality Activist Magazine

Social justice dispute heads for full hearing

Parents pull kids from public schools over gender teaching  

How to Respond to Teachers Pushing Pro-Gay Curriculum: Family Group Advises Parents

Parents face prosecution over 'gay' education class protest

'Gay' pedophilia and Obama['s Appointee]

Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books

Boycott of California Schools in the Making 

What Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts

President Obama Speaks at Gay-Activist Event

Obama Criticizes People with "Old Attitudes" in Keynote Speech at Homosexualist Dinner

Firestorm Erupts over Obama's Education Appointee

Parental consent for Social Justice 12 discriminatory: teachers union

Coming Out in Middle School

A "Safe" Place for Kids to Learn Homosexual Sex

Lawmakers: Schoolkids must study 'sexual predator'

Backlash against Pride funding worked.

Many Homosexual (and Similar) Events Reported as Funded by the Canadian Conservative Government 

REAL Women of Canada Sends a Strong Protest Against $400,000 Federal Government Donation to Gay Pride Parade

Alberta bill threatens lessons on gay life

Commentary: American Psychological Association Changes Tune on Genetic Nature of Homosexuality

Today’s Scripture, next year’s hatred

Federal Bill Would Add Pro-Gay Policies to Public Schools [in the United States]

Students Have the Right NOT to Remain Silent on the Day of Silence

Catholic League President Urges Congress: Don't Let "Hate Crimes" Chill Religious Free Speech

U.K. Teaches 11-Year-Olds about Homosexuality; San Francisco Schools Launch Pro-Gay Web Site

Want to Know How the British Columbia Teachers' Federation Advises Teachers to Deal with Parents who Object to the Pro-Homosexuality Program?

“Gay and Lesbian Educators” Resource (Listed by Government for Social Justice Twelve Course) Peddles Propaganda in the Name of Education

Kari Simpson seeks human rights ruling against BC government, BCTF and Murray Corren

British Columbia Teachers' Federation Promotes Day of Silence in BC Schools.  
Parents for Democracy in Education Calls on Parents to Keep Students Home April 17th [2009]

BCTF ‘Social Justice’ conference . . .  told teachers how to manipulate student attitudes  [excerpt from a news release from Parents for Democracy in Education regarding a conference held February 2oth and 21st, 2009]

Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health funding homosexual / transgender movement in schools

"From tolerance to celebration'  [excerpt from an XtraWest article]

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners

An Analysis of Some Aspects of the Social Justice Twelve Course as approved by the British Columbia Ministry of Education

"Gay couple files human-rights complaint against school board"

Gay-friendly high school may open here in 2010  [in Chicago] 

Class surprises lesbian teacher on "wedding" day 

"Gay" Sex Kills

The "Day of Silence" in British Columbia 2008

News Release from the Catholic Civil Rights League

A Critical Review of British Columbia MInistry of Education Guidelines Embodied in the Teachers' Manual Making Space, Giving Voice  
[from the Catholic Civil Rights League]

Deerfield High School Offers Pornography to Students

Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents

An object lesson in free speech and democracy

Compassion for Those in the Homosexual Life-Style

"Catholic Activist 'Banned for life' from Publicly Criticising Homosexuality"

A Time to Speak, a Time to Listen

Forced Education in Homosexuality and Evolution Leads to Exodus of Mennonites from Quebec

A San Diego Mother Goes Undercover Inside of A San Diego Gay Community Children's Event

Read the Corren Settlement Agreement for Yourself

"The Gay Shibboleth"

"Pastor Who Fought For Gay Marriage Receives Canada's Highest Honor"

Order of Canada Membership Awarded to Homosexual  Pastor Who 
Promoted Same-Sex "Marriage"* 

The Corren Settlement Agreement:  How Did We Arrive at This Point and What Should Parents of Traditional Morality and Their Supporters Do About It?

American Psychological Association Appoints Gay Activists to Monitor
Reorientation Therapy
  [NARTH Press Release]

Texas Psychiatrist Questions Sex Reassignment Surgery

NEA Teachers Help Fund Homosexual Groups, Training

"Thousands cheer gay parade"

Chicago Board of Ed Sued for Teacher Allegedly Showing 'Brokeback Mountain' in Class

Students Take a Stand for Truth  [in the U.S.]

YouTube Pulls Videos Showing Homosexual Indoctrination of Elementary School Children

The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation is Promoting the Week Against Homophobia, May 14th-18th, 2007 

   What Can Parents Expect?


AFA Warns Parents to Keep their Children Home from School on 'Gay Day' of Silence, April 18

Connecticut High School Agrees to Allow Day of Truth

Gay Lawmaker Pushes Bill to Muzzle Schools

A Significant Quote:  A Pro-Homosexuality Activist's Denies Parental Opt-Out 

Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for "Homophobia"

Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling:  Politics over Science

"Gay Student 'Weddings' Anger California Parents"

Parent Groups Ask Maryland to Stop Sex-Ed Classes

The Goose, the Gander, and the Elephant

"Homophobia Spies in the Classroom"

Egale Leader Looks for Classroom Victories

"Schools Withhold Sad Facts About Homosexual Lifestyle"

"Long Battle Over Gay Club In Georgia School Nears End”

Radical Homosexual Groups Approved by UN with Bush [Administration] Support

Gay history month in city schools seen part of trend

What GLSEN Doesn't What You to Know

British Columbia Ministry of Education September, 2006, Letter on the Alternative Delivery Policy

Murray Corren on the Rights of Parents 

BC Gov’t Urged to Add Animal Rights in Mandatory Gay-Friendly Social Justice Course

Controversial school course planned

"Parents Protest Gay Curriculum Review"

Rally in Vancouver to Protest Corren Settlement

Letter Sent by BC Parents & Teachers for Life to the BC Education Minister

Letter Responding to the Above Letter

What Does the Ministry of Education 's Reply  [Above] Tell Us?

BCPTL Sends New Letter to the Minister of Education

Reply Dated October 18th, 2006, from the Ministry of Education 
to British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Letter Dated October 5, 2006, from BC Attorney General 
to BC Parents and Teachers for Life

An Assessment of the Settlement Agreement between the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and Murray and Peter Corren

Letter from British Columbia Education Minister Shirley Bond to the President of the Federation of Independent Schools, July, 2006

Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Homosexual Curriculum

British Columbia Government Agrees to Add Homosexuality into School Curriculum

Gay and lesbian issues course for B.C. students

"Documents Reveal Government Signed Over Control of Education to Homosexual Activists"

Text of Message Regarding the Corren Agreement Sent by BC Parents and Teachers for Life to Each Member of the British Columbia Legislature

Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada - Battleground Homosexuality

National . . . [Pro-Homosexuality]  Groups Fight Parents Over Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in Mass. Schools

Philadelphia District threatens truancy charges against parents who keep kids home

News from "MassResistance" Shows Pro-Homosexuality Activists with Similar Agenda and Philosophy to That of their Counterparts in British Columbia

UK Government “postpones” gay propaganda in Kindergarten after parents object

Homosexual Activists Target UK Faith Schools, Adoption Policies

A Call to Action after Public Sector Employee Fired for Speaking out against Homosexuality

“Day of Truth” Counters Gay-Sponsored Student “Day of Silence”

British Columbia Teachers Federation Endorses "Week Against Homophobia--May 15-19, 2006"

Alberta MLAs kill conscience bill

Sexual-orientation questions cause stir at Port Washington high school

. . . The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty

Scottish Parliament Plans to Go Ahead with Gay Adoption

Brave New Schools: "Diversity Day Cancelled"

Brokeback:  Understanding Propaganda

Kentucky Governor Sued After Baptist College Expels 
Student for Gay Lifestyle

Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way

Judge sets July 10 date for trial in homosexual activist lawsuit 

Horrendous Pro-Homosexuality School Bill in California Assembly

McGill University Homosexual Activists Shut Down Blood Clinic

Fairy Tales Don't Come True

Noted U.S. Psychologists Condemn Gay Activist Influence on APA

Corren Case Moves Forward

"B.C. Gay Couple  Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum without Parental Opt-Out"

What Do These Societal Symptoms Indicate?

Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son's kindergarten class.

BC Appeals Court says Schools Must Create “Homophobia-Free” Environment

The Closing Down of Free Speech?  School Board “Guilty” of Democratic Behaviour  

What the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia 
Have Planned for Your Children

Portrait of a "Gay-Straight Alliance"

"Partway Gay" [Young teens copy lesbian actions.]

BC Parents and Teachers for Life Brief Against Approval of Pro-Homosexuality Books for Use as Teaching Materials

Vancouver GSA Uses a Variety of Methods to Influence the School

Teacher "Tells How to Lure Students Into Homosexual Events"

LGBT Group in Langley [British Columbia] Looks to Help Develop Mandatory Curriculum

Ontario School Board Proposes Thought Control on 'Heterosexism' in Schools

Does Your Son or Daughter"s School Have a GSA?

"Hate Speech" Law [Given Initial Approval in Sweden] Could Chill Sermons

British Columbia Tribunal "Holds School Responsibile for Homophobic Harassment"

Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada Order to Surrey to Approve Pro-Homosexuality Teaching Materials

"Chamberlain vs. Surrey School Board Supreme Court Orders Homosexual Propaganda . . . "

Surrey Book Case Heard in the Supreme Court of Canada

Pro-Homosexuality Activists Disrupt Dinner

"Six Who Stood"  [Portland, U.S.A. teachers opposed pro-homosexuality propaganda.]

"The Negative Effects of Homosexuality"  [reference]

CDC Reports Rise in STDs in a Growing Number of U.S. Cities

The Homophobia Myth

 We Must Continue to Oppose BCTF Promotion of "Gay-Straight Alliances"

Recommendation 39 Passed by BCTF

What Teacher Did Not Tell Teachers About the BCTF AGM

"Moving Beyond Silence . . ."--Comments on a B.C. Local Teachers' Union Publication

What You Can Do to Help Stop the Proposed Pro-Homosexuality Programs

Students Given Graphic Instruction in Homosexual Sex

Questions That Proponents of GSAs Need to Be Asked "

Challenging Homophobia in Schools:  A Critical Review

Powerful Video on the Corren Agreement and Parental Rights

As the government of British Columbia in the fall of 2011 negotiates with teachers, will they give consideration to the rights of parents or only to monetary issues? Without pressure, there is a good chance that the rights of parents will be ignored, if the government's actions in signing the Corren Agreement are its precedent.

View a powerful video in which Sean Murphy  defends the rights of parents and explains how the signing of the Corren Agreement violated those rights, and why all those who respect those rights should be concerned.  Sean Murphy is associated with the Catholic Civil Rights League, but what he has to say in this video should be heard far beyond the Roman Catholic community.

(British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is not affiliated with any denomination or faith group, but is committed to the defence of parental. rights to bring up their children, and has stood up for the rights of those parents whose concern it is to pass on those traditional and universal values which have been foundational to our society.)

Please take the time to view this important video at  .


Does This CDC Report Say Something about the Danger of Legitimizing Homosexual Behaviour to Our Youth?

What responsibility will be borne by those who normalize a culture in which a dangerous practices are widespread?  The following news release from the director of the  U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention ought to be considered carefully.

Media Statement
For Immediate Release: June 2, 2011
Contact: NCHHSTP News Media Team
(404) 639-8895

Commemorating 30 Years of HIV/AIDS
By Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This week marks 30 years since the first report of a mysterious and deadly new syndrome that would come to be known as AIDS was published in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). At the time, no one could have predicted the enormous toll the disease would take—claiming the lives of more than 500,000 Americans and many millions worldwide. Today we remember those we have lost, and honor them by recommitting ourselves to the fight against this deadly yet preventable disease.

Over the last three decades, prevention efforts have helped reduce new infections and treatment advances have allowed people with HIV to live longer, healthier lives. But as these improvements have taken place, our nation's collective sense of crisis has waned. Far too many Americans underestimate their risk of infection or believe HIV is no longer a serious health threat, but they must understand that HIV remains an incurable infection. We must increase our resolve to end this epidemic.

CDC released data today showing that the number of Americans living with HIV continued to increase by more than 71,000 people between 2006 and 2008, mainly due to treatments which allow those infected with HIV to live longer, healthier lives. Currently, more than 1.1 million people in the United States live with HIV, and as this number increases, so does the risk of HIV transmission.

Today, the most infections are among people under 30—a new generation that has never known a time without effective HIV treatments and who may not fully understand the significant health threat HIV poses. Groups that have historically borne a disproportionate burden of HIV continue to see more than their share of devastation from this disease:

•Gay men: Gay and bisexual men of all races remain the group most affected by this epidemic. Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new infections in the United States. White MSM continue to account for the largest number of new infections, but MSM of color are disproportionately impacted. And a CDC analysis released today found high levels of HIV infection even among those MSM who get tested regularly. Approximately 7 percent of MSM in the 21 cities surveyed tested positive for HIV in the study, even though they reported having a negative HIV test result during the past 12 months. . . . .

[Read the whole CDC article from which the above excerpt is taken.]



Powerful Video on the Corren Agreement and Parental Rights

As the government of British Columbia in the fall of 2011 negotiates with teachers, will they give consideration to the rights of parents or only to monetary issues? Without pressure, there is a good chance that the rights of parents will be ignored, if the government's actions in signing the Corren Agreement are its precedent.

View a powerful video in which Sean Murphy  defends the rights of parents and explains how the signing of the Corren Agreement violated those rights, and why all those who respect those rights should be concerned.  Sean Murphy is associated with the Catholic Civil Rights League, but what he has to say in this video should be heard far beyond the Roman Catholic community.

(British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is not affiliated with any denomination or faith group, but is committed to the defence of parental. rights to bring up their children, and has stood up for the rights of those parents whose concern it is to pass on those traditional and universal values which have been foundational to our society.)

Please take the time to view this important video at  .


Are Anti-Discrimination Policies Bullying Christian Schools and Families?


Across the country, school boards are jumping on the bandwagon to implement equity and sexual orientation policies. Many of the objectives of these policies are laudable. Children should not be bullied, ridiculed, attacked or intimidated under any circumstance, or for any reason, and school boards are right to address it when it occurs.  But what happens when the policies themselves become the bullies?

In many cases, the wording in the policies being rolled out proves problematic for Christian schools, programs and families. To provide “healthy” classrooms school boards need to recognize that they cannot ignore certain classes of human rights, such as the rights to freedom of religion, conscience and parental authority, in order to protect another, the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly expressed that we live in a plural society, and that requires respect for the worldview of a variety of communities, religious or otherwise. . . . .

[Read the whole article at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Activate CFPL website.]

Who Are the Supporters of "Out in Schools?"

Perhaps, as we do, you question the judgement of "Out in Schools" (the organization that has been in the news for  publishing a teaching resource with links to sites with sexually explicit pictures and messages).  Perhaps, like us, you have problems with their basic approach and question their being allowed to propagandize youth in the schools.  Then you may be interested to know that some of the organizations that you have trusted are listed as partners or supporters "Out in Schools." 

The TD Bank Group and Vancity are listed on the “Out in Schools” website as “principal partners,” as are Caya, the Fillmore Family Foundation, and –not surprisingly—Xtra, the periodical for homosexuals.  Xtra is also listed as the “media partner.”

The Vancouver School Board is listed on the Out in Schools’ “honor roll,” along with Coast Capital, The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, and the British Columbia Nurses’ Union.

On the Out in Schools “credit roll” are:  Face the World Foundation, Modo The Car Co-op, the City of Vanouver, Work Safe B.C., British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, and the Pride Education Network. 

“Honourable Mention” is given by Out in Schools to the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Action plan:  Write to the organizations which you are associated with, and tell them you do not want your money to go (directly or indirectly) to “Out in Schools.”


Out in Schools: Debate . . .

Vancouver Sun blog

Parents who protested a new gay-friendly policy for Burnaby schools last spring said they feared the policy was intended to do more than simply stop bullying. They were worried it might lead to classroom lessons that would offend their traditional values.

Now, some are pointing to a resource called Out in Schools as evidence that their concerns were legitimate. This resource, which has been purchased for use in many Canadian schools (including in Burnaby), includes links to sites with sexually explicit pictures and messages. Some parents find this shocking and have teamed up with conservative activist Kari Simpson to make their concerns known. She claims Out in Schools is not so much an anti-bullying program as an attempt to lure students into sexual activism.

Simpson held a news conference Tuesday outside the BCTF building but few reporters attended. Nevertheless, there’s been much discussion about it online. Find the Out in Schools website here.

Simpson has also filed a police complaint, which XtraWest writes about here. The Parents’ Voice, the group that led the opposition to the Burnaby school policy last spring, has also posted about it in here. The discussion has now spread beyond B.C. In an email to members, the Ontario Catholic Parents’ Association urges everyone to watch Simpson’s video.

“Look at it and ask yourself, do we want our children to be exposed to this kind of sexual education curriculum. If not, forward this email to as many people as you can,” it states.

I have not read the Out in Schools teaching manual nor have I observed a presentation in a school, but I was surprised to find a link from the online version of Out in Schools to the Health Initiative for Men and its graphic sexual images under the heading “It’s hottest at the start”. (Out in Schools has removed that link in recent days.) Some parents are also questioning links to the website Won’t Get Weird.

Since the news conference was outside the BCTF office, I asked the union for comment and received an email with the following information from BCTF vice-president Glen Hansman:

 ”The Out In Schools program receives provincial funding. We’ve endorsed them. They are invited to schools by principals, teachers, parent groups. They show 3-4 short films over a noon-hour, typically, or in a school assembly. The films usually show a LGBT student coming out to their family or friends, or play on stereotypes that are common in our schools and society. There then is an opportunity to discuss the films in a group.

“The Resource Guide that is available for teachers to use contains links to external websites. One is to an AIDS/HIV-awareness program aimed at gay men. You can see the ads in bus stops in the WestEnd. Again, teachers do not show pornographic material in schools, but the websites are there for references for teachers to make use of. The rate of AIDS/HIV in the under-25 gay male population remains high. The BCTF has called upon the provincial government to provide up-to-date, age-appropriate resources that address AIDS/HIV in multiple languages (see AGM decision from a couple years ago).

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this, the Burnaby school district sent me the following statement:

“The Out in Schools Teachers Learning Resource Guide is a respected resource funded by the Vancouver Foundation, Canada Council for the Arts and the Province of British Columbia.

“It is an optional resource for secondary school Planning 10 teachers and is not used in elementary schools. It is not a student resource.

“The Out in Schools Teachers Learning Resource Guide does not contain any explicit content. It includes student work units and meets Ministry of Education prescribed learning outcomes.

“The Out in Schools Teachers Learning Resource Guide contains a section that lists additional resources for teachers’ consideration. These resources are extra to the main teacher resource guide. As with all resources, should a teacher choose to use them, they need to meet the Ministry of Education prescribed learning outcomes and be used in age-appropriate ways with discretion, professionalism and common sense.

“Concerns have been raised about explicit content in one website on the list. This content is not appropriate for school-aged students and would not be used in Burnaby schools. It is obviously intended for an adult audience.

“Internet filters in the Burnaby School District will not allow students to have direct access to the site in question. The District makes every effort to program our internet filters to block inappropriate websites.”

Out in Schools deletes link to sex pictures

Since my last post, I’ve received more information about the Out in Schools program offered in many B.C. schools and its link to sexually explicit pictures on the Health Initiative for Men website.

Steve Mulligan, who was the anti-homophobia and diversity mentor for the Vancouver board of education, sent me an email Thursday with this explanation:

“Unfortunately the teacher guide includes an organization [HIM] which at the time of printing was running a program for gay youth. They have since discontinued working with youth and their latest and somewhat controversial campaign is designed only for 18+ gay adults. . . .  I have spoken to Ross Johnstone at Out in Schools and they are working to fix the outdated reference. In future the list of resources will likely be online where it can be amended as needed. Teachers in Vancouver will be asked to delete this resource in the manuals, but as it is a teacher guide it wouldn’t be in the hands of students anyway.” 

Mulligan also described Out in Schools as a well-respected organization that has been “facilitating professional, engaging and always respectful discussions with secondary students in our district since 2004. . . . .

[Link:  the above article online.]


“Contacts for Your Out in Schools Concerns"

Will you protest the “Out in Schools” program that has been given access to the schools and so many opportunities to propagandize students in British Columbia? Roadkill Radio has a list of organizations and people to contact to express your concerns.  [Click here for this list.]



[For your information, we pass on this news release, received September 12th, 2011:]




Sex activists scam school boards with ‘anti-bullying’ program OUT IN SCHOOLS, luring students to porn sites—and more!


Sept. 12, 2011 (RKRNews) — NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert’s “spouse”, Romi Chandra, is the author of OUT IN SCHOOLS—a gateway program used to sexualise students and introduce them to homosexualist “culture”; OUT IN SCHOOLS is endorsed by the BC Teachers’ Federation and heavily funded by BC taxpayers.


Kari Simpson, former Executive Director of the Citizens Research Institute, and now President of Culture Guard—a new national organization that works on behalf of civil, common-sense Canadians—said today: 

“I believe parents will be shocked and righteously angry when they find out what their children have been subjected to.  I hope parents sue their local school boards! I doubt that the OUT IN SCHOOLS ‘Youth Resources’, which direct students to hard-core pornography, including ‘gay’ porn and homosexist propaganda, fits within Section 2 of the School Act, which mandates that ‘the highest morality shall be inculcated’.”


The OUT IN SCHOOLS “Teachers’ Guide” states that it is a secondary school resource; but Culture Guard has obtained pictures of OUT IN SCHOOLS facilitators Ross Johnstone and Jen “Jenderfuck” Sung presenting it in elementary schools.


“The scandalous problems associated with the program don’t stop with the OUT IN SCHOOLS-recommended ‘youth resources’ or the political and homosexist left-wing propaganda that fill its pages,” says Simpson. “There are serious and possibly criminal activities involved with this program.”


A news conference will be held at 11 a.m. Tuesday, September 13, 2011 in front of the BC Teachers’ Federation Offices, located at 100-550 West 6th Avenue, Vancouver.


A video, OUT IN SCHOOLS is No Picnic, is available for viewing now at; Part 2, Scammed, Swooned & Corrupted, will be available after the news conference. Viewers should be warned that portions of the video are explicit, and not suitable for younger viewers—including those of the target ages of the in-school program, OUT IN SCHOOLS.


Members of the media who attend will be given password-limited  access to details of the Police complaint to be filed earlier the same day. At the news conference, Kari Simpson will disclose shocking details that Culture Guard has exposed involving the OUT IN SCHOOLS program, and will name some of its major corporate sponsors.




For more information please contact Kari Simpson 604 514-1614 or by e-mail:


August 19, 2011, Press Release from Liberty Counsel:

Teacher of the Year Suspended for Facebook Comment Against Same-S*x Marriage

Mount Dora, FL – Jerry Buell, last year’s “Teacher of the Year” at Mount Dora High School, has been suspended from the classroom for a comment he made on his own personal Facebook page, expressing his disapproval of legalized same-s*x marriage in New York. Buell commented that homosexuality is a sin and that seeing two “grooms” kissing on a news story revolted him. School officials received a complaint about Buell’s comment on Tuesday from a 2002 Mount Dora graduate, who was never even in Mr. Buell’s class. The Lake County School District responded by taking away his teaching privileges and reassigning him to administrative duties. Liberty Counsel is representing Buell and demanding that he be immediately reinstated with an apology for violating his First Amendment rights.

Buell has been a teacher for more than 22 years, served as the Social Studies Department Chair at Mount Dora High School, and taught American history and government. Buell has always been open to students, including those who identify as homosexual, about his conservative principles but has never forced his beliefs on anyone. Furthermore, Buell’s students understand he has an open line of communication, which has built a high level of trust in his classes.

The school district’s response to Buell’s comments is unconstitutional, violating his right to free speech. Groups who are pushing “same-s*x marriage” and “marriage equality” are claiming any speech that is contrary to their viewpoint is considered “hate speech” and should be censored.

Harry Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “Public school teachers are not constitutional orphans. They, like all Americans, enjoy the freedom to engage in discourse about matters of public concern. Mr. Buell is being investigated and punished for communicating his mainstream objection to homosexual marriage, an objection shared by a large majority of his fellow Floridians who have outlawed homosexual marriage through a constitutional amendment. If the First Amendment does not protect Mr. Buell’s right to voice his personal opinion, on his personal time, from his personal computer, on his personal Facebook page, then the First Amendment means nothing.”

Next Thursday, August 25th, Liberty Counsel will host the Florida Awake! at the First Baptist Church of Leesburg, where Buell resides. This event will gather support from individuals in Florida to take a stand for their constitutional rights. The rally seeks to motivate, educate, and equip the public to restore our nation’s values, as our founders originally intended




 ACLU Granted Access to Catholic Charities Lawsuit, Represents Lesbian Couple.

by Catherine Snow
CitizenLink, Aug. 2, 2011

Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt agreed on Monday to let the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ALCU) join the highly publicized lawsuit filed by four Catholic Charities agencies against the state.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services had surprised four Catholic Charities affiliates last month when it chose not to renew their longstanding adoption and foster care contracts. The move could have jeopardized the futures of nearly 2,000 children.

The state’s reason for ending the half-century relationship? Catholic Charities opposes placing children — through adoption or foster care — with unmarried couples, including same-sex couples.

The ACLU argued on Friday that the charities were in violation of a federal consent decree when it rejected potential parents “based on sexual orientation or religious belief.” Children, the attorneys argued, were “directly affected and directly harmed by Catholic Charities insistence that they have a right to continue to perform governmental functions based on religious principles that are in conflict with the best interests of the state’s children.”

Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society and representing Catholic Charities, said “the ACLU’s true colors have now been revealed.

“The ACLU had been advocating for the best interest of children,” he said. “Now the ACLU is putting their preference for homosexual politics over the best interest of the state's children.

. . . .

[Read the whole CitizenLink article.]



California Governor signs law mandating "pro-gay" curriculum

Kathleen Gilbert Jul. 15, 2011

SACRAMENTO, July 15, 2011 ( - In a move that could have ramifications for curriculum across America, California governor Jerry Brown has signed controversial legislation mandating that public schools teach children about “the role and contributions of” homosexual American historical figures.

The law also forbids materials that “contain any matter reflecting adversely” upon gays on the basis of sexual identification.

Brown on Thursday signed into law SB 48, which is designed to take effect in January of next year, although the San Francisco Gate notes that the state’s fiscal crisis is so deep it will be unable to purchase the new texts until 2015 at the earliest.

Pushed as an antidote to gay bullying in schools, the measure mandates textbooks to highlight homosexual persons and their activities in American history. It simultaneously reinforces a gag on religious doctrine, noting that “any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law” is forbidden.

The text of the law ends with a warning shot at private schools in California, stating: “It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and charter schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of Section 235 of the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination ... in any aspect of the operation of alternative and charter schools.”

The bill includes no age requirement, meaning the changes could affect even the lowest elementary school grades, notes Baptist Press.

“History should be honest,” said Gov. Brown in a statement upon signing the bill, adding that the law “ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.”

The Assembly had approved the measure by a 49-25 vote on July 6, following a heated debate. Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly expressed outrage over the bill on the chamber floor.

“I think it’s one thing to say that we should be tolerant. It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good,” said Donnelly, according to the Associated Press. “As a Christian, I am deeply offended.”

Meanwhile, family advocates expressed alarm at the new law’s obvious implications for the national textbook market.

“The reality is that the major textbook manufacturers do not create different textbooks for each state,” said Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) president Brad Dacus in a statement July 6. “Instead, they seek to comply with mandates in the largest states, especially California and Texas.

“As a result, many smaller states are pressured into approving California-focused instructional materials, which must now cater to the gay history mandate.”

Earlier this month, in union with other California bishops, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles strongly criticized SB 48 as an attack on parents’ rights, saying the bill “amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics.”



Victory for Evangelical church over ‘hell-raising’ gay anarchist group

by Peter Baklinski

July 13, 2011

Lansing, Michigan, July 13, 2011 ( – The U.S. District Court of Michigan has awarded victory to an evangelical church in Lansing, Michigan, after it filed suit against a group of self-proclaimed gay “anarchists,” called Bash Back!, over their protest and disruption of a Sunday service.

According to Bash Back!‘s blog, on November 9th, 2008, 30 members of the organization disrupted the most well-attended Sunday service at Mount Hope Church.

“At noon, a small group of folks dressed in pink and black, equipped with a megaphone, black flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross began demonstrating outside the church,” they wrote. “The group was extremely loud and wildly offensive.”

Members of Bash Back! in a photo taken from their website

After the group lured the security staff outside the church, over a dozen members of the organization who had already infiltrated the congregation prepared for action.

“A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went into action. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-off balcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal ‘IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!’. Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entirety of the congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes.”

According to Right Michigan the protestors also threw condoms, glitter, confetti, and pink fabric.

Mount Hope Church filed suit in March of 2009 with the assistance of the Alliance Defence Fund (ADF). The church alleged that the group’s actions constituted “acts of physical obstruction and intimidation” and “common law trespass.”

In an interview with (LSN) ADF’s Dale Schowengerdt said, “People should be able to go to church without fear of being attacked for it.  In this case, the group Bash Back! were vandalizing and disrupting Church service across the country. Mount Hope filed suit to put a stop to that.”

The injunction against Bash Back!, issued on July 11, 2011, states that they are prohibited from disrupting a religious service anywhere in the United States, and they may not conduct a protest at or destroy any property “on the private grounds of any place of worship in the United States.”

“This injunction is a stiff penalty: a $10,000 fine if they do this again anywhere in the country. So, it protects every Church in the country. It’s a stiff penalty and a stern warning from the courts, ” said ADF’s Schowengerdt to LSN.

“If Bash Back! or any group is thinking about taking similar action against Churches, they had better think long and hard about it because we will be quick to file suits to stop it.”
“The people in this country have a right to go to Church in peace. That’s a constitutional right and one that is strongly protected by federal law.”



NDP’s targeting of ‘ex-gay’ groups a ‘potential attack’ on all Christian charities: Evangelicals

 Jul 12, 2011

OTTAWA, Ontario, July 12, 2011 ( – The New Democrat Party’s unanimously-passed resolution to call on the government to revoke the charitable status of “ex-gay” groups is a “potential attack” on all Christian charitable groups, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada warned Tuesday.

“Should members of the LGBT community who, as the result of personal decision, want to discuss changing their sexual behaviour be told there’s nowhere to go?” asked Don Hutchinson, the EFC’s General Legal Counsel, at the Activate CFPL blog.  “Should religious charities be forbidden from providing support to those who want to converse, seek counselling or change their lifestyle?”

The NDP’s resolution, passed at their annual convention in Vancouver last month, called on the government to “immediately remove any charitable status currently enjoyed by ‘ex-gay’ organizations” and to ensure they are not granted such status in the future.  In his remarks, the sponsor specifically named Exodus Global Alliance, an international Christian group based in Ontario.

Randall Garrison, the NDP’s “queer issues” critic told Xtra that groups like Exodus “prey on vulnerable members” of the homosexual community and “bully them into believing that gay, lesbian and bisexual people are sick and lead sad and lonely lives, and that the only hope is to become straight.”

Hutchinson said, however, tht the NDP’s proposal is an “affront” to Canada’s longstanding recognition of charities dedicated to the ‘advancement of religion’, which he noted is one of the four categories of charity used by the Canada Revenue Agency.

“Advancement of religion includes those acts of service that flow from Jesus’ command to love God and our neighbor,” he said, naming social justice and poverty relief efforts.  “So worship, Bible studies, and the like all flow into practical acts of service, and inform how we engage in the public square.”

“This NDP resolution is a potential attack on the heart of all of these types of ministries, not just those offering services to gays and lesbians,” he explained.

“If implemented, this idea would serve only to weaken the Canadian charitable community and rob Canadian citizens of the many benefits they receive from this sector,” he continued.  “In short, the NDP policy proposes a very slippery slope that we best not slide down.”

The resolution followed a campaign by the homosexual blog Slap Upside the Head, which was inspired by the New Zealand government’s decision to revoke Exodus Global Alliance’s charitable status in August 2010.

The Exodus ministry, dedicated to communicating the message of “freedom from homosexuality,” had had charitable status in New Zealand for more than ten years, but the government’s Charities Commission ruled that the group did not qualify because its activities offered no “public benefit.”

See Hutchinson’s blog post, ‘Does the NDP Really Want to Revoke the Charitable Status of Select Christian Charities?’, here.




Toronto school board: Parents can’t opt kids out of pro-homosexual curriculum

by Patrick B. Craine

  • Wed Jun 08, 2011

TORONTO, Ontario, June 8, 2011 ( – In a major attack on parental rights, and a direct violation of the stated policy of the Ontario government, the Toronto District School Board is forbidding parents from opting their kids out of classes treating homosexuality.

Their policy suggests children are forced to join the board’s comprehensive “anti-homophobia” curriculum that promotes Toronto’s raunchy Pride parade to kindergarteners and aims to transform students into social activists by the end of high school.

The school board’s curriculum on “equity” for homosexuals, called ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism’, says parents cannot have their children removed from “human rights education” because of religious reasons.

“If a parent asks for his or her child to be exempted for any discussions of LGBTQ family issues as a religious accommodation, this request cannot be made because it violates the Human Rights Policy,” the document reads.

Religious freedom, they write further, “is not absolute” and religious accommodation in the school board “is carried out in the larger context of the secular education system.”

Similarly, the document says teachers are not allowed to opt out of treating controversial issues in the classroom that would violate their religious beliefs. “The TDSB is part of the secular public education system. …Teachers refusing to create an inclusive classroom that is safe and supportive for all students would create a poisoned learning environment.”

Furthermore, it says schools ought not to send home notes or permission slips to parents before dealing with “LGBTQ issues” because treating sexual orientation differently in this way could be deemed “discriminatory.”

Phil Lees, the leader of Ontario’s Family Coalition Party, which is the province’s only pro-life and pro-family party, said the Toronto board is acting as though their “authority supersedes the Ministry of Education.”

While Ontario’s Ministry of Education has vigorously promoted “anti-homophobia” education, particularly through their controversial equity and inclusive education strategy, they have also guaranteed parents the right to opt out of controversial classes.

In a 2008 letter, former Education Minister Kathleen Wynne told pro-family activist Ken O’Day, “Should a component of any course conflict with a religious belief held by a parent or a student aged eighteen or older, the right to withdraw from that component of the course shall be granted on the written request of the parent or student.”

“As usual, Toronto is being influenced by only one side of this issue,” said Lees, noting that the board is promoting the government’s “equity” agenda for homosexuals while flouting the government’s call for religious accommodation.

Though the Ministry affords them the right to opt their kids of controversial classes, parents would likely find this difficult to carry out in practice without completely leaving the system. The Toronto board points out that their “anti-homophobia” plan is a long-term “process” that “permeates the curriculum in all subject areas” and so is not restricted to individual classes.

Their anti-homophobia curriculum employs a pedagogical model called the “James Banks Continuum”, which aims to move the children from merely recognizing the contributions of homosexual “heroes” to a point where they are themselves prepared to engage in “social action” on the issue.

The document profiles major homosexual activists like Brent Hawkes, the Toronto pastor who pushed homosexual “marriage” on Canada through the back-door of the judicial system, and it recommends such controversial organizations as Planned Parenthood, Pride Toronto, PFLAG, and Egale.

Beginning with kindergarten, children are expected to have an initial grasp of homosexual family structures, and are familiarized with terms such as “gay” and “lesbian”.

Activities for junior kindergarten to Grade 3 include a discussion aimed at convincing students of the importance of participating in Toronto’s annual Pride Parade. Though billed as “family-friendly,” the event has often been labeled a “sex parade,” as it regularly features people walking down the streets semi-nude or completely naked, and homosexuals engaging in public sex acts.

The young students read “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride”, teachers are asked to bring in photos from the parade, and the students are encouraged to make posters for the school board’s parade float.

Other books recommended for JK-3 include “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “King & King & Family”.

In grades 4-6, teachers are encouraged to bring in the raunchy homosexual newspaper Xtra!, which is known for featuring prominent ads with naked men, as part of an activity on stereotyping in the media. Another activity has students develop an “action plan” to challenge “homophobic attitudes” in their school.

By grade 7, students are engaging in an activity designed to question the notion that homosexuality is a “choice”, and another has students running surveys to assess the “heterosexist/homophobia temperature” of their school and then formulating an action plan to challenge identified “inequities”. In the end, students are encouraged to organize school-wide activities to raise awareness of “homophobia”.

Lees said that while the school board is treating the Ontario Human Rights Code as absolute, “there are many attending the secular public school system who believe that absolutes are God’s prerogative, not government’s.”

“It would seem that the Toronto District School Board has neither the will, intention, nor the ability to deal with religious accommodations in schools,” he continued.

“This entire problem is the result of a ‘monopoly on education’. It can only be solved by funding of separate religious school boards,” he added, calling on voters to question candidates on this issue leading into October’s provincial election.

A spokesman for the Toronto District School Board was unavailable for comment. did not hear back from the Ministry of Education by press time.

See the Toronto District School Board’s “anti-homophobia” curriculum here.

Contact Information:

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Education 
Mowat Block, 22nd Flr, 900 Bay St 
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2 
Tel: 1-800-387-5514 (TTY 1-800-263-2892) 



Top gay rights leader: kids of religious families are ‘target demographic’ of anti-‘gay bullying’ ad

Kathleen Gilbert Fri Jun 10, 2011

June 10, 2011 ( - After the broadcast of a homosexualist advertisement during the family-friendly Fox show American Idol prompted outrage, the founder of the ad campaign has confirmed that such advertisements are intended to promote the message of the gay rights lobby to young children in households that normally wouldn’t support it. One conservative leader has now demanded that Google, Fox, and Disney-Pixar sever their ties with the campaign.Peggy Nance of Concerned Women for America expressed outrage that the Fox network aired an “anti-gay bullying” advertisement, part of the “It Gets Better” campaign, during the extremely popular competition show.

Doubling as an advertisement for Google Chrome, the ad features several Hollywood personalities, and even a character from the popular Disney-Pixar movie series Toy Story, who speak directly to and encourage an audience of young people identifying as homosexual, telling them that “It gets better.”

On her blog, Nance called Fox’s choice of ad placement a betrayal of trust of conservative households everywhere.

“Apparently, American Idol with the help of Woody from Disney’s Toy Story, thinks that my 4th grader needs to be fully aware of the plight of teens who view themselves as ‘gay.’ I am sorry, but he doesn’t even know about heterosexual sex yet. Can you give me some room here?” wrote Nance. “I am ticked because I feel tricked. Fox blew it last night.

“The point is parents felt secure in allowing our entire families watch this show. They lured us into a false sense of security and broke trust with us last night.”

Dan Savage, a homosexual activist and founder of the It Gets Better project, shot back at Nance, saying that promoting their message to those with religious upbringing was precisely the point.

“Nance’s son was always our target demo,” wrote Savage. “Again, we don’t know if he’s gay. But he might be and, if he is, he needs to hear from us.”

The “primary goal” of the campaign, he explained, is “to reach LGBT kids who are being bullied by their peers and their families.”

“Now I don’t know if Nance’s son is gay, bi, or trans, but if he is, he needs to know more than most that it can get better for him too, that there’s hope for his future, and that the adult world isn’t entirely populated by hateful s***s like his mother,” he wrote, adding “here’s hoping” that “Nance’s son is gay.”

Nance later wrote to supporters that Savage’s response revealed “a serious threat to every family.”

“This campaign isn’t really about stopping gay bullying in school,” wrote Nance, who also demanded that Google, Fox and Disney sever ties with Savage’s campaign. “This is about using the power of prime time television and Google to infiltrate your home and your family and get their message to our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters.”




June 2, 2011, CitizenLink

Federal Legislation Threatens Faith-Based Adoption Agencies  [in the U. S.]

by Jennifer Mesko

Under a bill sitting in the U.S. House, faith-based adoption agencies would be forced to choose between closing their doors and violating their religious beliefs.

The deceptively titled Every Child Deserves a Family Act would force any group that receives federal aid to place kids in foster families and adoptive families without regard to the sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status of the prospective parents.

“It would have the effect of either banning Christian adoption agencies or forbidding them from acting on their faith convictions and their moral convictions in terms of what is in the best interest of a child,” Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told the Catholic News Agency.

Catholic Charities, the largest private network of social service organizations in the nation, has already ended adoption services in several cities because of similar local and state restrictions.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., has 52 co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Kristin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is expected to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. . . . .

[Read the whole article on the CitizenLink site.]


    Hamilton school board ‘religious accommodation’ policy would exclude moral beliefs

Patrick B. Craine  Jun 10, 2011 

HAMILTON, Ontario, June 10, 2011 ( – Christian pro-family activists are denouncing a new Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board “religious accommodation” policy that they say is deliberately designed to allow schools to exclude traditional moral beliefs.

The school board’s ‘Interim Religious Accommodation Guideline’ unjustly discriminates against Christians by re-defining religion to exclude moral beliefs, wrote Jim Enos, president of the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council, in a submission to the board this week.  The board is seeking public input on the policy until June 17th.

The policy is ostensibly designed to protect freedom of religion as part of the Ontario government’s controversial equity and inclusive education strategy. However, it’s definition of “creed” states, “Creed does not include secular, moral, or ethical beliefs or political convictions.”

“The right to freedom of religion … is not absolute,” it states further, adding that the board “cannot … accommodate religious values and beliefs that clearly conflict with mandated Ministry of Education and Board policies.”

“To suggest that one can be Christian without having moral convictions is absolutely false and unveils the Christophobic nature of this Guideline,” wrote Enos. “It is impossible to obey Biblical teaching while having no understanding of nor honouring of the morals and principles put forth in the Bible.”

“It is upon the principles of these Christian morals which Canada is founded and Canadian law is based,” he added.

The policy appears to dovetail with a leaked document from January 2010 in which the school board indicated children would not be permitted to withdraw from classes promoting homosexuality.  The document, distributed during “equity” training for teachers, advised the teachers to inform parents who object to “anti-homophobia” curriculum that “this is not about parent rights.”

“As teachers, we do not condone children being removed from our classes when we engage in anti-racism education.  This issue is no different,” the teachers were instructed to tell parents.  “All children, including yours, have a right to an education free from discrimination.”

This week, LifeSiteNews revealed that the Toronto District School Board has a specific policy forbidding parents from opting their kids out of classes treating homosexuality, and telling schools not to advise parents when the controversial issue comes up.

Toronto’s comprehensive “anti-homophobia” curriculum promotes the city’s raunchy Pride parade to kindergarteners and aims to transform students into social activists by the end of high school.

As boards are increasingly integrating their “anti-homophobia” curriculum across subject areas, parents seeking to protect their children from pro-homosexual curriculum will likely find it impossible to do so without completely leaving the public system. Leaving the system is exactly what Enos’ group is advising.  “We continue to recommend that Judeo-Christian families flee the Ontario public school system and support governance which will put an end to such denial and oppression of Christianity,” he wrote.

Enos described the Hamilton board’s efforts to accommodate Christians in recent years as “dismal.”

Based on a guarantee from the Ontario Ministry of Education that parents have the right to opt out of controversial classes, his group and others have also encouraged Christians to submit statements of faith to their schools. According to Enos, until recently the Hamilton school board had mostly respected parents’ wishes. But since the introduction of their new “equity” policy, he says the statements of faith have been “rejected and dismissed as they now seem to be trumped by said human rights which HWDSB deem of greater significance than a family’s commitment to honour and serve God.”

“This is truly Christophobic and blatantly discriminatory,” he wrote.

“This Guideline is disrespectful, dishonouring and discriminatory toward Judeo-Christian principled families,” he wrote.  “It has no justified place in a democratic nation founded on the principles of the Supremacy of God.”

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is seeking public input on the ‘Interim Religious Accommodation Guideline’ until June 17th at 4 p.m.  For information on how to contribute, visit their website here.

Contact Information:

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Education
Mowat Block, 22nd Flr, 900 Bay St
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2
Tel: 1-800-387-5514 (TTY 1-800-263-2892)
Fax: 416-325-6348

Elizabeth Witmer, Education Critic
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
Rm 422, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel: 416-325-1306
Fax: 416-325-1329
E-mail: Use this form.

John Malloy, Director of Education
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board
100 Main St. West 
P.O. Box 2558
Hamilton, ON L8N 3L1
Phone: (905) 527-5092 ext.2297
E-mail: (through Executive Assistant)

Find contact information for trustees at the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board here.

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is pleased to publish news releases  from "Parents' Voice" in the interests of continuing to inform parents throughout the province of the important issues raised by the Burnaby parents' organization:


Parents’ Voice

Burnaby parents: Burnaby School Trustees to get a lesson in law and democracy

 BURNABY, June 21, 2011 (Parents’ Voice) — Now that Burnaby Education Board trustees have passed a controversial “anti-homophobia” policy, members of Parents’ Voice vow to expose and expunge the “shameful bully politics of contempt and discrimination” from their local school board.

“It is a bit of an irony and the upmost act of hypocrisy,” says Parents’ Voice member Gordon World, “that Trustees would resort to name-calling – “Homophobes”, “Bigots”… - and blatant acts of discrimination to enforce a so-called Code of Conduct that has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with creating a toxic school environment of intolerance and discrimination.”

Homara Ahmad, one of the Parents’ Voice members that delivered the nearly 5000 signature strong petition to the Premier’s office last week says, “Perhaps it is time that Premier Clark advise Minister Abbott of his responsibility to educate the Burnaby School Trustees of their lawful obligations of inclusion and respect for all stakeholders within the Burnaby district.  What has transpired in Burnaby is regressive, reprehensible, unlawful and shameful.”

Parents’ Voice representative Belinda Bai says, “Parents, students, teachers and other citizens of Burnaby will not sit by idly and allow Burnaby’s Board of Education trustees to implement policies that will discriminate against and label our children.  Will the trustees now label each child according to sexual orientation, so they can determine whether Policy 5.45 final.pdf applies to that child?  How do they propose to integrate ‘lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, questioning and two-spirited’ issues into the curriculum?

“These and many other questions must be answered. We want children in our public schools to be in an environment where everyone is treated as equal, and where the focus is on education—not on left-wing social engineering led by gay activists.

“We will do what is necessary to protect our children,” she concluded.

Parents’ Voice has developed and begun distributing a document called the Parents’ Directive and requires the school to respect the cultural and moral rights of students and their parents.  The Burnaby district already is aware of their legal obligation to accommodate and protect religious and cultural rights.  Policy 5.40 Student choice.pdf recognizes and respects the differing views on animal dissection and provides for “alternative delivery” of a curriculum.

“Trustees will have an opportunity to prove they are not religious and cultural bigots by respecting the lawful provisions assigned in the Parents’ Directive,” says Gordon World.  “This is the true test; is the intent of the policy to foster kindness or is it a coercive tactic to impose a moral, political and cultural code of thought that violates the sensibilities of civil-minded and informed citizens?” 

Momentum continues to build for the Parents’ Voice movement – a movement that promotes respect and equality for ALL students, parents and school district staff. Further, Parents Voice recognizes the primacy of parental rights and responsibilities in children’s education and seeks transparency from the Burnaby School Trustees.   
Daud Ismail –
Charter Lau –
Gordon World –





Parents’ Voice Press Conference


For release; June 13, 2011

Thousands of BC parents and students join Burnaby petition drive to put ‘Families First’

BURNABY, June 13, 2011 — Thousands of BC parents, students and teachers have joined Burnaby's Parents’ Voice movement in a petition drive to place Premier Christy Clark and the BC Government on notice that discrimination against children and violation of parental and religious rights and freedoms will not be tolerated in BC ― even if it is camouflaged as an ‘anti-bullying’ measure.

Supporters of Parents’ Voice and representatives of the BC Muslim Association will deliver petitions filled with thousands of names to Premier Clark’s office at Canada Place on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011.  A press conference will be held in front of Canada Place at 11 a.m prior to delivery of the petitions.
“The Premier’s slogan has been ‘Families First’,” said Charter Lau, spokesman for Parents’ Voice. “That must include recognizing the rights of all parents and children — not just special interest groups and their unions.”

Parents’ Voice is a parent and student movement that promotes respect and equality for all students, parents and staff and resists the Burnaby Public School Board’s proposed policy No. 5.45, which provides special privileges to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer and Two-Spirited Intersex students without providing the same privileges to all students. 

When supporters of Parents’ Voice asked questions on how the policy will be implemented and how students who do not conform to the opinion endorsed by the policy will be disciplined, the Burnaby Public School Board Trustees stonewalled.  To date, the Trustees have failed to provide lawfully requested information and refuse to answer these crucial questions.

The Burnaby School Board has announced that changes will be made to the policy — but those changes will not be open to public input, nor will they be made available for public review prior to the June 14th meeting where it is reported, by some media, that the policy will be adopted.

Parents’ Voice believes the actions of the Trustees are both reprehensible and illegal. "The violation of parental trust, political abuse of the classroom and blatant disregard for the Charter values of equality and freedom from discrimination will not be tolerated," said Lau.

 "Board Chairman Larry Hayes has been caught with his political pants down, and has no policy protocol to pull them back up with,” said Parents’ Voice supporter, Gordon World.  He added, “This Board will be held accountable — politically and in the courts. The Trustees have failed, administratively, ethically — they have violated the BC Human Rights Code and misled the public and the media — they alone are responsible for creating this costly fiasco.”

Parents’ Voice has said it will Boycott the June 14, 2011 meeting.    Supporters of Parents' Voice have come by the hundreds to the last three board meetings and, according to media reports, have outnumbered opponents ten to one.  Parents' Voice believes that it is a waste of time to attend any additional Burnaby Public School Board meetings when the Burnaby Trustees are wilfully deaf and blind to valid parent and student concerns.  The Parents’ Voice movement now appeals to Premier Christy Clark to demonstrate leadership and protect the children of Burnaby from discrimination.

Contact:   Daud Ismail -
                Charter Lau –
                Gordon World –





Burnaby Parents Hold May 24th Rally Over Concerns
 About "Homophobia/Heterosexism" Policy

Parents in Burnaby, British Columbia held another rally on May 24th to express their concerns about the proposed "homophobia/heterosexism " policy proposed for their school district.  

BCPTL members attended, and later the BCPTL president spoke on "Roadkill Radio" about the rally and the issues involved.  

Concerned Burnaby parents decry ‘deliberate descrimination’ 
in debate over ‘homophobia’ policy

by Rebecca Millette

Tue May 24, 2011

BURNABY, British Columbia, May 24, 2011 ( – In a strongly-worded news release issued today, Burnaby public school parents and students who have voiced concerns with the board’s controversial “homophobia” policy demanded that the board and trustees cease their own “deliberate discrimination” against concerned parties. They say that they have learned that the original advisory committee on the policy was composed “exclusively” of gay activists and those sympathetic to their cause, and are demanding transparency about any intended changes to the school curriculum.

The Parents’ Voice, a parent-initiated group to connect and inform concerned students and parents, announced a rally and press conference tonight that will outline the “growing concerns” about draft policy 5.45.

The parents believe the controversial policy, which includes reference to embedding gay-related issues into teacher training and student curriculum, will promote homosexuality to their children and discriminate against those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle. Trustees, on the other hand, maintain the policy merely ensures a safe and caring environment.

Parents have also expressed frustration that trustees have not met their demands for transparency on the policy specifics.

To date, the Parents’ Voice said the Burnaby Public School Board has not released information pertaining to planned curriculum changes, committee meeting minutes, or other pertinent information requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

A growing numbers of students, parents and other tax-payers are concerned that the board’s failure to provide full disclosure may be a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that there is a hidden political agenda — an agenda that doesn’t respect parental rights, students’ rights or the equality rights of Canadians as protected in the Charter, but instead serves the political interests of activist teachers and their union.

It is now evident, claimed The Parents’ Voice, that health professionals, religious leaders and members of Burnaby’s faith communities were deliberately excluded from the committee that developed draft policy 5.45.

“Parents’ Voice … learned that the ‘Ad Hoc Advisory Committee’ was comprised exclusively of LGBTQ activists and their ‘allies’. Religious leaders, members of the faith community and health professionals are apparently not included in the Board’s definition of ‘key educational partners’ or ‘allies.’”

The Parents’ Voice asks, “If the faith-based community is not considered an ally, does this Board of School Trustees consider them to be the enemy?”

Some trustees continue to publicly assert that draft policy 5.45 will not result in any changes to the school curriculum, even though the draft policy includes six separate references to curriculum changes. The Parents’ Voice asks, “Why is curriculum mentioned in the draft policy if there will be no curriculum changes?  We wonder if the curriculum changes are a part of the Trustees’ hidden political agenda.”

“The Board has, by their actions, created a toxic and hostile environment, and must apologize to the membership of Parents’ Voice and other excluded stakeholders,” demanded the gruop. “The Board has facilitated a proliferation of misleading information, and has played to media madness; and in doing so has offended a large portion of the community.”

“These acts of deliberate discrimination cannot be tolerated.”

According to retired teacher and administrator for the Vancouver School Board, Ben Seebaran of Burnaby, the Burnaby School District’s existing Code of Conduct already protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In a letter to the Burnaby Now outlining the problems with the draft policy, Seebaran, wrote: “The board has lifted large segments of the existing policies and applied them to the proposed new policy. It seems redundant to create a whole new policy that could be easily subsumed into a more inclusive, comprehensive one.”

“It leads me to think,” he added, “ that there may be a political agenda behind the push and to wonder whether the board may be promoting a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda under the guise of prevention of hostility and cruelty among students.”

The Parents’ Voice said that while they reaffirm the need for the protection of the rights of all students in the Burnaby schools, the existing Code of Conduct already recognizes the “diversity of opinion and background.”

“Discrimination which occurs under the existing code of conduct reflects a failure in enforcement rather than a failure in the Code of Conduct.  We request that the Burnaby School District strengthen the existing code through better enforcement rather than create a new draft policy which would promote discrimination against a large number of students and their families.”

In addition they demanded that Burnaby School Trustees provide information requested regarding curriculum changes and a 90 day period for parents to review the information before “open and transparent discussions” addressing any additional concerns.


BCPTL Pictures:







Burnaby Parents Concerned About Proposed "Homophobia/Herosexism" Policy Unite 

(For background, see article immediately below this one.)

[Please note the  petition that is to be found on "The Parents'" website.  If you are a B.C. resident, you can help by downloading and signing this petition, getting others to sign it,  and sending it to the address given.]

Burnaby parents who are concerned about their school district's proposed "homophobia/herosexism" policy, have united and posted their concerns on a website entitled "The Parents'"  (added to our list of links in the column to the right).  The following news release , taken from that website, makes clear their concern: Media Update for May 17, 2011

Burnaby School District Draft Policy #5.45 

      The number of concerned students and parents in Burnaby concerned by Burnaby School District’s draft policy 5.45 on “Homophobia/Heterosexism” continues to increase.  Parents’ Voice has created this website to accommodate the growing number of students an parents seeking information. 

2.   A number of formal requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) have been made to the Burnaby Board of School Trustees from individuals and associations.  These requests seek disclosure of the information Burnaby School Trustees and district staff have relied upon in the development of policy 5.45.  Parents’ Voice finds it regrettable that the district has refused to provide this information to students and parents, requiring concerned individuals to use the FOIPPA process.

3.   On May 6th the Burnaby School District advised that there would be a fee of $1425.00 for the information despite fee exemptions in matters of public interest.

4.   It has been 25 days since the FOIPPA request was made.  Students and parents are becoming increasingly concerned about the secrecy surrounding the disclosure of the information.

5.   The Parents’ Voice member Daud Ismail and Heather Leung have written to the Burnaby School Trustees & Superintendent Morelli requesting a postponement of the June 3rd, 2011 deadline for draft policy 5.45 submissions, citing the fact that students and parents cannot address the specific objectives and administrative regulations contained in the draft policy until the Board of Trustees provides full disclosure.  The Parents’ Voice members have made a reasonable suggestion that the deadline be extended to 90 days after the Board releases the requested information.

6.   Trustee James Wang initiated an invitation to Parents’ Voice to meet with Trustees and school staff.  Parents’ Voice has accepted and thanks Trustee Wang for his initiative and will meet after parents and concerned individuals have received the requested information. 

    7.  Another Parent Rally is scheduled for 6pm on May 24th, 2011 at the Burnaby School Board District Administration Offices (5325 Kincaid Street, Burnaby BC)

Contact: Charter Lau -

               Daud Ismail -



BC public school parents angered at ‘homophobia/heterosexism’ policy

by Rebecca Millette
May 02, 2011 
BURNABY, British Columbia, May 2, 2011 ( – Parents of children in the Burnaby School District of British Columbia are angered at efforts by the Board of Education to adopt a “Homophobia/Heterosexism” policy that they say would promote homosexuality and censor all opposition in the public school system. 

Outnumbering supporters by ten to one, over 100 parents concerned parents descended on an April 26 public Board Meeting, where they objected to the new policy, holding signs that read “No to 5.45.” 

“The writers of this draft policy have made a fundamental error,” said presenter-parent George Kovacic. “They have attempted to eliminate discrimination against one group but in doing so, they have simply displaced the discrimination from one group onto other groups.”

(Read George’s complete statement here.)

The draft policy, approved by the Board of Trustees February 22, defines “heterosexism” as a “mistaken assumption” that “all people are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior and the norm by which all other sexual orientation and gender identities are measured.” It says it “perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous to individuals and communities.”

By labeling moral convictions on human sexuality “dangerous,” said Kovacic, the policy “sets an offensive tone which is unacceptable from a public education authority.” The policy would impose on children the idea that their family’s moral beliefs are “perpetuating negative stereotypes,” added Kovacic.

Another parent, Heather Leung, pointed to Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” 

“The Burnaby School Board must respect the right of the parents to the education of their own children and honor this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No school board or teachers should trample over the rights of parents,” said Leung. 

(Read Heather’s complete statement here.)

However, lesbian Counsellor and Member of LGBTQ Adhoc Committee, Debra Sutherland, argued the board would have a legal liability unless the policy were passed. She referenced a situation in the North Vancouver School Board, where she said the board was sued and fined $4000 in damages.

Trustee and policy committee member Gary Wong said the board must examine the laws on the issue. “There are a number of cases out there where school districts have not done enough in the eyes of the human rights tribunal and have actually been found at fault, and there are penalties involved,” said Wong. 

“It may be very well that we can’t [examine parental views of the policy],” he said. “It’s not really talking about parents not having the right to teach their children. They have every right to teach their children, but the issue is tolerance and acceptance.”

“It makes me wonder,” said Leung, “what is the hidden agenda behind this policy. Why single out certain groups and certain lifestyles in the name of promoting ‘human rights’, supporting ‘diversity’ and addressing to ‘discrimination’? Why putting all these names and labels on the school children to segregate them?”

Trustees stated that the draft policy would likely be passed before the end of the school year. A Policy Committee meeting on the policy will take place on May 16, during which additional feedback will be brought forward. 

The meeting is open to the public for observation only. At that meeting it will be decided if there will be any changes to the policy. Following the meeting, there will be a public board meeting for the board members to vote on the policy. 

Board Trustees Tony Coccio, James Wang, and Gary Wong sit on the Policy Committee.

The Burnaby Board of Education draft policy may be viewed here.

Board of Trustees Contact Information:
Larry Hayes (Chair) 

Baljinder Narang (Vice-Chair) 

Ron Burton

Tony Coccia 

Diana Mumford 

James Wang 

Gary Wong 


Christian psychotherapist found guilty of professional misconduct for reparative therapy

LONDON, June 1, 2011 ( – A Christian psychotherapist may be “struck off” and barred from practicing after a tribunal declared last week that her efforts to help homosexuals leave the “gay lifestyle” was “reckless,” “disrespectful,” “dogmatic” and “unprofessional.”

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) found Lesley Pilkington guilty of professional malpractice after she let her “personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation … affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial.”

The case against Pilkington was a sting operation conducted by homosexual activist and journalist Patrick Strudwick, who approached her in 2009 asking for help in overcoming his same-sex attraction. Strudwick secretly recorded the conversations in their two therapy sessions and used the recordings to lodge a complaint against Pilkington with the BACP.

Although the rulings of the tribunal were supposed to remain confidential, Strudwick published excerpts in the Guardian newspaper. In response, the Christian Legal Centre has published other excerpts, among which was the comment from the BACP that Strudwick had “in significant ways deliberately misled [Pilkington] into believing that he was comfortable and accepting of her approach” and that he had “manipulated the content of the sessions to a considerable extent in order to meet his own agenda.”

Despite this, the BACP found Pilkington guilty of professional malpractice for having extended the session with Strudwick over the allotted hour and for failing to counsel Strudwick after a meeting with her husband while the gay journalist had been out of the room.

The ruling stated that Pilkington’s membership in the BACP will be suspended and that she would be struck off the register if she does not undergo training.

Strudwick published a transcript of his meeting with Pilkington in the Independent newspaper in February 2010. In his piece in the Guardian this week, Strudwick defended his actions, claiming to be an “out, happily gay man”.

He admits that he asked Pilkington to help him, saying, “I asked her to make me straight. Her attempts to do so flout the advice of every major mental-health body in Britain.”

Pilkington is appealing the decision and has defended “reparative therapy,” saying, “I am deeply concerned that the privileged and confidential relationship between a counselor and her patient will be undermined by a journalist seeking a sensationalist story without any substance.”

“It is an abuse by the Guardian newspaper. Accordingly, I propose to act with restraint.”

She added, “Reparative Therapy is a valid therapy that many people want and it should not be damaged by irresponsible reporting. The hearing is still subject to an appeal.”




[British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is not a religious organization.  We do ". . .support the legitimate rights of parents . . . to deternmine the nature of their chilodren's education," and ". . . seek to have schoools supportive of universally applicable principles of morality" (quotations from "Article 2: Purposes" in our constitution).   The statement which we publish in somewhat abridged form below is important because it  expresses very clearly a viewpoint of a large number of our members and supporters, including many who are not Roman Catholic]

"Holy see statement on ‘sexual orientation’
By Archbishop Silvano Tomasi
Issue: May 2011" [Catholic Insight]

Human sexuality … is not an ‘identity’


            Mr. President, The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targetted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.


            We would also like to make several observations about the debates regarding “sexual orientation.”


            First, there has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term “sexual orientation,” as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the UN human rights system. The confusion is unnecessary . . . .[1] The ordinary meaning of “sexual orientation” refers to feelings and thoughts, not to behaviour.[2]


            Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviours must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.


            Third, the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension: It is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity.” In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual ori­entations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity. This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.


            And finally, Mr. President, we wish to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatized, and worse—they are villified, and prosecuted. . . . .The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances. (, March 24, 2011)


NOTES  [given in the version of the statement from which the above is taken, at Catholic Insight online .   Please go to this version for the full statement including notes]


This address by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, permanent representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, was delivered at the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council on “sexual orienta­tion” (, March 24, 2011).


Ontario’s big brother is watching you

 by Fr. Alphonse de Valk,  publisher and editor of Catholic Insight

Fri Apr 15, 2011 

Question: Who is this Big Brother?

It is the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an extra-judicial body but since 2008-2009 elevated to a new and higher status by Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty. It fully approves of same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. So does McGuinty. In January 2011, OHRC issued a document entitled “Student discipline under the Code and Equity strategy”  (Evadne Macedo, OHRC, Jan. 27, 2011).

First, we learn that “the new Ontario human rights sys­tem was invented in June 2008. It has three pillars: OHR Tri­bunal; the OHR Legal Support Centre, and the OHR Com­mission (p. 3). The Tribunal decides on applications and the Centre provides legal help to “claimants.” The Commission does everything else: initiates policy; promotes the Code; and enforces compliance. It also reaches out to the police, and the housing and education sectors.

The Code covers 15 grounds including “systemic discrim­ination for gender issues” (p. 6). With the full approval of the then-Minister of Education, self-confessed lesbian Kathleen Wynne, schools and education are now OHRC’s main field: it oversees the complaints, initiates discipline, and controls the collection of data. It covers everything in schools: policies, leadership, relationships, religion, discrimination, account­ability, transparency, etc. (p. 9).

The document makes clear that “The Code has primacy over the Education Act,” (page 11).

Nota bene:
This is important. The Education Act ac­knowledges the public school and Catholic and French school systems in Ontario as autonomous systems with their own authorities. This Act was again approved and constitutionally guaranteed in 1982 when Canada’s BNA Act was repatriated from Britain.

In the spring and summer of 2010 trustees and educa­tion officials still thought that the E&IE (Equity and Inclu­sive Education) strategy was to be implemented within the Educational Act. Now we know that Ontario’s Human Rights Commission stands over and above the Education Act. (See “Catholics’ constitutional rights no safeguard under Ontario Equity Strategy,”, Sept 7, 2010.)

Here is another threat: “Human rights’ strategies set the tone for all other work in school boards including discipline” (p. 12).

Page 19 repeats, under the heading “(school) Boards,” to “Remember the primacy of the Code (high standard that applies to everything)” and to…”Bring the Code into board policy rather than using board policy to keep the Code out.”

This is a manifesto of complete dominance directed es­sentially at and against the Judeo-Christian communities. Catholic schools have always aimed at providing a safe and welcoming environment for each student according to God’s First and Second Commandments.* But today Premier Mc­Guinty and his OHRC have made sexual orientation (i.e. the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle) part of God’s com­mandments to be observed at all times contrary to the teaching of the Church.
. . . .

[Read the whole of the above article on  .]


Burnaby School Board Votes for an Extensive “Anti-Homophobia” Policy  

Unsurprisingly, Xtra, a periodical which bills itself as “Canada’s Gay and Lesbian News,” reports with evident satisfaction the latest Lower Mainland school board “anti-homophobia” policy.   At the same time Xtra cites an activist who regards this extensive policy as “a good start,” and apparently a precursor of further measures in the future.

In its March 4, 2011 online edition, the periodical reports that on February 22nd Burnaby School board voted unanimously to implement an “anti-homophobia policy.”

      The policy [reports Xtra] proposes education initiatives inclusive of gays that speak to their positive
     contributions to society and a commitment to promote a systemic response to homophobia.

     "Teachers shall be encouraged to embed and integrate LGBT issues into existing curriculum in age-
     appropriate ways to help students acquire the skills and knowledge to understand the impacts of
     homophobia and transphobia upon society," the policy reads.

     The strategy directs every elementary and secondary school to appoint a staff person as a "safe contact"   
     for queer students and requires all counsellors in the district be educated in queer issues. Every school
     will also be required to address homophobia and transphobia in their student codes of conduct.

     The policy also encourages teachers to support student-led initiatives to establish gay-straight alliances.

     The ad hoc LGBT committee recommended the district establish a permanent LGBT advisory committee,
     which would report to the superintendent.

In the actual policy document presented to the school board for approval, perhaps some of the accompanying definitions most clearly reveal the philosophy behind the proposals.  Heterosexism  [we are told] refers to the mistaken assumption that all people are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior and the norm by which all other sexual orientation and gender identities are measured. Heterosexism perpetuates negative stereotypes and is  dangerous to individuals and communities.”

LGBTQ+”  is defined asan acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning. The plus sign [we are informed] recognizes that not all people identify with these terms and may prefer terms such as Transsexual, Queer,Two-Spirit Intersex. LGBTQ+ is meant to be an inclusive term for a very diverse group of people.”  (All this is likely to be very confusing for those not initiated in the jargon of those who promote the idea of a “gender spectrum” where there is a multiplicity of genders not limited by the biological sex of those claiming them.)

The policy clearly reflects that promoted by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation.  According to the Xtra article, too, it was the Burnaby Teachers’ Association president and a fellow-teacher who originally “prompted the board to establish an ad hoc LGBT committee tasked with addressing homophobia in the district's schools.”  Apparently it was their efforts that led to the promotion of the policy voted on by the Board on February 22nd.

[The above article was posted on this BCPTL website Mar. 23, 2011.]

Homosexual Group GLSEN Yanks Links to Pornographic ‘Gay’ 
Hook-Up Site 

. . . .
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth,

A Facebook page affiliated with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) — to support homosexual student clubs and GLSEN’s upcoming activist “Day of Silence” in schools nationwide (Friday, April 15) — was linked for several weeks to a pornographic “gay” hook-up website containing full-frontal nudity and personal ads expressing interest in dangerous homosexual practices popular in the homosexual male subculture.

A Facebook page affiliated with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) — to support homosexual student clubs and GLSEN’s upcoming activist “Day of Silence” in schools nationwide (Friday, April 15) — was linked for several weeks to a pornographic “gay” hook-up website containing full-frontal nudity and personal ads expressing interest in dangerous homosexual practices including anal sodomy, “rimming” and various sadistic sex fetiishes popular in the homosexual male subculture.

The GLSEN ”Gay-Straight Alliances” Facebook page was also linked to a  “Gay Trip Thailand” Facebook page with shirtless Thai males — luring men to that notorious sex-tourism destination — as well as a movie about two male lovers that is sponsored by a leading “gay” pornographic video distributor. When the salacious links were exposed April 11 by Mission America, a pro-family group, they were quickly removed from the GLSEN Facebook page.

The pornographic links evidently remained posted on the GLSEN-sponsored Facebook page for weeks. At least one ”photo” ad for the homosexual male hook-up site “NEXGAY” had been posted on the GLSEN Facebook page since at least January 15, 2011, based on a favorable comment  responding to the ad and posted on the GLSEN site that date.  (See  four NEXGAY photo-ads with male models in the lower right corner of the graphic at right.) . . . .

[The whole of the above article can be found on the Americans for Truth website.]



March 2, 2011: 

President Obama’s Support Emboldens Same-Sex Marriage Activists

Posted by Jennifer Mesko on CitizenLink, Mar. 2, 2011

On Feb. 23, the Obama administration announced it no longer will defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

About 30 minutes later, the two attorneys who have sued to overturn California’s marriage-protection amendment cited the president’s decision in a request to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it immediately allow same-sex marriages in the state. Some marriage advocates are questioning whether the president and the attorneys were working in tandem.

“Our concern is that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been collaborating with the litigants in the Proposition 8 case behind the scenes,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC).

“If there is a quiet partnership, the alliance would be both unethical and highly damaging to America’s rule of law. (The) DOJ’s job is to defend laws that Congress enacts — not help to undermine them.”

FRC has requested a record of all correspondence between the DOJ and those who oppose Prop. 8.

On Tuesday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris joined the cry for same-sex marriage; she, too, cited President Obama’s decision in her letter to the 9th Circuit.

She wrote: “The President and the United States Attorney General have determined that they will not continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. … While it lacks the force of law, Attorney General (Eric) Holder’s reasoned analysis is entitled to consideration.”

For their part, Ted Olson and David Boies, who sued on behalf of two gay couples, wrote: “The events of this morning demonstrate that proponents likely cannot prevail. … These new developments … the Attorney General’s announcement that the government will no longer defend DOMA … are materially changed circumstances that warrant vacatur of this court’s decision to grant a stay pending appeal.”

Gay activists and their allies want the court to allow same-sex marriages while the voter-approved marriage amendment — Prop. 8 — is tied up in the California Supreme Court, as well as the 9th Circuit. . . .

[Click here to read the whole of the above article.]



Ontario Government Equity Policy

 [from a REAL Women  of Canada e-mail alert dated March 2, 2011]

The Ontario government has provided an “Equity and Inclusive Education Policy (EIE)” which it requires all publicly funded school boards, both public and Catholic, to implement.

Disguised as an anti-bullying strategy and a way to end racism and sexism, the government’s equity policy goes beyond these goals.  All individual school board equity policies are expected to recognize sexual orientation as grounds for non-discrimination.  The education ministry also suggests that schools celebrate Gay Pride events, use texts by homosexual authors and promote gay-straight alliance student clubs.

If this policy is successfully implemented in Ontario without objections from parents and others, prodded by homosexual activists, it will be quickly adopted by other provincial governments.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

We have already witnessed the fall-out from the implementation of such school equity policies by way of anti-bullying legislation passed on May 3, 2010, in the state of Massachusetts (see “  Since then, the 2011 state budget has included extensive funding for the promotion of homosexuality in the schools.  For example, $100,000 was allocated directly to a homosexual commission on youth with a further unspecified (i.e. unlimited), access to $11.7 million for “school health services” in public and non-public schools; $100,000 for anti-bullying programs; access to $5.9 million for homosexuals in crisis housing and sexual violence; and access to a $8 million fund to provide homosexual groups with training and outreach and to promote homosexual diversity.  Gay Day in high schools and amusement parks have been proclaimed; homosexual teachers have “come out” in assembles and encouraged students to do so as well; homosexual “Days of “Silence” have been held in high schools, etc.  The list is endless.

. . . .

If insensitivity is really a problem in our schools, instead of an equity policy based on sexual preference, lifestyle choice, or race, we must demand a general equity anti-harassment policy, not an anti-homophobia equity program in the schools.  This truly inclusive policy would address all students who face ridicule, no matter what the reason.  It would promote true tolerance, equality and acceptance.  A school equity policy should teach acceptance, kindness and respect for all students and staff without placing the primary focus on particular issues such as homophobia and heterosexism.


All parents and ratepayers in Ontario must speak out and become involved in this Equity Policy. . . . .

. . . .





Canadian Catholic school board ‘bullied’ into scrapping pro-family policy

by Patrick B. Craine

·         Wed Jan 19, 2011

HALTON, Ontario, January 19, 2011 ( - Dozens of homosexual activists flooded the Halton Catholic District School Board offices Tuesday evening as trustees voted 6-2 under heavy pressure and intimidation to scrap a pro-family equity policy that sought to ensure that only Catholic moral teachings on sexuality would be presented in board schools.

The policy, which was passed by the previous board in November as part of the equity and inclusive education strategy mandated by the Ontario government, had been praised for including explicit wording to prevent instruction that undermines Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

But it came under heavy fire in recent weeks through a campaign focused against their ban on gay-straight alliances (GSAs). That campaign included numerous national news stories centered around interviews with homosexual activists, and even a condemnation from homosexual celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

[To read the whole story, go to: .]



Catholic school board [committee] votes to [recommend move to] abandon Catholic teaching on homosexuality

Patrick B. Craine

Wed Jan 12, 2011

HALTON, Ontario, January 12, 2011 ( - After pressure from homosexual activists, a committee of the Halton Catholic District School Board voted Tuesday night to recommend the scrapping of a policy that required schools to be faithful to Church teaching in the area of homosexuality.

In a 6-2 vote, the committee - composed of all nine trustees - recommended the rescinding of the current equity policy, which had won praise from pro-family groups, and replace it temporarily with a controversial Catholic template policy.

The effort was launched by trustee Paul Marai, a homosexual activist elected in October, who was supported by lobby groups such as Egale and

“Does Egale now have more influence on the board’s teaching on morals than the Catholic bishops and the Catholic community?” asked Alissa Golob of Campaign Life Catholics.  “By voting to rescind their policy conforming to the Catholic Church’s teaching, the Halton board has voted to go against the faith, the teachings of the Church on homosexuality.”

“They’ve also put themselves in direct disobedience to the Ontario bishops with regards to gay-straight alliances,” she added.

The mainstream media, Marai, and other homosexual activists have focused discussion on the board’s decision to ban gay-straight alliances (GSAs), a policy that was instituted based on a directive from the Ontario bishops; but the targeted policy does much more than that.

It includes explicit wording to prevent instruction that undermines Catholic teaching. It also requires that teachers consult the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality (paragraphs 2357-2358) when they address the topic, makes no mention of “sexual orientation,” and notably inserts “unjust discrimination” where the template policy had merely condemned “discrimination.” The policy also emphasizes that “equity” and “inclusion” must be interpreted in accordance with Catholic teaching, and are not acceptable unless they do.

The Catholic template policy that would replace the existing one, on the other hand, has drawn sharp criticism in part because it recognizes “sexual orientation” as a prohibited ground for discrimination, in direct opposition to a Vatican directive.

The Halton policy’s fate is expected to be determined by a vote at the board’s next meeting, January 18th, though there are hints that it could be delayed to February.

The board defended the policy as recently as Friday, saying they oppose GSAs because they “necessitate students to self-identify according to sexual orientation,” while the Church “neither defines nor catalogues [people] according to their sexual orientation.”

Trustee Jane Michael, who voted in favor of the current policy Tuesday night, told LifeSiteNews that the policy “encourages other dialogue groups that can achieve the objective of promoting understanding, while remaining consistent with Catholic teaching that reminds us that persons with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, while being called to a life of chastity.”

Pro-family groups had warned in December that Marai would use his influence to overturn the policy.  Though he made little issue of his activism during the campaign, he made his move only a month after being installed.  On his website, Marai calls the ban “inappropriate” and accused the previous board of “wasting time dividing people” by enacting it.

Yet according to Paul Tuns, editor of The Interim, Canada’s life and family newspaper, it is actually the effort to rescind the policy that is divisive.  “The board, rescinding the former policy, divides [itself] from its Church, and parents and their children from the education in the Catholic faith they have chosen,” Tuns explained.

“We should make sure the school board knows faithful Catholics and other pro-family voters, parents and stakeholders will not go away,” Tuns continued.  “The board can choose between a noisy opposition of activists who are often opposed to the Catholic Church or a movement that fights to uphold the teachings of the Church. It’s their choice.”

The Halton Catholic board has been under a lot of pressure from elements in the Ontario Catholic school system, who claim the government’s equity and inclusive education strategy is designed to combat “homophobia.”

Chris D’Souza, a former equity officer for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board, and one of the major advocates of the equity strategy in the Catholic schools, claimed in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen that the public should not confuse Catholic teaching with the mandate of the government-funded Catholic school system.  D’Souza, who has delivered over 1,400 workshops across Ontario in the last eight years, with presentations in over a dozen Catholic boards, has made it a key point in his presentations to Catholics that “equity” involves accepting the homosexual lifestyle itself.

“Just because we’re Catholic doesn’t mean we are anti-homosexual or against the eradication of homophobia,” he told the Citizen. “It’s the right-wing Christian groups and some of the other right-wing fundamentalists whose ideology bleeds over or taints Catholic education systems.”

Golob called on the Ontario bishops to exercise their leadership by calling on the board to stay true to Church teaching.  “It remains to be seen what action the bishops will take before the final vote, but the parents and children of Halton, and all Ontario, need them now,” she said.

To respectfully voice concerns:

Alice Anne LeMay (905) 632-6300
Jane Michael (905) 319-6582
Arlene Lantomasi (905) 529-6155
John Morrison (905) 639-4718
Mark Rowe (905) 877-9510
Ed Viana (905) 632-6300
Diane Rabenda (905) 632-6300
Anthony Danko (905) 825-9159

Most Rev. Gerard P. Bergie, Bishop of St. Catharines
Chair, Ontario Bishops Education Commission
Catholic Centre
P.O. Box 875
St. Catharines, ON L2R 6Z4
Tel: (905) 684-0154
Fax: (905) 684-2185

Most Rev. Douglas Crosby, O.M.I., Bishop of Hamilton
700 King Street West
Hamilton, ON L8P 1C7
Tel: (905) 528-7988
Fax: (905) 528-1088

Most Rev. Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Toronto
President, Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario
1155 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M4T 1W2
Tel: (416) 934-3400 #609
Fax: (416) 934-3452

A Brief of the BCPTL to the Surrey School Board [presented June 3, 2003--on pro-homosexuality resources]

Never Too Young to Indoctrinate

[For background to the above article, see the article "Catholic school board bans gay-straight alliances," as well as the article immediately below.]


. . .Ontario Catholic board voting [on move] to repeal ban on homosexual clubs . . .

Patrick B. Craine

Tue Jan 11 10:18 EST

HALTON, Ontario, January 11, 2011 ( - The homosexual activist recently elected as a trustee to the Halton Catholic District School Board has launched a campaign to overturn the board’s new equity policy, which had won praise from pro-family groups for its explicit protections of Catholic teaching.

Paul Marai, who is the board’s first openly-homosexual trustee, says he will raise the issue of overturning the board’s ban on gay-straight alliances (GSAs), which was included in the equity policy, at a policy meeting Tuesday evening.

“The decision to ban Gay-Straight alliances was inappropriate and should be reversed,” he writes on his website.  “I want to know why the past board was wasting time enacting this ban in the first place - wasting time dividing people when we can concentrate on actually improving the schools we represent.”

For the ban to be repealed it must go to a vote before the whole board, and the next meeting is January 18th.

LSN has learned that an organized campaign by homosexual activists is underway to lobby the trustees, who are expecting a huge turnout for tonight’s policy meeting.  They have all received dozens of emails from homosexual activists throughout North America.

The board passed the equity policy in November in response to a province-wide mandate from the Ontario government called the equity and inclusive education strategy.  The ban on GSAs was included after a directive from the Ontario bishops, which stated that the clubs “imply a self-identification with sexual orientation that is often premature among high school students.”  The policy also included explicit wording to prevent instruction that undermines Catholic teaching in the area of homosexuality.

The policy was passed, however, before the new trustees from the October election were installed.  According to the National Post, several members of the new board have vowed to overturn the ban.  In particular, pro-family groups warned in December that Marai, who was among the new trustees, would use his influence to overturn the policy.

“We warned them that this would be coming down the pipe and here it is,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.  “The Halton board did a very good job with their policy.  Now we need them to stick to their guns.”

“Trustees have a duty to support parents in their effort to promote Catholic faith and morals,” Hughes continued.  “We pray that they won’t sell out on these kids in the face of pressure from homosexual activists.”

“We are still hoping and praying the Catholic bishops of Ontario will play a leadership role in this and protect Catholic teaching in the schools,” he added.

The Halton policy has garnered international attention in the last week after board chair Alice Ann Lemay defended it in an interview with the Canadian homosexualist paper Xtra.  “We don’t have Nazi groups either. ... Gay-straight alliances are banned because they are not within the teachings of the Catholic Church,” she is reported to have said.  “If a gay student requests a gay-straight alliance they would be denied. ... It’s not in accordance with the teachings of the church. If they wanted to have a club outside of school, fine, just not in school.”

Though she later said the comments were taken “out of context,” they sparked vehement denunciations from homosexualist groups such as Egale, and the homosexualist social action platform launched a petition against the ban.  The media coverage provoked a slew of anti-Catholic blog posts, and it even caught the attention of homosexual celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.  A Facebook group to “fight” the ban has attracted nearly 300 members, and apparently a protest is being planned for the next board meeting.

Even after pressure, the board had defended the ban in a January 7th statement, saying they oppose GSAs because they “necessitate students to self-identify according to sexual orientation,” while the Church “neither defines nor catalogues [people] according to their sexual orientation.”

Yet, LeMay told the Globe and Mail Monday that she’s not sure how she’ll vote at Tuesday’s meeting.

Suresh Dominic of Campaign Life Catholic warned that the GSAs could “undermine the faith of Catholic youth who, in being caused to doubt one core moral teaching, may come to doubt other fundamental Catholic Christian beliefs.”

Contrary to claims that GSAs merely promote a safe environment for students, Dominic said the clubs “tend to agitate for the normalization and affirmation of the gay lifestyle, something which would clearly violate Catholic moral doctrine.”

Dominic called on concerned individuals to contact the Halton trustees by phone and e-mail.

LifeSiteNews did not hear back from the Diocese of Hamilton by press time.

Neil MacCarthy, spokesman for Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto, said they are discussing the issue among the various education partners, but have no comment at this time.

To respectfully voice concerns:

Alice Anne LeMay (905) 632-6300
Jane Micheal (905) 319-6582
Arlene Lantomasi (905) 529-6155
John Morrison (905) 639-4718
Mark Rowe (905) 877-9510
Ed Viana (905) 632-6300
Diane Rabenda (905) 632-6300
Anthony Danko (905) 825-9159

Most Rev. Douglas Crosby, O.M.I., Bishop of Hamilton
700 King Street West
Hamilton, ON L8P 1C7
Tel: (905) 528-7988
Fax: (905) 528-1088

Most Rev. Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Toronto
President, Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario
1155 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M4T 1W2
Tel: (416) 934-3400 #609
Fax: (416) 934-3452




'They'll have to fire me': Sask[atchewan] marriage official

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 
CBC News

A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner says the government will have to fire him if it expects him to perform same-sex marriages.

Larry Bjerland of the east-central Saskatchewan community of Rose Valley said he was "very disappointed" by a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal opinion Monday dealing with proposed changes to the Marriage Act.

The province's highest court ruled that two proposals from the Saskatchewan government that would let marriage commissioners opt out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.

The decision was hailed by gay rights advocates, but Bjerland said it may result in his losing his appointment.

"I do not intend to marry any gay couples and so, therefore, I’m not going to resign," said Bjerland, who has been a marriage commissioner for 10 years. "They’ll have to fire me." . . . .

[Read the whole article on the CBC website.]



Cynthia Vukets and Louise Brown

Tue., Jan 11 2011

 Catholic board bans gay-straight student alliances

A controversial new ban on gay-straight student clubs by the Halton Catholic District School Board  has sparked outrage from human rights groups, a thumbs-down from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, a Facebook protest petition and a promise from a newly elected Catholic trustee to fight the move.

Paul Marai, 22, who is gay, said he has no idea “why this ban was enacted in the first place” and pledged to challenge the policy at the next board meeting.

But what catapulted the issue into the blogosphere was a comment by board chair Alice Anne LeMay that gay-straight alliances, recommended by Queen’s Park as one way to support gay students, do not fit the teachings of the Catholic Church. For the same reasons, she added in an interview with gay and lesbian newspaper Xtra, the board does not allow Nazi groups.

LeMay has since apologized on the board’s website for the comparison, but the board insists it will not allow gay-straight alliances in its schools, partly to protect the privacy of students whose sexual orientation might be compromised by such groups.

[Read the whole of the above article at  .]



University: Dump Christian beliefs on homosexuality, or else

Demands student get re-educated, attend 'pride' event

Posted: December 06, 2010

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Jen Keeton

Augusta State University graduate student Jen Keeton alleges school officials demand she be re-educated in morality, giving her the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs on homosexuality or being expelled from the school's counseling program.

But now, after months of battling the university in court, a pair of free-speech organizations have joined her in the fight.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the National Association of Scholars have filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, asserting it a violation of the First Amendment for the Georgia university's officials to require Keeton's beliefs be "influenced" by remedial sensitivity training or face expulsion.

According to a complaint filed against the school earlier this year, school officials demanded Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said.

[Read the whole article on WorldNetDaily.]


Study: 18% of Vancouver gay men have HIV

·         Patrick B. Craine

·         VANCOUVER, British Columbia, November 25, 2010 ( - The authors of a new government-sponsored study are calling for increased condom distribution after finding that 18% of homosexual men in Vancouver are infected with HIV.

The study, organized by the Public Health Agency of Canada and several provincial health organizations, found that there are 150-190 new HIV cases among homosexual men in B.C. each year, and 1,800 homosexual men were infected in the last decade.

The authors note that in 2008 the Public Health Agency of Canada estimated 51% of people with HIV in the country were homosexual men.

The ‘ManCount’ study ran from August 2008 to February 2009, with researchers taking blood samples and conducting questionnaires from 1,139 homosexual men at Vancouver’s main homosexual venues.

Of those studied, 2.5% were unaware that they were HIV positive.

Older men were more likely to have contracted HIV, with 34% of those 45 and older testing positive, compared to 7% of those under 30.  Nevertheless, they point out that this is no reason for optimism because “young men under 30 now may see the same HIV prevalence among their peers when they reach 45 as seen in older gay men today.”

About a third of the men surveyed had one or no sexual partners in the previous six months, a third had two to five partners, and another third had more than five (though they note that some had many more than that).

The authors used the results to call for greater distribution of condoms at Vancouver’s gay venues.  They also advocated a campaign to promote more frequent HIV testing, recommending a test every 3-6 months.  They suggested this should target, in particular, men under 30, noting their finding that 23% of such men had never been tested.

Because only those who frequent Vancouver’s homosexual venues were surveyed, the researchers admitted that there is a potential the sample is biased.  They also pointed out that their figures are estimates, and may vary by a few percentage points.

The Canadian study comes as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released a new report this week on sexually transmitted diseases showing that syphilis and Chlamydia are rising, especially among homosexual men.

See the ManCount report here.

See the CDC report here.



European Parliament wants EU countries to recognise existing same-sex unions

The European Parliament's Intergroup on LGBT Rights
November 23rd, 2010

On Tuesday the European Parliament reaffirmed that the effects of civil documents (birth and death certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) must remain the same throughout the European Union. This implies that all couples, including same-sex couples in marriages or civil partnerships must retain their rights in all EU countries.
Currently same-sex couples often lose the rights given by their existing marriage or civil partnership when travelling in the European Union.

In its just-adopted report on civil, commercial, family and private international law, the European Parliament “strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents”, and “stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition” of such documents by EU countries. This entails recognising the effects of all existing marriages and partnerships when citizens move in the EU.

Following this vote, the European Commission will propose ways to enable the recognition of the effects of partnerships and marriages throughout the EU, regardless of whether they unite same-sex or different-sex partners. . . . .

[From the website of The European Intergroup on LGBT Rights]




[We publish this story without comment, even though it appears to be from a homosexual site, because the story raises several issues worth considering:  the rights of students in schools promoting a certain agenda, the rights of teachers, and the role of school boards in deciding what the rights of both should be.]

Michigan Teacher Reprimanded in ’Free Speech’ Flap

by Kilian Melloy
Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010

A Michigan teacher has been accused of bullying students in an incident sparked by the teacher himself wearing a purple shirt in a gesture of support toward gay students who suffer at the hands of bullies.

Jay McDowell, a teacher at Howell High School in Livingston, Mich., wore the shirt to class on Oct. 20, a day on which supporters were encouraged to wear purple in solidarity with bullied GLBT youth, a Nov. 2 Daily Press & Argus story reported. When a student asked about the garment, McDowell explained its significance, and set off an argument between himself and two students that led to one student being sent out of the classroom.

The argument involved 16-year-old Daniel Glowacki, who, upon hearing about the shirt’s significance, protested because McDowell had asked another student to remove a belt buckle depicting the Confederate flag. According to McDowell, when he asked the student to stop wearing the belt buckle, she did so without protest.

But Glowacki did protest. The argument between Glowacki and the teacher grew so heated that McDowell sent Glowacki out of the classroom.

The letter of reprimand read, "You went on to discipline two students who told you they do not accept gays due to their religion. After a failure of getting one student to recant, you engaged in an unsupported snap suspension, rather than allow the student his beliefs."

The letter added, "You also state you routinely do not allow this expression [the Confederate flag] in your classroom because it offends you, and you personally connect this symbol to a list of oppressions and atrocities. You do, however, allow the display of the rainbow flag, to which some of your students have voiced opposition."

McDowell responded in his own statement that there are no rainbow flags in his classroom--only the American flag, the newspaper article reported. Moreover, McDowell noted that restrictions on the Confederate flag were not limited to his own classroom: "the district has for the last year asked students to remove Confederate flags that have flown from the back of cars and trucks in the school parking lot," McDowell’s statement said. "The reprimand states that the wearing of the Confederate flag and the statement, ’I don’t accept gays,’ did not cause a substantial disruption to the educational process and, therefore, I violated the students’ First Amendment rights.

"I disagree," the statement from McDowell went on. "I believe any symbol or speech that can cause a student to sit in fear in the classroom whether or not there is an outward show of that fear is by its very nature a disruption to the educational process." McDowell went on to say that he had abided by school district policies and emphasized that he did not punish the student for his religious beliefs or political opinions, but rather sent him out of the room for disruptive behavior.

The school district did not waver. "These violations created adverse reactions, were not in the best interests of your students, and will not be tolerated," district officials told McDowell, who has been ordered to attend a First Amendment Rights training and punished with a one-day unpaid suspension.

"The Howell Education Association is dismayed that administrators have chosen to suspend and reprimand a teacher for upholding Howell High School’s very mission statement," stated the teachers’ union. "We, the Howell Education Association, are proud that Mr. McDowell has the moral fiber and integrity to stand up to intolerant speech, as well as symbols of hate in our community and in our classroom."

"The student was speaking out on being offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle because it’s against his religion," Howell Public Schools Superintendent Ron Wilson said on Oct. 28, the newspaper reported on Oct. 29. "The teacher said that wasn’t appropriate."

Added Wilson, "All the student was doing was voicing an opinion. The same thing would have been done had the student been on the other side. As superintendent, it’s my responsibility to foster fair, respectful treatment of all staff and students, and the teacher didn’t do that."

Wilson went on to say that several parents had emailed him to claim that their children had been harassed at school for not wearing purple shirts. Wilson suggested that those alleged incidents of harassment were examples of bullying.

Meantime, Glowacki sought to set the record straight after rumors started up that he was prejudiced against gays, the Daily Press & Argus reported in an Oct. 28 follow-up article.
"I don’t really care what people think, but I don’t want people to think I’m against gays," the young man told the press. "That’s just not true."

The young man’s mother met with McDowell on the day the argument took place in what the article reported was a "productive talk," but even so she pulled her son our of McDowell’s class and now says she is considering hiring a lawyer. "The things people have been saying online about my son have been terrible," said Glowacki’s mother, Sandy. "My son is being bullied. This is the United States of America. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn’t mean they’re a bad person." Added the student’s mother, "My son is not a bigot. He has a very diverse group of friends that includes some gays. If a gay student was being picked on in class, he’d stick up for them."

Student’s Eye View

According to Glowacki, he disputed McDowell’s instruction to the classmate who wore the Confederate belt buckle by pointing out that several students, like McDowell, were wearing purple clothing. The purple garments and the belt buckle were both examples of political expression. However, Glowacki said, the teacher told him that the Confederate flag stood for racist violence. Glowacki says that McDowell then told the student that if he had something against gays, he could leave.

"I never said I was against gays, but I did leave the class," said the young man. "I got a referral and had to talk to the assistant principal, but that was it." The article explained that a "referral" is a citation for misconduct and goes into a student’s permanent file. Glowacki’s referral was later expunged from his record.

In Oregon, a student teacher was pulled out of a school last month for explaining that he was not married because legally he and his same-sex partner are not allowed to wed.

23-year-old Seth Stambaugh was student teaching in the town of Beaverton, Ore., a town seven miles west of Portland, when he was abruptly transferred to a school in Portland after answering questions from one his fourth-grade students, reported local TV news station KGW on Oct. 18.

Stambaugh was sent to teach at a school in Portland, outside of the Beaverton school district. The student teacher’s advisers at Lewis & Clark College were reportedly asked by the school district to pull Stambaugh out of Sexton Mountain Elementary and send him elsewhere.

"The student asked me if I was married," Stambaugh told the news station. "I responded, ’No.’ He asked, ’Why?’ I said it was illegal for me to get married. I said, ’It’s because I want to marry a man.’ "

Stambaugh was reassigned shortly after that Sept. 10 conversation, and was not told the reason--though he thinks he knows why. "I felt extremely hurt and discriminated against," Stambaugh told KGW. "Everyone in the school is free to talk about their marital status as long as they are heterosexual." . . . .

[The whole article is found at the website "edge, Boston, Massechusetts."  This appears to be a homosexual magazine, but it does give two sides of the story, in contrast the treatment in another homosexual magazine.]

Paraguay Rejects Homosexualist 'Youth Rights' Agreement

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

PARAGUAY, November 12, 2010 ( - Despite heavy pressure from international organizations and the nation's media, the Chamber of Deputies of Paraguay has refused to ratify the "Iberoamerican Convention on the Rights of Youth," a document that grants a panoply of controversial "rights" to anyone from the ages of 15 to 24.

The Convention imposes sex education "at all educational levels" (article 23), which will teach the "personal full acceptance and identity of youth."  It prohibits "discrimination" against adolescents for any reason whatsoever, including "sexual orientation," "opinion," "living place," or "any other condition or personal or social circumstance of the young person."

The document potentially lowers the age of sexual consent to 15 years by dictating that "youth have the right to freely choose a partner, to common life and to the constitution of marriage on the ground of equality among its members" in article 20. Adolescents at the age of 15 will also have the right to choose their own religion and to vote, according to articles 17 and 21.

Among other controversial and unusual provisions of the Convention are the claim that all young people have the right to "an individual identity, consisting in the building of one's own personality," which includes "characteristics of sex," "affiliation," and "sexual orientation." It also gives oversight responsibilities to a supernational "Iberoamerican Youth Organization" (OIJ).

After objections were made against the document by the Federation of Associations for Life and Family (FEDAFIVA), the Chamber of Deputies rejected the document by 50 votes, according to the news agency Ultima Hora.  Pressure continues to be applied by the Paraguayan media and executive branch to achieve ratification.

The Convention has already been ratified by seven countries: the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Honduras, Spain, Uruguay, and Bolivia.  It has been signed but not yet ratified by Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Nicaragua, Portugal, and Venezuela.

To read the text of the Convention:

Iberoamerican Convention on the Rights of Youth

Convención Iberoamericana de Derechos de los Jovenes





Homosexual Conference for Youth Held in Surrey, British Columbia
[re-titled; excerpt from article in Xtra online, Oct. 23, 2010]
[Xtra is a homoxexual magazine.]

More than 70 teachers, students, graduates, parents and allies took over the Tamanawis Secondary School cafeteria for the second Dare to Stand Out Conference on Friday.

This past March, the Vancouver School Board organized its first queer youth leadership conference at St Mary’s elementary school (also called Dare to Stand Out), but Friday’s conference was a first for Surrey.

Co-organized by Tamanawis’s ambitious gay-straight alliance (GSA) and James Chamberlain, assistant director of professional and social studies with the BC Teachers' Federation, the daylong event offered everyone a chance to share ideas and challenge oppression in schools.

Provocative live theatre (Berend McKenzie’s Tassles), a workshop on GSA organizing (Jeremy Dias) and the personal storytelling of Vancouver writer Ivan Coyote gave those in attendance a chance to discuss how to progress the movement for queer equality in local schools. . . . .

"Supreme Court to hear gay sex discrimination case"


OTTAWA — In a case that will consider whether you can love a person but hate what they do, the Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on whether it violates human rights laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation to disparage gay sex.

The appeal is expected to reach the court within the next year or so after a three-judge panel accepted an appeal application from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

The commission is challenging a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling that sided with William Whatcott by concluding that his distribution of flyers denouncing "sodomites in our public schools" is a permissible contribution to public policy discussion.

At issue is whether the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's protection based on sexual orientation includes sexual practices, and, if so, to what extent. . . . .

Read the whole article on The Gazette website.


CDC: 20% of Gay Men Have HIV, and Nearly Half Are Unaware of Status

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 27, 2010 ( – Nearly half of sexually active homosexual men infected with the virus causing AIDS are unaware that they are carriers of the deadly disease, according to a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The now released CDC study of 21 U.S. metropolitan areas in 2008 found that out of 8,153 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men, one out of five (1562) tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Of those infected, 44 percent (680) were unaware that they were carrying – and by implication spreading – HIV.

The CDC says that men who have sex with men (MSM) expose themselves to far greater risks for infection with HIV.

According to the CDC the rate of new HIV diagnoses among homosexual men is more than 44 times that of heterosexual men.

The CDC also reported that MSM were responsible for 53 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 2006. That year, the CDC recorded an estimated 56,300 new HIV cases.

CDC's National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system (NHBS) collected the data by interviewing men 18 years and older at venues where they expected active homosexuals to gather, such as bars, clubs, and social organizations.

The US Food and Drug Administration has been under pressure to lift its ban – in place since 1983 – against MSM donating blood, arguing that current blood tests can detect the presence of HIV.

But defenders of the FDA policy have pointed out that there is a period of up to six months after a person becomes infected in which blood tests do not reveal HIV. This raises the chance for an HIV-positive individual to transmit it to someone else.

The FDA also states that HIV tests can fail to detect all infected blood donors. Since over 20 million blood transfusions each year, the FDA says that even a very small failure rate increases the chance of having undetected HIV in the donor population.

The CDC findings were published in September 24 edition of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

See related coverage by

U.S. Blood Ban for Gays Remains

CDC: Gay Men Over 44 Times More Likely HIV+ than Hetero Men

High Occurrence in Africa of HIV among Homosexual Men Study Finds



Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent

August 19, 2010

The last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency to resist Labour’s equality laws is facing closure, after the charity watchdog ruled that it could not avoid considering same-sex couples as potential parents.

Catholic Care had been given hope earlier this year that it could get around the controversial anti-discrimination rules that forced other agencies either to close down or sever their links with the church.

In March a High Court judge had ordered that the Charity Commission consider whether to allow the agency's request to continue refusing to consider same-sex parents, thanks to a loophole intended to protect homosexual charities.

Catholic Care had argued that a clause of Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, inserted to ensure gay organisations could not be sued for discrimination, entitled it to change its "charitable objects".

But in a judgement published on Thursday, the quango has ruled that it will still not allow Catholic Care to restrict its services to heterosexuals only.

The Charity Commission agreed that organisations can sometimes bend the rules and it conceded that Catholic Care, whose adoption agency is part of a wider social care organisation run by the Diocese of Leeds, offered a “valuable, high-quality service”.

But it ruled that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a “serious matter” because it “departs from the principle of treating people equally”, and that religious views cannot justify such bias because adoption is a public matter.

The watchdog added that it believed same-sex couples can be “successful” adoptive parents and that even if Catholic Care closes down, the children it would have helped would be placed with new families through “other channels”. . . .

[Read the whole article on the website.]




[U.K.] Teacher Kicked out of Tory Party for Christian Views on Homosexuality Issued ‘Warning’ by School

By Hilary White
PAISLEY, Scotland, August 10, 2010 ( – A teacher who was kicked out of David Cameron’s Conservative party for his unwillingness to go along with the homosexualist agenda will not be sacked for his views, a disciplinary committee has decided.

The Renfrewshire Council, which runs the Rashielea Primary School, had suspended Philip Lardner over his remarks but decided to issue only a written warning, a decision Lardner says he will appeal. 

Lardner told the Christian Institute, “If I don’t challenge this, other teachers will never be able to voice personal opinions in the future.”
A primary teacher at the school, Lardner was dropped as a candidate for the Tories just nine days before the May 6th general election after writing on his website that homosexuality was not something that should be privileged by the state. Homosexual behavior, he wrote, is “not normal” and should not be promoted to school children. After being deselected from the Tory candidacy, Lardner stood as an independent candidate.
Lardner later told that he had no interest in retracting his statements in order to curry favor with the new Tory leadership. “The vast majority of my local membership of the Tory party have been resolute on support for my opinion,” he said. Asked if he expected to suffer repercussions for his views with his employers, Lardner, who had already been placed on “cautionary suspension,” said that he was unafraid.
At an August 1st meeting of the Freedom Association, a libertarian lobby group, Lardner was defended by Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament. Helmer expanded his comments on his blog, writing that Lardner came across in the comments as a “a reasonable, careful man, falling over himself to be courteous and respectful – indeed, almost apologetic.”
Lardner’s position, Helmer said, “is a traditional view with which many Christians (and most Muslims), and indeed many citizens of no particular religion, but of a broadly conservative turn of mind, would agree”.
Helmer blasted the Tories for their action saying the party had been merely “desperate to appease the strident homosexual zealots in the run-up to the election.” Helmer pointed out that even under the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, mandating freedom of religious expression and “right to a private life,” Lardner’s remarks are “clearly protected”. 
“But the Conservative Party, despite its new-found enthusiasm for all things European … was not prepared to respect them.”
The offending piece on Lardner’s website read, “I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it.
“The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies … was correctly outlawed by Mrs. Thatcher’s government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another. Why should Christian churches be forced by the Government to employ homosexuals as ‘ministers’ against all that the bible teaches?  They are being forced by the Government to betray their mission…”
He said that Christians, who make up the majority of the British population, believe that homosexuality is “somewhere between ‘unfortunate’ and simply ‘wrong’” and “should not be penalised for politely saying so”.
“The current ‘law’ is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values.”
Helmer wrote, “It seems that these days our expectation not to be offended takes precedence over the basic human right to free speech”.
Lardner told LSN that he believes David Cameron "must make clear whether or not he wants Christians to vote for the Conservative party."

"By suspending me, he has effectively said there is no place for Christians in the party. Does he or does he not want the vote of Christians who share my views?" he asked.
Read previous LSN coverage:

‘I Stand by My Statement Absolutely’: Scottish Candidate Sacked by Conservatives for Opposing Gay Agenda



School board supports Pride events


The Vancouver School Board will be among the dozens of participants in this weekend’s Pride parade.

Board chair Patti Bacchus and some other schools trustees will be on the VSB’s float—a decorated old school bus.

Bacchus says the district has long supported social responsibility and promoted inclusiveness through its anti-homophobia mentor and Pride Advisory Group.

This year, the VSB hosted a Dare to Stand Out conference in March, and secondary schools have Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. Students and staff were also encouraged to participate in Wear Pink Day, which focused on reducing bullying, especially homophobic bullying and name calling.

Read more:


C-FAM, June 24, 2010:

US Administration Launches All-Out International Homosexual “Rights” Offensive

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.


     WASHINGTON DC, June 24th (C-FAM)  United States (US) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed a reception at the State Department, proclaiming that “human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights, once and for all.”  The reception celebrated “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,” as was officially proclaimed by President Barack Obama for the month of June, and follows a recent incident at the United Nations (UN) where U.S. representatives made loud demands for immediate action on accrediting a homosexual “rights” group to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

     Secretary Clinton used her address at the reception as an opportunity to set forth a very explicit agenda of promoting the homosexual “rights” agenda throughout the world. “We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons,” said Clinton.  “Our Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor produces an annual Human Rights Report that include a section on how LGBT persons are treated in every country.”  Additionally, Clinton noted that, “The Bureau of African Affairs has taken the lead by asking every embassy in Africa to report on the conditions of local LGBT communities. And I’m asking every regional bureau to make this issue a priority.”

     Demonstrating just how much of a priority this issue is, Clinton offered a few examples of US diplomats actively promoting homosexual “rights” agenda overseas. “In Albania, a young man named Klodian Cela recently came out on a popular television program called Big Brother. Soon after, our ambassador, John Withers, went on television to publicly express support for this man.”

     Earlier this month, at the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Committee hearings where 19 UN Member States review applications from NGOs for accreditation with the UN, the application of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) provoked a fierce debate. After the Egyptian delegate posed questions for the group including concerns that IGLHRC position’s could threaten the rights to religious freedom and expression of individuals, the US delegate attempted to suspend additional review of the group by calling for an immediate vote to accredit the group.

     Egypt countered by observing that its questions had not been "answered in a straight way” by the group and asserting its right to have a full review process.  Egypt then asked for a procedural “no action” vote to be taken on the US motion for an immediate vote.  This procedural vote was carried by a majority of the members of the committee, leaving the US and other Western countries to issue strong condemnations of the committee and even individual members.  Despite this outcome, some diplomats privately stated that the US and other Western countries would try to bypass the NGO Committee and call for a vote on the IGLHRC application at the upcoming ECOSOC meeting in July.

     Finally, President Obama, in his White House proclamation for Father’s Day this year, did not miss the opportunity to stress that “nurturing families come[s] in many forms” including children being raised by “two fathers.”



President Obama Proclaims Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

We in Canada may have largely missed the import of the proclamation by President Obama of June, 2010, as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" in the United States.  The proclamation is a very open declaration of Obama's plans to further the goals of activists in those communities.

Here are excepts from the proclamation of May 28, 2010:

". . . This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists. . . ."

"Much work remains to fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.  That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits.  We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.  I am also committed to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal. . . . ."

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. . . . ."



Williams Lake school district restricts anti-homophobia events

The president of the Williams Lake Gay Straight Alliance says she’ll risk suspension later this week in protest of School District 27 canceling an anti-homophobia event planned for this week at Columneetza Secondary School.

Lexi Saffel says she will participate in a gender bender day Friday, where students had been invited to dress as a member of the opposite sex.

“I don’t think it’s fair at all for the school district to cancel [the day],” Saffel says. “We’re not doing anything wrong as long as we dress in an appropriate manner for school.”

She expects at least 50 people to participate, despite being warned that it could lead to suspension. She says the students who plan to participate in gender bending day can’t be suspended, even though she says she was told otherwise.

“Technically, they’re not allowed to suspend us for wearing the opposite gender’s clothing, as long as it is in an appropriate tasteful manner,” Saffel says.

“There’s nothing in the dress code that says guys have to wear guys’ clothes and girls have to wear girls’ clothes.”

The gender bender day was cancelled Friday by the district, and an assembly planned for yesterday also didn’t occur. Saffel says the assembly would have featured herself and another student discussing their experiences with homophobia, and a video with students discussing discrimination against gay, bisexual, and trans-gendered people.

“I’m really disappointed — we don’t get to make as much of a difference as I was hoping,” Saffel says.

“The original reason we heard was that we were promoting gayness. I feel like what was behind (parent complaints) was homophobia.”

She says discrimination and homophobia are issues that need to be addressed at Columneetza and in Williams Lake.

“Students need to have the information,” she says.

School District 27 superintendent Diane Wright says there have been no discussions about suspensions in relation to gender bender day, which she confirms was cancelled.

She says it was cancelled after the school principal was made aware of how some students were planning to handle gender bending day on Friday.

“Some of the students were going to make a mockery of it,” Wright says, adding that she met with the president of the Cariboo Chilcotin Teachers Association, the teachers who were sponsoring the events, and the principal on Friday and discussed the issue.

Other events, including the assembly on Monday, a rainbow day on Tuesday — which would entail students wearing different colours — a walk Wednesday, and face painting and free hugs Thursday, are allowed to happen, as long as they don’t take place during class time, Wright says.

She says parents expressed concern with some events being held during class time, especially since exams are three weeks away.

She says some parents were also concerned about not being notified in advance of the activities that were planned at the school for anti-homophobia week.

“I can appreciate that,” Wright says.

“It’s important families have those discussions with their children and any topic that could be deemed sensitive.” . . . .

[Read the whole article in the Williams Lake Tribune online.]


President Obama Plans to Increase Controversial “Safe Schools Czar’s” Budget

President Obama and his administration have continued to ignore the loud outcry over the appointment of  a radical gay activist, Kevin Jennings, to head up the nation’s “safe schools” office.

Not only have they remained deaf to these concerns, but now they plan to give Jennings significantly more of our money to spend! President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget would allocate $410 million for programs overseen by Jennings. That’s an increase of $45 million.

So want does Jennings intend to do with this money?

For starters, he says he’s going to make “school climate” measurement a top priority—and, in fact, he’d love for “school climate” to eventually be made part of the “Common Core” national standards movement!  He plans to begin with “a new grant program coming out of this department where we’ll be providing possibly as much as $70 million for investments in school climate projects.”  (He revealed all this and much more in this month’s Phi Delta Kappan magazine. Scroll down to the “Safe at School” title.)

 So at this point, you might be wondering, What on earth does “school climate” really mean? I think it’s best to take that definition from Kevin Jennings–based on his record as the longtime founder and leader of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).

Under Jennings’ leadership, GLSEN has provided students with a “school climate” continuum measurement tool.  This tool reveals a lot about Jennings’ true goals: A positively rated “inclusive school,” for instance, is defined as one where “LGBT themes are fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels.” . . . .

By contrast, a “hostile school,” is one where “Curricula are devoid of LGBT themes” and homosexuality is “characterized” as “sin.” . . . .

Is this how Kevin Jennings will use taxpayer-funded money to measure our schools and force changes?

It remains to be seen, since his plans are still in the baby stages—but parents should stay on the alert.

[Abridged from the Citizen Blog Drive Thru]



March 7, 2009

Parents face prosecution over 'gay' education class protest

PARENTS who took their children out of school to prevent them being taught about lesbian, gay and transgender relationships are facing prosecution.

Around 30 pupils from an east London primary school were absent from a week of special lessons to highlight non-heterosexual partnerships.

To mark the event some students watched a special adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet retitled Romeo and Julian.

Stories covered in the lessons at George Tomlinson School included a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love with one of their brothers and the tale of Roy and Silo - two male penguins who fall in love.

The protesting parents said the content was more appropriate for secondary school pupils and now they face possible court action.

Some of the parents said they informed the Leytonstone school they were removing their children for the week.

Pervez Latif, whose children Saleh, ten, and Abdur-Rahim, nine, attend the school, said both Christian and Muslim parents objected to the theme linked to Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month.   
[Read the whole Times online story.]



Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books

Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Diane Macedo

Visit most public school libraries and you'll find an array of books that address the subject of homosexuality. Many include sexually explicit content, and some even include graphic images.

But if you're looking for a book that refers to the possibility that homosexuality can be "reversed," a Chicago-based group says your best bet is the banned books list.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says there's an entire community of people across the world who say that their sexual orientation changed from gay to straight. But they're not getting their message out, the group says, because libraries across the country refuse to carry literature that describes these experiences or any studies that support them.

So a book like "My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation" — which argues that sexuality is shaped by a variety of factors, not just biological — can't get a spot on the school library shelf.

Neither can "You Don't Have to Be Gay," which describes author Jeff Konrad's struggle to overcome his unwanted same-sex attractions.

But "Baby Be-Bop," the coming-out story of a gay teen, which includes descriptions of his sexual encounters in bathroom stalls with men he never talks to, makes the stacks

[Click here to read the whole of the article immediately above.]


Monday, October 20, 2008

 'Gay' pedophilia and Obama['s Appointee]

Linda Harvey asks if senator agrees with his GLBT supporters

 [This article from October of 2008 has gained additional significance since the appointment of Jennings to head up "safe schoools" efforts for the U.S. federal Department of Education.]


I'd been wondering what Kevin Jennings was doing these days. Jennings is the founder and long-time head of the radical homosexual group GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. GLSEN's mission has been to plant "gay" clubs and training programs in as many schools as possible. GLSEN now claims 4,000 "gay-straight alliances" exist, although this number is doubtful.

 Certainly, there are way too many. The group's target has been to place these clubs in all U.S. schools, K through 12. If you think a kindergartener signing up for a "gay" club is ludicrous, you are not alone.

But Jennings has moved on to better things. He's now the Obama campaign fundraising co-chair for the "LGBT" community – that's "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered." You can listen to Jennings lay out the rights-oriented rhetoric in two interviews with Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, on the website "LGBT for Obama."

Their conversation, reviewing Jennings' record, dwells on preventing bullying of "gay" kids. Jennings constructed this Trojan horse for access to schools despite the ability of every community to punish school bullying without accommodating the "gay" agenda. This smokescreen hides the pornographic reality of GLSEN's "support" for kids under Jennings' leadership.

Remember the book "Queering Elementary Education," with the gushing blurb on the back from Obama's radical "social justice" colleague Bill Ayers? Well, the same book has a foreword written by Jennings. In researching GLSEN over the years, I've found horrific elements of what can only be called child sexual corruption. The more closely one reads the GLSEN material, the worse it gets.

 Just about every type of sexual practice imaginable is apparently acceptable and even worthy of "celebration" by any age student or teacher as far as GLSEN is concerned. GLSEN also supports gender-distortion through cross-dressing, even for elementary school children.

Is this the kind of "school reform" Obama has in mind?

Some of GLSEN's recommended reading material implicitly condones criminal sexual contact between adults with minors. Many such incidents are described in erotic and nostalgic passages. I've yet to see "warnings" about the episodes in these books, which surely mislead thousands of vulnerable kids. I wrote in detail about what I will share below in 2002, yet the books in question, and many more just as objectionable, are still offered by GLSEN for sale on its site.

 The problem starts with Jennings' own writings in books like "One Teacher In 10." Jennings' dream world is one where openly "gay" teachers serve as role models who influence students' sexual conduct. In the first edition of this book, Jennings, a former teacher, relates his encounter with a homosexually inclined male student:

"Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees ... to whom I had been "out" for a long time. "Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about," she intoned ominously. ... On a hunch, I suddenly asked, "What's his name?" Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face. ... "("One Teacher in 10: Gay and Lesbian Educators tell their Stories," Alyson Publications, 1994.)

What did Jennings recommend to Brewster that brought a smile to his face? It sounds like he affirmed this teen/adult homosexual relationship, instead of contacting the boy's parents or the authorities. Is this just the kind of wisdom we hope Obama consultants use in formulating education policy? Child predators as implementers of "social justice," perhaps?

 The book "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian," recommended on the GLSEN website for kids in grades seven to 12, describes two 10-year-old boys in a very graphic sexual encounter (pp.99-100). In the same book, an adult man named Eliot reflects on his youth:

 "My first experience was with a much older man, a friend of Derek's [his father]. ... When I was 15, he must have been 29, 30 ... I seduced him. ... It was a wild night. We did everything."

 This is the dearest fantasy of pedophiles and pederasts – the pretense that the youth seduces them.

Another GLSEN recommended book, "Rainbow Boys," features an episode of homosexual sex between one of the main characters, a 17-year-old boy, and a 29-year-old man he has just met via the Internet ( p. 148). Again, a great influence for kids.

Fluid sexual activity and homosexual experimentation is another common theme in GLSEN-recommended books. "My sexuality is as fluid, infinite, undefinable, and ever-changing as the north-flowing river. ... Sexuality is not black or white ... it is gray. ... I know that defining myself is not so simple. ..." writes a 16-year-old in "Revolutionary Voices : A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology" (p.167). . . . .

 I could go on and on, unfortunately. The GLSEN "Book Link" introduction states that the selections are recommended to "... empower our mission to ensure safe schools for all LGBT students."

 So finally, then, this is what is meant by "safe schools": lots of weird, early sex by kids, some of it with adults.

 Obama needs to remove Kevin Jennings immediately from this position. And voters need some answers to the following questions:

 Does Obama believe children are "born gay" and should be able to declare this identity in grade school and join a "gay" club? Kevin Jennings does.

Does Obama believe consensual relationships between 15-year-olds and 29-nine-year-olds are OK? Jennings thinks so. (Some think Planned Parenthood does, too – another question for Obama.)

Does Obama believe a "safe" school is one where no one can criticize homosexual behavior? Jennings does.

Does Obama believe that, with the CDC reporting HIV rates rising around 12 percent per year for 13 to 24-year-old males who have sex with males (MSM), we still cannot tell our boys to abstain from homosexual behavior? Will he appoint clueless federal health officials? Kevin Jennings would approve.

Does Obama believe kids can decide at age 9 or 10 that they were born in the wrong body, want to switch genders and have schools support this disorder? Jennings does.

Does Obama believe [that] the Christian moral standard that homosexuality is wrong needs to be suppressed and depicted as "hateful" in the public square, including schools? Jennings does.

Does Obama believe that if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, this new "law" should be shoved down the throats of all children and their parents via social engineering in public schools? Jennings does.

Does Obama believe that "social justice" and "school reform" require students to not just tolerate, but approve of homosexuality and gender change? That the "yuck" factor simply will not be allowed, because it reflects bigotry? Jennings does. . . .

[You can read the whole of the above article online on WorldnetDaily.]


 Linda Harvey is president of Mission America and author of the new book "Not My Child: Contemporary Paganism and the New Spirituality" (AMG Publishers).



Boycott of California Schools in the Making

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - Oct. 21, 2009 has launched a new drive to protest a pro-homosexual bill recently signed into law.

Randy Thomasson, president of, tells OneNewsNow he is calling for a boycott over a law designed to force students to honor a deceased homosexual activist. . ..

"With Harvey Milk Gay Day now the law for California government schools, and a handful of sexual indoctrination laws already existing that are in effect throughout the entire school year, parents have to at least boycott Harvey Milk Day or days or week," Thomasson urges.
The boycott, he says, needs to be established by parents to protect their children, but also to drive home a point that they do not want their children indoctrinated with a pro-homosexual philosophy. Thomasson feels that taking students out of the government school system is the only way to accomplish this protection. He adds that parents also need to be aware of the quality of education their children are receiving in California.
Thomasson reports that "on the academic chart, California is among the lowest academically in the country. On the sexual indoctrination chart, California leads the pack with Massachusetts following."
Given these statistics, the West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization hopes that the boycott will convey the message that time in the classroom should not be used in a way that might risk losing average daily attendance funds. In addition, Thomasson believes California parents need to be concerned enough about the welfare of their children to begin homeschooling or sending them to private or religious schools.



What Same-Sex "Marriage" Has Done to Massachusetts

After the law giving the governmental stamp of approval to same-sex "marriages"  was passed by the Canadian parliament, some who had fought against the measure 
thought it was time to move on.  But the introduction of that measure has profound consequences, particularly for the children and youth of our land. has put out a listing of consequences which they have seen for the American state of Massachusetts.  A number of these consequences have already come to pass in British Columbia, either before or after the introduction of same-sex marriage by federal law.  Other consequences are ones we may expect
--ones the citizens of tis province should be concerned about.  The document referred to is at:    .


President Obama Speaks at Gay-Activist Event

 [ From CitizenLink at:    --Oct. 12, 2009 ]

by Steve Jordahl, senior correspondent

Address renews the administration's vow to promote homosexual agenda.

President Barack Obama spoke Saturday at the annual fundraiser for the gay-activist Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

The president told the crowd he supports the gay activist agenda.

"When you look back on these years," he said, "you will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

Obama promised that he would end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Clinton-era policy that allows gay men and women to serve in the armed forces as long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation.

Robert Knight, senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, said the president is simply trying to please a powerful and vocal constituency.

"Homosexual activists learned long ago that if they scream loudly and often, they get more of what they want," he said.  "So even if they get 95 percent of something, they say, 'What have you done for us lately'?"

The president also promised to pass hate-crimes legislation and repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

He said those who uphold marriage between one man and one woman, "hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes."

"That would be the Bible," said Knight.  "All people who think it's normal and natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman, the president of the United States is saying that's old and outworn."

Watch President Obama's entire speech to the Human Rights Campaign.

. . . .

Obama Criticizes People with "Old Attitudes" in Keynote Speech at Homosexualist Dinner
Promises to repeal the "so-called Defense of Marriage Act"

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2009 ( - In his speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Saturday evening, President Obama again professed loyalty to the homosexual agenda and criticized people who hold to "old attitudes" about homosexuality. The President also vowed to repeal the "so-called Defense of Marriage Act" and praised the U.S. House's approval of homosexual hate crimes legislation on Thursday. 

Obama began his speech, which was interrupted numerous times by applause, by thanking the HRC for the invitation and "for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender." 

"Despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open," Obama told the cheering crowd. 

"There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's remarks reflect his statements while campaigning for the presidency last year, when, despite asserting that he believed marriage was "between a man and a woman," he simultaneously supported various aspects of the homosexual agenda.  Similarly, in his speech Saturday, President Obama expressed warm support for granting homosexuals "the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country," while not specifically mentioning whether such couples should be granted the title of marriage. 

On Saturday, President Obama called the movement's quest to normalize homosexuality on various fronts a quest for "basic equality."

"I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight," he said.

Obama also praised the passage of homosexual hate crimes legislation in a House defense policy bill on Thursday, and said he was preparing to sign the law after it passes Congress. 

In the course of the speech, Obama vowed to repeal the prohibition against open homosexuals in the military, and to support an "affirmative action" bill against employer discrimination in hiring homosexuals. 

Addressing the lobby's concern over Obama's perceived lack of zeal in dismantling federal marriage laws and other such issues, Obama said Saturday: "I also appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it's important to be honest among friends." 

He assured the group that "my commitment to you is unwavering," and pointed out that he has called on Congress to "repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act." 

The homosexual lobby was critical of the administration in May when the White House website removed all references to Obama's campaign promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that says that for federal law purposes marriage can only be considered as between a man and a woman.  Obama says that he now favors dismantling DOMA by the legislative process rather than by executive fiat.

The President expressed broad support for HRC's mission to drastically alter America's cultural perception of marriage and the family.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see ... a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman," said Obama. 

"Our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow," he concluded.  "Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling."

Conservative leaders expressed dismay at the President's speech. 

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said that "the radical cultural changes that the President promised to this audience" were "shocking."

"What the President neglected to mention was that all of this will be forced on the American people who in the last election gave the President a mandate to fix the economy - not enact radical social policy changes such as allowing homosexuals to serve in the military," said Perkins. 

"President Obama tried to hide his pro-homosexual agenda during the presidential campaign. With the election behind him and a liberal Congress beside him, he is now positioned to move forward an agenda with the ultimate goal of redefining marriage at the expense of religious liberty."  

Though Obama appeared to throw his weight squarely behind the group's agenda, however, some homosexual commentators expressed dissatisfaction with the speech, saying that the President should have set a timetable for his proposed legislative maneuvers.

Andrew Sullivan, blogger for the Atlantic, wrote of the speech: "There were no meaningful commitments within a time certain, not even a commitment to fulfilling them in his first term; just meaningless, feel-good commitments that we have no way of holding him to. Once the dust settles, ask yourself. What did he promise to achieve in the next year? Or two years? Or four years? The answer is: nothing."

(Read Obama's complete speech here)

See related coverage:

President Obama Declares June 2009 'LGBT Pride Month'

Obama Administration Announces Radical Homosexualist Agenda on White House Website



From CitizenLink, October 5, 2009:

Firestorm Erupts over Obama's Education Appointee

'Parents should be most concerned about the harmful and radical policies he could enact today that would negatively impact public schoolchildren.'

Yet another controversial presidential appointee is in the national spotlight.  Safe Schools czar Kevin Jennings has been accused of inappropriate statements and actions, including the failure to report evidence of sexual activity between a teenager and an adult.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said you don't have to look back 20 years to be concerned about Jennings.
"Parents should be most concerned about the harmful and radical policies he could enact today that would negatively impact public schoolchildren," she said.

The best evidence is Jennings' 13-year track record as leader of the largest homosexual advocacy group in the nation, devoted entirely to promoting homosexuality to kids:  GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Under the quise of "safe schools," GLSEN promotes classroom activities that not only give biased portrayals of Christian and socially conservative viewpoints, but also turn students into lobbyists for its extreme left causes.

[Click here to read the whole CitizenLink article online.]

From the homosexual periodical XtraWest online, September 10, 2009:

Parental consent for Social Justice 12 discriminatory: teachers union


EDUCATION / About 50 schools across province offering SJ 12 this year


Natasha Barsotti / Vancouver / Thursday, September 10, 2009


Requiring Grade 12 students to seek parental consent to take a gay-friendly elective course contravenes the BC Human Rights Code, the Abbotsford teachers union contends.

The union recently filed a grievance with the Abbotsford school board challenging the parental consent requirement to take Social Justice 12.

"I filed a grievance with the board claiming that this kind of action is contrary to the non-discrimination aspects of the Human Rights Code,"

Abbotsford District Teachers' Association (ADTA) president Rick Guenther told Xtra West Sep 3.

Guenther, who filed the grievance at the end of the last school year, says there have since been discussions with district staff but the matter has yet to be resolved.

 "We never see trustees in any of these matters. We always work with the district staff," Guenther notes when asked if there was any communication from the board itself.

Last fall, the Abbotsford school board angered students at WJ Mouat Secondary School who had signed up for Social Justice 12 only to be told they could not take the class.

 About 90 students had signed up for the course, which introduces concepts such as homophobia, heterosexism and cultural imperialism. It was developed as part of a settlement reached three years ago between BC's Attorney General and Murray and Peter Corren, who had filed a human rights complaint against the province alleging the omission of gay realities from the classroom was discriminatory.

The board eventually reinstated the course after a student-led protest last September, followed by a hundreds-strong social justice rally in December.

But in reinstating the course, the board developed a series of guidelines to govern its offering. Among the guidelines sent to administrators in a memo dated Apr 16 is a requirement that the district superintendent or designate must "annually inform administrators of the requirement for obtaining informed, active, and written consent from parents of any students under the age of 19 enrolling [in] the course."

The memo also states that school principals must ensure that written parental consent is obtained prior to any student attending the first class of Social Justice 12; that the school timetable be developed in such a way that no student is programmed into the elective "by default, i.e. because no other elective is available;" and that a copy of the Intended Learning Outcomes be made available either electronically or in print form to the parents of any student who selects the course.

Guenther says as far as he's aware requiring Grade 12 students to have signed permission from parents in order to take the course is unique to the Social Justice 12 course.

 "No other optional Grade 12 course has that requirement," he says. "So in some sense, it's still receiving some discriminatory or preferential treatment depending on your point of view."

 Guenther says a copy of the grievance is now lodged with the BC Teachers Federation (BCTF). "The BCTF lawyers will actually decide which of the guidelines are the ones that will be taken to an arbitration, if it gets that far," he adds.

The Abbotsford school board's media liaison, Dave Stephen, confirms that the board did receive "something in late spring, early summer" when asked if a grievance had been filed with the board.

 "It is in due process and we would have no further comment on that at this point," Stephen told Xtra West Sep 3.

Asked why students had to get parental consent for this particular course, Stephen says the board's feeling was that "they would like that course to move ahead with parental permission" and that that was "their prerogative."

He says the board had heard "a variety of viewpoints" and "felt that was the appropriate process to move forward with the course here."

Stephen says only two schools in the district - WJ Mouat and Bakerview Centre for Learning, a continuing education facility - are now offering Social Justice 12. "It's open to any school to run," he adds.

BCTF vice-president Susan Lambert says it's "quite an interesting and ridiculous situation that children who have access to all the information the television provides are then forced to ask their parents for permission to attend a school course that seeks to give them the skills to critically analyze what they see in the mainstream media."

Lambert told Xtra West that at least 30 new schools across the province are offering Social Justice 12 this year. That's in addition to the 20 that offered it last year, she notes.

"I'm told that six out of 10 Richmond district high schools are offering Social Justice 12 this year," she says.

"We found that the ban in Abbotsford was actually helpful in the long run because it drew attention to the course offering and actually resulted in a lot of interest," Lambert adds.

Meanwhile, the BCTF filed its own grievance with its employer, the BC Public School Employers' Association (BCPSEA), in December asking that it ensure all school boards enforce a 2007 ministerial order that all school districts and their schools develop codes of conduct.

The ministerial order was handed down following spring 2007 legislation that mandated school boards to make sure school codes of conduct referenced the BC Human Rights Code, which includes sexual orientation as a category protected from discrimination.

Lambert says the BCPSEA was given until the end of June to advise boards to get into compliance.

 "We believe that time is up. We'll go to the next step: arbitration," she says.

 BCPSEA media liaison Deborah Stewart confirms that the Teachers Federation filed a grievance in December but the matter was in abeyance until Jun 30.

"We have not heard back from [the BCTF] as of yet, so unfortunately we don't have a lot to say," Stewart says.

However, the BCPSEA does not view the codes as an employment issue, she says. "We advised the [BCTF] that should the matter proceed to arbitration, we would bring a preliminary objection that the matter is not grievable or arbitrable." Meanwhile an education ministry spokesperson says "as far as the ministry understands,  every single school district has a code of conduct in place that they believe meets the ministerial order."


Our thanks to Mission America for sending us the following regarding a New York Times article:

Coming Out in Middle School

NY Times Features Casual Article about Child Corruption

Here's how the horrific article in the September 27 NY Times magazine, written by an openly-gay author, starts:

"Austin didn’t know what to wear to his first gay dance last spring. It was bad enough that the gangly 13-year-old from Sand Springs, Okla., had to go without his boyfriend at the time, a 14-year-old star athlete at another middle school... But his boyfriend couldn’t find anyone to give him a ride nor, Austin explained, could his
boyfriend ask his father for one. 'His dad would give him up for adoption if he knew he was gay,' Austin told me. 'I’m serious. He has the strictest, scariest dad ever'..."

The article ends with a dad taking his middle school son to a 'gay' pride parade, where the son ogles men in Speedos. This is the New York Times' version of enlightened journalism.

ARTICLE continues HERE.  



A "Safe" Place for Kids to Learn Homosexual Sex

[from Sept. 6, 2009--title slightly changed]

The real story about community ‘GLBT’ youth centers

By Linda Harvey

***There's no required parental notification or consent, but kids are assured of “confidentiality.”***

It’s Friday at 5:00 p.m. Do you know where your kids are?

Your sixth grader, Nick, stayed after school with his new buddy, Joel. They’ll be home soon on their bikes, because they had a last-minute homework assignment in the library. Or so they told you.

There’s one place in the neighborhood most parents might never think their kids would end up. It’s the local community center for homosexual kids. That’s right—for kids. And your sixth grader would be welcomed there by adult volunteers and staff, and allowed to socialize with high school and college age ‘gay’ youth, without your permission or knowledge. All he or she has to do is show up, and many are located conveniently on bus lines, for kids under driving age.

“No parents” plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves “safe” places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the U.S. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for “GLBT” (“gay, lesbian bisexual and transgendered”) people. Some are even funded by United Way. . . . .    [Click here to read the whole article.]



Lawmakers: Schoolkids must study 'sexual predator'
. . . .

September 04, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in California have voted to pressure all schoolchildren in the state to study and "honor" the life and values of homosexual activist Harvey Milk, whose biography tells of sexual escapades, including relationships with young boys.

In addition, it was Milk who publicly advocated for the late Jim Jones, the leader of the massacred hundreds in Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978. Jones led the "Peoples Temple Agricultural Project," and in an audiotape of the deaths, described the 918 fatalities – mostly from drinking cyanide-laced flavored drink – as a "revolutionary suicide."

The California State Assembly now has passed a bill calling on all California public schools to hold an annual "day of significance" honoring the life and values of Milk. SB572 was approved on a 45 (all Democrats) to 27 (all Republicans) vote yesterday. . . . .

The bill now returns to the Democrat-controlled state Senate, which approved the plan in May, and ultimately will be sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did veto the measure a year ago. . . . .

[Click here to read the whole of the above WorldNetDaily article.]




[The following excerpts from an article in the mainstream press tell only part of the story of the effect of reactions to the $400,000 Canadian federal government's contribution to "Toronto Pride.}

Backlash against Pride funding worked
[From The]

ON JUNE 15, Diane Ablonczy, the federal minister of state for tourism, was photographed with a group of drag queens as she presented $400,000 to Toronto Pride, a gay and lesbian festival . . . .

This angered evangelist preacher and activist Charles McVety, a longtime crusader against same-sex marriage, abortion and homosexuality. Mr. McVety launched a campaign on the Institute for Canadian Values website, under the headline Conservatives Announce New Program to Fund Sex Parades. .  .

The campaign worked.

On July 6, Saskatchewan Tory MP Brad Trost told that Ms. Ablonczy had lost control of the tourism program after Conservative MPs objected to the grant to the Pride parade.

"The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by — I think it’s safe to say by a large majority — of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."


Many Homosexual (and Similar) Events Reported 
as Funded by the Canadian Conservative Government 

David Akin: The Harper Government's 
long history of funding gay and lesbian activities

[From National Post online, July 09, 2009, 10:45 AM by NP Editor]

. . . . a little birdie helpfully provides the following list of gay and lesbian (and bisexual, etc.) events funded by the Harper government  

  • Recipient: Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives
    Minister: Hon. James Moore
    Funding received - $175,000.00
    Purpose: Arts in Communities
    Date: 2009-03-26
  • Recipient: Vancouver Out on Screen Film and Video Society, Vancouver, British Colombia
    Minister: Hon. Josée Verner
    Funding received: $32,000.00
    Purpose: Project: 20th Anniversary Vancouver Queer Film Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009, March 4, 2008
  • Recipient: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender Pride Toronto
    Funding received: $21,000.00
    Date: ** Last modified, 2008-02-19
  • Recipient: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Transgenderal Pride Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Minister: Hon. Josée Verner
    Funding received: $35,000.00
    Purpose: Arts in Community
    Date: 2007-04-23
  • Recipient: Inside Out Lesbian & Gay Film Festival Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Funding received: $20,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Toronto Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Society Inc, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Funding received: 4,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Reel Pride Film Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Reelout Arts Project Inc., Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Funding received: $7,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Reelout Queer Film & Video Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Queer City Cinema Inc, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Funding received: $13,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Queer City Cinema 7, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Inside Out Lesbian and Gay Film Festival Inc.Funding received - $26,000.00
    Date: 2008-2009 Last modified, 2008-02-19
  • Recipient: Darren McAllister, Ontario Canada,
    Minister: Hon. Peter MacKayFunding received - $550.00
    Purpose: To allow Darren McAllister to present his short film "Confessions of a Drag Queen" at the Outfest Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Los Angeles, California from July 6 to 17, 2006.
    Date: 2006- 2007
  • Recipient : Michael Mew, British Columbia, Canada,
    Minister: Hon. Peter MacKayFunding received - $900
    Purpose: To allow Michael Mew to present his short film "Peking Turkey" at the London Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in London, United Kingdom from March 28 to April 6, 2007.

. . . . 


REAL Women of Canada Sends a Strong Protest Against $400,000 Federal Government Donation to Gay Pride Parade

On July 13 (2009), REAL Women sent a letter to both Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Business and Tourism, Diane Ablonczy, expressing its strong objections to the $400,000 grant given in June to support the Toronto Gay Pride parade and related activities.    The letter said in part:
   "REAL Women of Canada is deeply offended that your government has given $400,000 of the taxpayers’ money to support the Toronto Gay Pride Parade in June 2009.  According to newspaper reports, part of this funding was to be directed towards marketing and programming of the 10-day activity which, according to will “make sure that these events continue to be competitive on the world stage”.  Why does your government regard this as significant?
  "The Gay Pride Parade is well known for its full nudity, open engagement in public sexual acts and its deliberate disregard of behaviour acceptable to most sectors of Canadian society. The parade is about hedonistic exhibitionism and narcissism, promoting a deadly form of sexuality.  The parade is designed to shock and titillate and the week-long “celebration” has become an excuse for partying, drug use and promiscuity . . . ."

Here is the complete text of the letter:

 REAL Women of Canada


“Women Building a Better Society”



NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations



July 13, 2009


The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A2

 Dear Mr. Harper:

 Re: Federal funding of Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade

 REAL Women of Canada is deeply offended that your government has given $400,000 of the taxpayers’ money to support the Toronto Gay Pride Parade in June 2009.  According to newspaper reports, part of this funding was to be directed towards marketing and programming of the 10-day activity which, according to will “make sure that these events continue to be competitive on the world stage”.  Why does your government regard this as significant?

The Gay Pride Parade is well known for its full nudity, open engagement in public sexual acts and its deliberate disregard of behaviour acceptable to most sectors of Canadian society. The parade is about hedonistic exhibitionism and narcissism, promoting a deadly form of sexuality.  The parade is designed to shock and titillate and the week-long “celebration” has become an excuse for partying, drug use and promiscuity.

 To argue that this grant has an economic and tourism benefit is to naively accept the homosexual propaganda that over a million individuals actually attend the event.  This is not possible because, if this figure were correct, the crowds would have had to be 80 deep along the 3.1 kilometer parade route.  This is an absurdity.  The crowd density was, on average 4-6 people deep and the total number of people can be generously set, at most, at approximately 154,000 persons: far fewer than attend Toronto’s annual Caribana Parade each August.  It is also highly questionable that the “celebrations” that week contribute millions to the economy, as alleged, as this figure again appears to be part of the air of unreality surrounding the event. 

 There can be no long-term stimulus by giving taxpayers’ money to homosexual groups.  Such individuals do not make a substantive contribution to society by producing and raising children – essential for the future of our country.  Instead, their high medical and social costs are not a public benefit.  Canadian families are struggling in these difficult economic times, and a grant of this magnitude, to promote a hedonistic lifestyle, serves only to devalue their struggle.

 The Conservative government’s decision to contribute to the promotion and marketing of the Toronto Gay Pride Parade condones the homosexual life style.  It is an indication of your government’s abandonment of your political base.  A low voter turnout in federal elections is already a concern, and this grant will only serve to exacerbate this problem for the Conservative government. 

 Yours truly,


Cecilia Forsyth

National President



[The article immediately following is taken from the homosexual online publication .  Apparently pro-homosexuality activists are quite upset about proposals to have parents’ rights being enshrined in the Alberta Human Rights act. ]

 Alberta bill threatens lessons on gay life

EDUCATION / Queer leaders and teachers unite in opposition

Kaj Hasselriis . . ./ National / Thursday, May 21, 2009

 The Alberta government has proposed a new law that gay and lesbian leaders say will seriously hamper teachers' ability to raise the issue of sexual orientation in schools.

 "It's a huge step backwards," says Melissa Luhtanen, president of the Calgary Outlink Centre for Sexual and Gender Diversity. "It's really going to have an effect on Alberta, where issues are already hidden."

 The Alberta government's Bill 44 proposes to enshrine the words "sexual orientation" in the province's Human Rights Act, making it the last jurisdiction in the country to do so. But at the same time, the bill proposes to allow parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve religion, sexual orientation and sexuality.

 "It seems they pandered to the rightwing by bringing in the parental rights clause," says Brendan Van Alstine, a social worker with the Pride Centre of Edmonton.

 Luhtanen, a human rights educator with the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, says that the parental rights clause opens up a huge can of worms, because the government is proposing to add it to the Human Rights Act. That means teachers and school administrators could be hauled before a human rights tribunal if they talk about what some consider taboo subjects without parents' permission.

 "Teachers won't be able to raise things on an impromptu basis and they won't be able to respond to kids who do, either," says Laurie Blakeman, a Liberal MLA from Edmonton who is leading her party's opposition to the bill.

 "This clause starts to insert itself into biology, English literature and other subjects," she says. "It creates a problem for teachers who don't call a halt to discussions."

 According to Luhtanen, it also creates a problem for teachers who avoid subjects like sexual orientation, especially when kids are subjected to homophobic bullying. As the mother of a grade one student, she wants her kid to learn that being gay is okay. "It puts schools between a rock and a hard place," she says.

For instance, Luhtanen's daughter's teacher encourages students to bring books to class, to read out loud to their classmates. Recently, her daughter brought One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dad to class. Luhtanen fears her daughter's teacher would think twice about reading that book to her class, if the new bill becomes law.

 Organizations that represent Alberta educators are coming together in opposition to the bill. Already, the Alberta School Boards Association, the Alberta School Councils' Association, the College of Alberta School Superintendents and the Alberta Teachers' Association have all united in anger against the province's Conservative government.

 "These are not usually groups who come together and support each other," says Blakeman. "It's quite remarkable." . . . .

 What makes Luhtanen especially frustrated is that parents in Alberta already have the authority, under the province's School Act, to yank their kids out of lessons dealing with sexuality and religion. She doesn't feel it's necessary to add it to the Human Rights Act, where she doesn't think it will hold up in court, anyway.

 "It will probably be overturned and thrown out," she says. "But that will take years."

 In the meantime, Liberal and NDP opposition members are campaigning to stop the bill with a petition, an upcoming rally and proposed amendments. Blakeman says the government's move has caused its own caucus to become divided between Red Tories, who tend to be fiscally conservative but socially progressive, and rural MLAs, who preach so-called family values. . . . .


Commentary: American Psychological Association Changes Tune on Genetic Nature of Homosexuality

Commentary by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

May 13, 2009 ( - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to "prove" that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data.

On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.

Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:

"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one."

The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study.

For the rest of this commentary please see the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality here:


From an editorial by Paul Schratz, BC Catholic,  May 4, 2009:

Today’s Scripture, next year’s hatred

When the B.C. NDP calls for the removal of a Liberal election candidate because of “disturbingly homophobic comments,” it might be chalked up to politics as usual.

However, when the leading opinion shapers in the province echo those sentiments, it’s evidence that a sea change has occurred in terms of public support of homosexuality.

It’s also evidence that it may not be long before publicly stating elements of our faith becomes not just uncomfortable, but risky.


Liberal Maple Ridge – Mission candidate Marc Dalton, a teacher at Pitt Meadows Secondary School, made remarks about homosexuality in an e-mail 12 years ago.

At the time, the B.C. Teachers Federation was adopting a policy to eliminate “homophobia and heterosexism” in the public school system, and Dalton circulated a petition opposing the BCTF move.

He placed homosexuality in a category with gambling, abortion, adultery, and pornography as issues that “large segments of our society” don’t see eye to eye with.

The comments were resurrected during the current election coverage, and a media fire storm ensued. Dalton apologized for any pain he had caused and said he “wouldn’t use those words now.”

Those words, however, were enough to bring calls for his resignation and accusations of hatred against him in radio programs, letters to the editor, and by newspaper columnists who expressed dismay that anyone could hold such intolerant views, today or back then.

Dalton made it clear, 12 years ago and last week, that he believes in respect for others. He clearly distinguished between homosexuality as a lifestyle he couldn’t support, and homosexual people, whom he respects.

No matter. The sheer fact that he didn’t embrace all aspects of homosexuality was sufficient to haul him over the coals.

The Dalton incident came within days of a similar uproar at the Miss America contest, when contestant Miss California Carrie Prejean was asked her views on “gay marriage.”

In a very respectful manner, Prejean said she couldn’t support such unions because of her personal beliefs.

The reaction to her answer made the Dalton incident look like a tea party. The audience booed and contest judge Perez Hilton, known primarily for being a gay blogger, went to the Web and excoriated her with language leaving no question about what constitutes hate speech.

Next, a British MP made an on camera remark about the possibility of Prejean being murdered. Facetious or not, such remarks, like bomb jokes on an airplane, are distinctly unfunny, and a police investigation resulted.

So this is where we have arrived.  A decades-long campaign to end hatred and unreasonable discrimination against homosexuals has morphed past “gay marriage” and into a doctrinaire age that brooks no criticism of homosexual behaviour. . . . .  [Click here to read the whole of this article.]  

In the United States:

 [From CitizenLink, May 7, 2009]

Federal Bill Would Add Pro-Gay Policies to Public Schools

 Family advocates are concerned by the so-called Safe Schools Improvement Act, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this week.

The anti-bullying bill would require many public schools to add special protections for students based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to race and religion. 

Candi Cushman, education analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said this bill would force an adult political agenda into schools under the guise of “safety.”

She said laws that spell out special classes of protection give gay activists the leverage they need to force schools to host "diversity trainings" and introduce curriculum promoting homosexuality.

“That’s why the interest groups pushing this bill are so adamant about getting those special categories included," Cushman said. "They see them as the tools they need to get what they want.

"So, if we care about maintaining control of our schools and not exposing our school officials to threats from political activists, then we should be very concerned about this bill."

GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, applauded the legislation. . . . .


[Click here to read the whole article above at its source.]

  A Message with Information Passed on by the Catholic Civil Rights League:

The following (about the day of silence) is from an American group, but the ideas may be applicable here.

Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region

Liberty Counsel -

April 16, 2009

Students Have the Right NOT to Remain Silent on the Day of Silence

The annual "Day of Silence," sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), will be promoted tomorrow in many public schools. This event encourages students to remain silent, by not texting or responding to anyone, including teachers, administrators, or students at school. GLSEN claims the event counteracts bullying, but it is merely promoting an anti-heterosexual viewpoint. Schools can teach students the value of respect without accepting GLSEN’s propaganda event. Many states, like Florida, for example, have laws that require abstinence-based education when sexuality is discussed, so the school cannot recognize the Day of Silence without promoting abstinence.

Parents can choose to keep their children home on the Day of Silence or support their children in a counter-observance of sexual purity. Liberty Counsel has a legal memorandum explaining how to protect schools from being hijacked by GLSEN’s political agenda. Student conduct causing a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities is not protected under the First Amendment. If a teacher asks a student a question during class, the student does not have a right to remain silent.

Please pray that students will be protected from forced indoctrination by GLSEN, especially next week, and that the truth will prevail.

Liberty Counsel is encouraging students to mount a counter-celebration to promote a positive message of purity on the Day of Silence. Students are encouraged to wear white and to distribute flyers promoting sexual purity whenever other students are permitted to distribute literature promoting the Day of Silence.

Read our News Release for more details.

Read our Memo about the Day of Silence.

Please help inform as many people as possible by forwarding this Liberty Alert to your entire e-mail list of family and friends, and encourage them to subscribe.

Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups and churches who care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources from the Liberty Counsel online store.

Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854



Catholic League President Urges Congress: Don't Let "Hate Crimes" Chill Religious Free Speech
Conservatives concerned that bill fails to define "sexual orientation"

 By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 7, 2009 ( - Catholic League President Bill Donohue issued an open letter yesterday to the U.S. Senate urging legislators to include protection for religious leaders preaching against homosexuality in the newly-introduced "hate crimes" legislation.  Donohue added his voice to criticism from other conservative leaders who warn that the measure's current form threatens to chill free speech and give special protection to all forms of sexual deviancy including pedophilia, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.

A version of the bill passed the House last week 249-175.

"The driving force behind the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the desire to provide additional penalties to criminals who assault homosexuals because of their sexual orientation," wrote Donohue, referring to the legislation recently introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy. 

Setting aside the "propriety of hate crimes legislation in general," Donohue said, "the central problem with this bill is its chilling effect on religious speech."
"To be specific, the bill would criminalize religious speech that was critical of homosexuality if it were linked to a crime against a gay person." he continued.  "How do I know this? Because when the bill was considered in the House, that is exactly what Rep. Louie Gohmert was told when he raised this issue.

"While assaulting anyone, independent of sexual orientation, is rightly considered a criminal offense, the prospect of criminalizing religious speech that proscribes certain sexual practices is beyond worrisome-it is downright dangerous."

Donohue pointed out that the bill's potential to chill free speech among clergy addressing sinful behavior "flies in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment."

"Surely there are ways to protect homosexuals from being singled out by anti-gay thugs without trespassing on the constitutional rights of priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and others," he wrote.  The Catholic League president concluded by urging the Senate to include an amendment to the bill that would protect the speech rights of religious leaders. 

Earlier in the debate Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tex.) also voiced a concern shared by many conservatives, that the term "sexual orientation" remains undefined in the bill, which he says opens the legislation up to a broad interpretation.  While there exists in law a strict definition of sexual orientation, Gohmert objected, "there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there."

Gohmert claimed that the lack of a definition left only "the plain meaning" of the term "sexual orientation," which he says could include "anything to which someone is orientated" - essentially protecting all forms of sexual aberration.

The Family Research Council is sponsoring a petition against the federal hate crimes bill (go to:

Capitol Hill switchboard:

To find your U.S. representative:





U.K. Teaches 11-Year-Olds about Homosexuality; 
San Francisco Schools Launch Pro-Gay Web Site

[ From CitizenLink, April 28, 2009 at

British schools will be required to teach children as young as 11 about same-sex relationships, following a six-month review of the current sex-education curriculum.

Secondary schools will teach about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, The Times of London reported. The changes come after decades of campaigning by so-called sexual-health organizations.

“We can take a lesson from what’s happening in British schools because the very same trends are mirrored in our own nation’s public school system," said Candi Cushman, education analyst at Focus on the Family Action.

She pointed to a San Francisco Unified School District Web site dedicated to the gay agenda — including curriculum for elementary classrooms.

"A taxpayer-funded school district now has an entire division dedicated to promoting homosexuality,” Cushman said. “And the Web site makes a point of stating that parents will NOT be notified when homosexuality and transgenderism are discussed with their children."

Cushman said it's time for parents to make their voices heard in their children's schools, rather than standing by while their schools are taken over by adult political agendas. . . . .

— Jennifer Mesko

Want to Know How the British Columbia Teachers' Federation Advises Teachers to Deal with Parents who Object to the Pro-Homosexuality Program?

The BCTF has a web-page entitled "Objections to Antihomophobia Curriculum in Schools."  A list of suggestions follows the sentence "Here are some quick responses for educators when talking to parents."  Here is a sampling of parental statements under various headings and suggested responses to them (as downloaded April 26, 2009):

"Parent Rights"

"This is against our rights as parents to teach our own set of family values."

  • As teachers, we do not condone children being removed from our classes when we teach about Aboriginal people, people of colour, people with disabilities, or gays and lesbians.
  • You can teach your child your own values at home. Public schools teach everyone about respecting diversity and valuing everyone.

Religion and Cultural Objections

"This is against our religion/culture."

  • As teachers, we do not condone children being removed from our classes when we engage in antiracism education. This issue is no different.
  • All children, including yours, have a right to an education free from discrimination.


"It's recruitment or teaching about sex!”"

  • Antihomophobia education at the elementary level does not include discussion about sex or sexual practices.
  • Secondary students need accurate information about relationships and safe sex. Lack of information can have tragic consequences for youth.

Age Appropriateness

"My child is too young for this topic!”"

  • All families deserve to be represented in the curriculum. The mandatory provincial curriculum includes diverse family structures.
  • It is our job as educators to teach accurate, up-to-date information to every child, including yours.

To read the complete list of suggestions, go to  .


“Gay and Lesbian Educators” Resource (Listed by Government for Social Justice Twelve Course) Peddles Propaganda in the Name of Education

(a brief review of the 2004 edition of Challenging Homophobia in Schools)


The Gay and Lesbian Educators handbook entitled Challenging Homophobia in Schools has now acquired additional importance, since it is listed by the British Columbia Ministry of Education as a resource for the Social Justice Twelve course instituted as a result of the Corren Agreement.

Some years ago we had an opportunity to review the first (2000) edition.  Looking over the second (2004) edition, one notes some changes.  The second edition does not have an introductory commendation by Svend Robinson, though he is acknowledged in the later edition as having had a part in the development and production of the first.  No doubt there are other changes.  But what characterized the first edition also characterizes the second:  a lack of scholarship in a book being promoted as an educational resource, and propaganda masquerading as education.

Once again, for example, there is a list headed “Famous Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Persons.”    Among those listed is “Augustine (Saint) – (354 – 430) English Roman Catholic Bishop, Religious Writer.” (For some reason, almost all nouns in the list are capitalized.)  (Probably the handbook authors picked up on something Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Confessions regarding his life before conversion, and confused him with the Augustine who was a missionary to the Anglo- Saxons.) 

Also included in the list is David, who is described as “Israeli King, Biblical Lover of Jonathan.”   The lack of evidence for the assertion regarding David may be an indication of a similar carelessness regarding the truth in the selection of many of the other names on the quite extensive list.   Also listed are William Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Popes Benedict IX, John XII, Julius III, Leo X, Paul II, and Sixtus IV. 

 No specific references are given for the particular people listed, though sources are given at the end of the list.  These sources include a work called Outstanding Lives:  Profiles of Lesbians and Gay Men (M. Bronski, editor) and Who’s Who & Who’s Gay—Alphabetical Listing (Internet, December, 1997); also The Unofficial Gay Manual  (Dilallo, Kevin & Jack Krumholtz).

It would appear that the authors of Challenging Homophobia in Schools have left few stones unturned in the attempt to carry out their avowed aim of creating a  “K to 12 resource .  .  . to aid in the support of, and education about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender youth and families.”  (title page).  One needs to examine the book as a whole to get the full impact of the authors’ intentions.  All we can do is give examples illustrative of those intentions and the authors’ methods.   In the “Background” section of this work, pages 49 – 56, is a chart entitled “The Impact of Systemic Oppression.”  In this chart, under the heading “Institution” are listed the sub-headings “Social System, Values and Beliefs,” “Family,” “Education,”  “Religion,”  “Legal,”  “Health,"  “Economics,” and “Media.”    Opposite “Religion,” in a column headed “Homophobia and Heterosexism,” is written  “-only heterosexual unions acknowledged by most religions” –an apparent reference to the teaching that marriage is a male-female union.

Challenging Homophobia in Schools is indeed intended for the whole range of grade-school.   For example, an outlined lesson on “Celebrating Same-Gender Families” (“Lessons,” pp. 11-12) is intended for Kindergarten to Grade 3.   The teacher following the lesson plan will read his or her class the books One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads  and ABC—A Family Alphabet Book.  Among the suggested activities connected with the lesson is the following:  “Ask your students to think of things that they like to do with their mom(s) or dad(s).  Generate a class list together.  Have them imagine double these good times if they had two moms or two dads.”  (The mathematics seems a bit odd here.)

A lesson for students in Grades 8 to 12 is entitled “Queerly Canadian Role Models”  (Lessons, pp. 63-66).   Associated with this is a sheet of “Queerly Canadian Identity Cards,” featuring the names of such luminaries as Libby Davies, James Chamberlain and Murray Warren, and Svend Robinson.

The examples given in this article do not enable a full analysis, but convey some of the flavour of this handbook.  What is needed is ongoing research by a group of people to determine the nature of the resources listed by the Ministry of Education as the effects of the Corren Agreement work their way through the curricula of many subjects as new courses are introduced and existing ones are revised.  What is also needed is a concerted effort to recommend educational resources that will indeed educate rather than propagandize; that will meet the undoubted needs of a generation of children and young people who can only suffer confusion from the flood of inaccurate information and biased expression of opinion which is being let loose upon them.

 For an extensive analysis of the first edition of Challenging Homophobia in Schools, see Challenging Homophobia in Schools:  A Critical Review by Chris Kempling, M.Ed., M.A., R.C.C., reproduced at the end of this page.




NEWS RELEASE [from Kari Simpson]

For immediate release March 16, 2009

 Kari Simpson seeks human rights ruling against BC government, BCTF and Murray Corren

VANCOUVER , March 16, 2009 — Kari Simpson, well-known social activist and host of RoadKill today filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against the B.C. Ministry of Education, the B.C. Teachers’ Federation and Murray Corren for discriminating against those who suffer from homosexuality and other dysfunctional sexual orientations, by failing to provide needed services, including psychological help.  “This complaint is about helping the hurting” says Simpson.

In her complaint Simpson states: “The B.C. Ministry of Education has failed to provide funding and access to relevant counseling strategies within the public education system for B.C. students suffering from sexual identity disorders and crisis. 

 “Sexual re-orientation therapies have helped thousands of individuals to recover from such dysfunctional orientations.  It is common and accepted knowledge that sexual identity confusion is often the result of childhood trauma and/or family dysfunction.  B.C. students should not be denied access to effective psychological help for such conditions.

“School counselors are being denied the tools to be effective advocates for students in need of sexual re-orientation help, and they should have access to resources and training that will equip them to properly counsel students.”  

Ms. Simpson continues: “The B.C. Teachers’ Federation blatantly continues to actively discriminate against students within the B.C. public education system by publishing, promoting and adhering to a policy that denies students important psychological help.  BCTF Policy 12.25 states that the BCTF is opposed to:

“(a) using and/or promoting reparative therapies aimed at

changing lesbian, gay or bisexual students’ sexual orientation; and

“(b) referring students to therapists who promote and practice reparative therapy.”

 Murray Corren recently published (December 9, 2008) this discriminatory statement on a blog in the Vancouver Sun.  He states (under “Your Comments”): “One would hope, of course, that the kind of counselling being offered to students as regards sexual orientation would be supportive, and not intended to ‘cure’ LGBT students. The BCTF has policy which specifically prohibits school counselors from employing ‘reparative therapy’ or referring students for such treatment.”

 Simpson goes on to advise the BCHRT that: “The situation is on-going.  The Ministry of Education does not provide training or funding to school counselors to effectively help students suffering from dysfunctional sexual orientations whose origins are founded in, or in part result from family dysfunction, trauma and child sexual abuse.

 “The BCFT policy discriminates against these students, who need psychological help, by publishing and promoting opposition to such therapy, based on an antiquated and propagandistic view of homosexuality. 

 “Teachers and counselors should have access to scientific and proven therapies, and should not be ignorant about issues relating to the origins of homosexuality.

 “Murray Corren is a gay propagandist, and he is provably aware of some of the factors associated with the origins and factors that contribute to homosexuality; he has admitted that his own childhood experiences compare to identifiers that are common to the family dysfunctions associated with dysfunctional homosexuality.  Murray Corren should be prohibited from discriminating against others who are in need of help.”

 The remedies Kari Simpson is asking for:

1.          That the B.C. Ministry of Education provides funding in the amount of $20,000.00 to a 7-member committee, with Kari Simpson as Chair.  Other members to include: two mental health professionals associated with and recognized by NARTH (the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), two parents, a school counselor, and a teacher.  This committee will develop a resource guide for school counselors and educators to facilitate a scientific and therapeutic understanding of the issues involved in homosexuality, instead of relying on the gay propaganda that ignores the facts and simply perpetrates the myths associated with ‘gay’ politics and political privilege.

2.          Further — this guide will provide a list of agencies and other resources, to ensure that students needing psychological help will not be denied.

3.          Further — On-going funding in the amount of $10,000.00 each year to ensure that current training is received and developed within the BC public education system, to help students in need of psychological care associated with sexuality identity confusion and dysfunctional homosexuality.

4.          Further — that the BCTF forthwith rescind its policy of opposing re-orientation therapy for those suffering from a dysfunctional sexual orientation. 

5.          Further — that Murray Warren make a public apology for his socially unjust and harmful comments, and receive sensitivity training; and that he further be made to pay $5000.00 to Kari Simpson for the harm and hurt he has inflicted on those suffering and needing help.  Kari Simpson, on behalf of those discriminated against, will use the $5000.00 to purchase important resources for teachers, schools and public libraries that factually debunk the myth and propaganda about gender identity confusion.     

When asked by the BCHRT why she is making this complaint, Kari Simpson states:

“It’s to ensure those who are suffering from dysfunctional homosexuality and/or sexual identity confusion and/or other psychologically problematic sexual orientations are not denied help by those who, because of their sexual politics, seek to selfishly, hatefully and ignorantly discriminate against a group of people who would benefit from re-orientation therapy.”




contact Kari Simpson (604) 514-1614

More information about this complaint can be heard on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 7:30 pm (PST) at



British Columbia Teachers' Federation Promotes Day of Silence in BC Schools.  
Parents for Democracy in Education Calls on Parents to Keep Students Home April 17th [2009]

On April 17th, 2009, parents in some schools in British Columbia may expect that the "Day of Silence" will be promoted and recognized.   "The BCTF supports provincial student and teacher participation in the Day of Silence project," we are informed on the BCTF website:  What is the "Day of Silence"?  Well, the "Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network" describes it in the following terms: 

    The Day of Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), is a student-led day of action when 
     concerned students, from middle school to college, take some form of a vow of silence to bring attention to the name-calling, bullying and
     harassment -- in effect, the silencing -- experienced by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and their allies.

The day provides a ready opportunity to engage students in the work of propagandizing their fellow-students.  Of course name-calling, bullying and harassment should not be endured by any students, but by exclusively singling out students who self-identify as lesbian, gan, bisexual, and transgendered, sympathy for the pro-homosexual caused is generated, and this sympathy is used to promote homosexual behaviour as nomal and acceptable, against the beliefs of parents of traditional moral beliefs.

Parents for Democracy in Education, a British Columbia organization, is calling on parents to iwthdraw their children from schools where the "Day of Silence" is being recognized.  A newsletter issued by the group states:

Parents for Democracy in Education is joining a national coalition of pro-family 
organizations urging parents to pull their children out of school
April 17.
That’s the day designated for this year’s ‘Day of Silence’, when students
and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to
protest so-called discrimination, and to gain sympathy for those who identify
as homosexual or transgender.
(In some schools, e.g. in Victoria, the ‘Day of Silence’ is being observed
April 11 or 18.)
The ‘Day of Silence’ is now a yearly event sponsored by the partisan
political action group, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN) and by Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs (GSAs).   The purpose is to
intimidate those who believe homosexuality is immoral.
It is the belief of the sponsors of the Student Walkout that parents should no
longer passively accept this political usurpation of taxpayer-funded public
school classrooms.
‘Day of Silence’ organizers demand that teachers either create activities
around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.
DoS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and
are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
The BC Teachers’ Federation endorses the DoS in BC; many universities
and schools across Canada participated last year.
Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute explains, “While it is
appropriate to teach students that tolerance requires that society should treat
everyone with civility, it is not appropriate to teach that tolerance requires
students to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral.”
Higgins further emphasizes: “The worthy end of eliminating harassment
does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time.”
. . . .
Parents are encouraged to call their children’s schools to ask whether the
administration and/or teachers intend to permit students to remain silent
during class on the Day of Silence. If so, parents can express their opposition
by pulling their children out of school on that day, and sending letters of
explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school
board members. . . . .
The "Day of Slence" is only one of the progams and events promoted by the BC Teachers' Federation which readily lends itself to pro-homosexuality indoctrination.  
It promoted "Think Pink Day," held on Febraury 25th of this year.  It is promoting a "Week Against Homophobia" from May 11th to 15th, and the "" "International Day
Against Homophobia," to be held on May 17th.  In addition, the BC Teachers' Federation is active in promoting Gay-Straight Alliances, and--through the provision of 
various teaching resources--the positive portrayal of homosexuality in classroom teaching in the province.



[The following news release, which we have slightly abridged, is most revealing for what it says about the plans of the pro-homosexuality activists who are using "social justice" to promote their agenda. --Editor of this website]


FEB. 25, 2009

Parents for Democracy in Education


BCTF ‘Social Justice’ conference at UFV told

teachers how to manipulate student attitudes


by Ron Gray

Feb. 20 and 21, I attended the first “Social Justice conference” staged by the BC Teachers’ Federation at University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotford.

It was an eye-opener!


Although the stated purpose of the conference was to show teachers how to approach the Social Justice 12 curriculum adopted under BC’s Corren Settlement Agreement, an underlying purpose was clearly revealed by a graphic of a staircase, distributed by the BCTF in its information packages: the goal is to move students’ attitude towards LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning) people beyond “tolerance” to “acceptance”—and then further along to “support,” “admiration,” “appreciation” and finally “celebration of deviant sexuality.


Most Canadians have never seen what constitutes “celebration” of homosexuality; but our big cities’ annual “Gay Pride” parades clearly show the reality: public nudity (partial and/or total), simulated fornication, lasciviousness—and open mockery of traditional morality.


This exposure of the BCTF’s real goal—to manipulate the attitudes of students until the “Prescribed Learning Outcome” of celebration is attained—reveals that the teachers’ union is actually in violation of its own code of ethics, which forbids using the classroom for indoctrination.


What has given the BCTF this extraordinary power to manipulate the attitudes of BC’s children? The cowardice of a pusillanimous government, and especially of two cabinet ministers—Education Minister Shirley Bond and Attorney-General Wally Oppal—who reached a secret agreement with two homosexual activists without ever allowing debate in the Legislature.


Those same ministers have consistently resisted efforts by parents’ groups to have a countervailing voice in the education of their children on sensitive topics.


This BCTF conference similarly lacked any opportunity for input from parents who want to resist manipulation of their children’s curriculum to make acceptance of homosexuality a goal.


The February conference was the first of four planned to train BC teachers how to implement the Correns’ ‘Social Justice 12’ curriculum. It did not deal with the companion—and more radical—teacher’s guide Making Space, Giving Voice, which the Correns were able to force on a supine Ministry of Education. Making Space, Giving Voice instructs teachers how to make every subject, at every level from Kindergarten to Grade 12, ‘gay’-friendly.


In one workshop, a teacher suggested that if a student says his or her parents disapprove of homosexual behaviour, he (the teacher) deflects the comment by saying, “Well, different people have different ideas about sex.”


“That won’t accomplish the kind of change we need,” said . . . . a professor in the Department of Social, Cultural and Media Studies at UFV. “Students feel silenced by that kind of comment. ‘What does everybody think?’ is a bigoted comment. We need to decide who we want silenced.”


So such students are to be told that their parents’ ideas are wrong. Perhaps not all parents: Prof. Dow repeatedly identified “Evangelicals and Fundamentalists” as the perceived problem.


That theme recurred in several sessions.  The result of the BCTF’s unilateral advocacy that “gay is good” can only be to drive a wedge between children and their parents. And the long-term social result of that alienation would be worse than the problems they are trying to correct.


However, the BCTF apparently operates on the assumption that they are in possession of an absolute truth—even though peer-reviewed science has discredited every claim of discovery of a “gay gene”; and even though medical studies indicate that homosexual behaviour shortens life expectancy dramatically. To “true believers” in the BCTF dogma, such facts are apparently irrelevant.


Their position is essentially religious—a fact that was vividly highlighted by a teacher who said in a Friday workshop, “I don’t think I can teach this without being converted.”


The conference was lamentably short on factual information—but presenters were quite willing to reiterate falsehoods, like the “10 percent myth”, based on the discredited 1948 and 1953 Reports of self-styled “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey. (Kinsey alleged that 10 percent of the population is homosexual; however the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey showed that only one percent of the population identify themselves as homosexual.)


Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, revealed that Kinsey’s “research” included criminal sexual abuse of infants, and that a substantial part of his survey population was drawn from prison inmates and ‘gay’ bars—but they were represented by Kinsey as typical of the whole population. Kinsey himself was a homosexual who died from orchitis, an inflammation of the testes often caused by excessive sexual self-abuse.

 . . . .


The conference was not without merit: participating teachers were given some useful tips on correcting students who use slurs or bully other students.


But the underlying theme—BCTF’s absolute certainty that only their pro-‘gay’ dogma is correct, and they have the right to impose it on BC’s children because “we’re professional educators”—was terrifying: such use of government power to compel conformity is the very essence of fascism.



(945 words)




Ron Gray is a former journalist (Vancouver Sun, Chilliwack Progress, BC Report, Fiji Times, Richmond Review) and was a member of the founding administration of Fraser Valley College, the forerunner of University of the Fraser Valley. He is currently Vice-President of Parents for Democracy in Education.




Ron Gray, (604) 534-3319




From a Mass Ressistance, Dec. 28, 2008 e-mail 

From latest GLBT Youth Commission meeting: Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health funding homosexual / transgender movement in schools - to make up for budget cuts!

The madness continues. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) is giving full support to the homosexual / transgender movement in Massachusetts schools, according to DPH Commissioner John Auerbach (who is "married" to another man).

The DPH has given $150,000 of its budgeted money to the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Youth to make up for the $150,000 which the Governor cut from the Commission's $850,000 budget in October because of the massive budget crisis in Massachusetts. In other words, money which was meant for public health is now being diverted by the DPH to homosexual programs in the schools.

The Mass. Dept. of Public Health will also begin pushing acceptance of "transgenderism" and will even begin bringing transgender people into its leadership roles.

(Ironically, less than a month ago the DPH issued a report linking homosexuality with health problems and destructive behavior.)

This was all revealed at the public meeting of the Mass. GLBT Youth Commission last Monday evening, Dec. 15.


The article immediately following, from a Vancouver, British Columbia, publication by and for homosexuals, illustrates better than anthing else we have seen, how, under cover of the concept of "tolerance" (one that can be a noble word in its meaning  in our society), pro-homosexuality indoctrination can take place and is taking place in our schoools.   Sections and words bold-faced have been marked for emphasis by the editor of this BC Parents and Teachers for Life website.  For anyone not fully convinced of the importance of our confronting the pro-homosexuality program in the schools, this article is a must-read.

[From XtraWest online]

From tolerance to celebration

EDUCATION / The making of a gay-friendly elementary school

Patti Shales Lefkos / Vancouver / Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Five and a half years ago, I became principal of the West End's Lord Roberts Elementary School and its annex. I was ecstatic.

Lord Roberts on Bidwell St has all of the elements I love in a school community: a multicultural population, inner-city funding and programs, bright students, involved parents with high expectations and a dedicated, diverse staff. However, having spent a week at the school in April 1998, I harboured no illusion that I was in for an easy ride.

First, there was the story of the rainbow flag. To celebrate the opening of the school's new playground, the principal who preceded me ordered several flags. Unwittingly, one of them was a rainbow flag.

A few hours after it was raised there was an uproar in the parent community and a Grade 7 student started a petition to remove it. Due to parental pressure the flag was taken down.

Then there was the story of the photo exhibit called All Kinds of Families. For one week, photos were displayed in the main hall depicting families of various ethnic backgrounds, single parents, and same-sex parents. Parents raised concerns yet again.

Staff decided to tackle the issue head-on. That's when I made my entrance.

We began with a two-day staff retreat featuring presentations by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC (GALE). We decided each teacher would lead a class meeting to discuss name-calling. If students did not bring up homophobic names, the teacher would. So began our journey from tolerance to celebration.

That fall, we developed a Code of Behaviour for the school. While it did not directly address sexual orientation, it did highlight respect for all people and the importance of honouring diversity. This allowed staff to begin classroom discussions around the question of what constitutes diversity and to take those discussions beyond race into sexuality and family composition.

Having facilitated the development of a Code of Behaviour in three other schools, I knew the process was as important as the product. The involvement of students, staff and parents is crucial, as is the ritual of yearly review, editing and recommitment.

In the last few years, our September Signing Ceremony has evolved into a joyous celebration. Students, staff and parent representatives sign the Code each fall in a school assembly to indicate their commitment to its stated values for the coming year.

The assembly ends with staff members presenting an energetic dance to "We Are Family" which invariably causes a barely contained riot of student applause.

It is obvious to students that staff care for and respect each other and have fun working together. The Code is illustrated by the Respect Mural on the gym wall facing Bidwell St, which provides a daily reminder to all.

In order to gauge the Code's success, we then designed a Respect Rubric (one of those charts with the word "respect" spelled out down the left side and attributes beginning with each letter described and assessed on the right). Teachers and parents use the rubric each term to evaluate student growth in social responsibility. Students use it as a self-evaluation tool.

We also made it school-wide policy to include anti-homophobia lessons within discussions of diversity at all grade levels, starting in Kindergarten. Picture books depicting all kinds of families provide an effective way to broach the topic in the primary grades.

. . . . 

Recently, Lord Roberts celebrated Pride Week, planned by the newly formed school Pride Committee, a group of gay and straight staff members. "You Can Be Anyone You Want to Be" by the Flirtations was played over the public address system, the rainbow flag was raised in the playground, open classroom discussions took place without giggles, and anti-homophobia posters featuring a gay staff member and his partner were displayed. There were no complaints from students, parents, or community.

We have come a long way at Lord Roberts. Both gay and straight staff members now feel it is a gay-friendly school. All our gay and lesbian staff are out to colleagues and most are now out to students and parents, as well.

Though diversity is a part of every community, I feel that directly addressing homophobia is especially crucial in a West End school if we are to truly honour all members of our local community.

I commend the ongoing leadership of gay and straight staff and parents that has brought us to this point. It is my privilege to have been part of the continuing journey from tolerance to celebration.

There have been bumps in the road. There may be more to come.

The Vancouver School Board's anti-homophobia policy provided me with welcome ammunition to back up my personal beliefs when addressing parent concerns. The government's new Grade 12 elective Social Justice course is another positive initiative that will hopefully be chosen by future leaders.

. . . . I

Patti Shales Lefkos was principal of Lord Roberts Elementary School and Lord Roberts Annex for the past five and a half years. She retired in December 2005 after 36 years in education.


School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event

October 22, 2008

By Chelsea Schilling  [from WorldNetDaily]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."

[Click here to read the rest of this WorldNetDaily article]



An Analysis of Some Aspects of the Social Justice Twelve Course
as approved by the British Columbia Ministry of Education

The Social Justice Twelve Course is one striking illustration of the Education Ministry’s lack of positive response to the concerns so many have expressed about the Corren Settlement Agreement and its results.

In the first place, this unresponsiveness was shown in the way in which the draft curriculum for the new Social Justice Twelve course was released.The Settlement Agreement with the Correns1 states: “Prior to release of the Social Justice 12 Response Draft for public review and response, the Respondent [the Ministry] will provide the Complainants [the Correns] with a draft of the sexual orientation/gender identity portion for their review, and will make revisions as appropriate in light of the comments received.  The Complainants may consult experts, on a confidential basis, to assist them in providing such comment.” We note the fact that this consultation with the Correns was to take place before the draft course was released to the general public.  (Settlement Agreement, Section 3A)

 Though a pilot version of the new course was to be completed on or before June 30, 2007, the draft program or draft “Integrated Resource Package” (IRP) for the course was withheld from public review till August 1, 2007.  This was in spite of the fact that the draft course was to be used as a pilot course the next month.  This late release in the summer of 2007 meant that already in September of 2007 some students would be exposed to this course before those who might be critical of the course had a proper chance to review it and ask for changes.

When we looked at the draft course, the first startling fact we noted was that it failed to include information on recommended learning resources for the course.    In fact, we were told that these would not be available until the final publication of the IRP.  In other words, the general public had no input into the selection of recommended learning resources, in contrast of course to the role of the Correns.  Since the nature of recommended learning resources can, to a large extent, determine the nature of the course, this means that the general public was excluded from providing input regarding a very important aspect of the course.

An examination of the approved Social Justice 12 course now published reveals that grave concerns about the course which were expressed following the release of the draft course are still justified. 

It may be important to note that this is an elective course so far, but this does not mean that we should be unconcerned about it.  The nature of the course, as we shall see, is such that it lends itself readily to the introduction of propaganda, and this indoctrination could create a cadre of  student activists who in turn could influence a whole school.

Under “Considerations for Program Delivery,” on page 16 of the approved IRP for Social Justice 12, we read this curious sentence: 
Ensure students are aware that their parents may have access to the schoolwork they create only insofar as it pertains to students’ progress.”  We cannot help but wonder, "What does this mean?"  Does this mean that certain assignments (given though not counted for assessment) are to be kept secret from parents?  If so, what type of assignments would they be?

On page 21 of the approved IRP, under “Prescribed Learning Outcomes,” we read:  Prescribed learning outcomes are content standards for the provincial education system; they are the prescribed curriculum.  Clearly stated and expressed in measurable and observable terms, Prescribed Learning Outcomes set out the required attitudes, skills, and knowledge – what students are expected to know and be able to do – by the end of the specified course.”   We should note that not only are measurable and observable skills and knowledge prescribed, but attitudes as well.  Students, then, are expected to have certain attitudes.  What attitudes are these, and what are the consequences for those students who fail to develop them and thus fail in this respect to have the prescribed learning outcomes?

Under “Student Achievement: Key Elements,” in the subsection  “Defining Social Justice, “ the following is given in the set of indicators which may be used to assess student achievement:  “Students who have fully met the Prescribed Learning Outcomes are able to identify and define a range of concepts and terms of social justice (e.g., ableism, ageism, anthropocentrism, colonialism, consumerism, cultural imperialism, dignity, discrimination, diversity, economic imperialism, economic liberalization, empowerment, equality, equity, ethics, extremism, fairness, feminism, fundamentalism, genocide, globalization, hate crime, hegemony, heterosexism, homophobia, human rights, humanitarianism, humility, inclusion, individual responsibility, marginalization, misogyny, oppression, peace, persecution, power, prejudice, privilege, racism, sexism, speciesism, stereotype, stewardship, systemic, transformational leadership, truth, value, worth.)”  (p. 34)

It is worthwhile to examine the definition of these terms in the “Glossary” which accompanies this curriculum (on pages 49-54).  (There was no glossary in the draft version of Social Justice 12.)  According to this glossary, “diversity refers to the ways in which people within a society differ from each other.  Some of these differences may be visible (e.g., race, ethnicity, sex, age, ability), while others are less visible (e.g., culture, ancestry, language, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background).  Honouring diversity is based on the principle that, if these differences are acknowledged and utilized in a positive way, it is of benefit to the quality of life for all in society.”  

We would agree that many differences can be “acknowledged and utilized in a positive way,” but there is surely a danger in not recognizing that some characteristics may actually be harmful and not capable of being so utilized.

In the definition of “homophobia” we read that homophobia is: 
 “a fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals, or of people or behaviours perceived to be homosexual.”  We are further informed that  “Homophobia manifests itself as prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and/or acts of violence. Homophobia can exist at personal, institutional, and societal levels. Also transphobia: fear, dislike, or hatred of transgendered or transsexual people. See also heterosexism.”   Here we have adopted the usual stereotype used by pro-homosexuality activists that those disliking homosexuality will demonstrate “prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and/or acts of violence.”  “Heterosexism” is defined as “the assumption that heterosexual orientation is better than other sexual orientations and therefore deserving of public acceptance and legal privilege.”

The term “two-spirited” is listed as “a modern term for a traditional North American Aboriginal concept implying a masculine spirit and a feminine spirit in the same body. Two-spirited individuals were found in many, if not most, pre-contact Aboriginal communities, and played important societal roles within communities. There are terms for these individuals in the various North American Aboriginal languages, and their social function varied from nation to nation. In present-day parlance, two-spirited is also used to refer to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Aboriginal people.”  (The authority for the statements about pre-contact aboriginal communities is not given.)

 It is only fair to say that many of the other definitions in the glossary are unobjectionable.  When matters of sexual orientation are defined, however, we can see the distorting influence of the Corren Agreement.

Under the heading  “Recognizing and Analysing Social Injustice” (p. 40), a suggested achievement indicator is that students should be able to “apply principles of social justice to analyse specific historical and contemporary examples of injustice in Canada related to . . . people who are LGBT (e.g., criminalization, institutionalization, marriage, adoption, employment discrimination, spousal rights, immigration, censorship, hate crimes, school safety).”  Here it becomes obvious that the until-recent limitation of the official use of the term “marriage” to male-female unions is to be regarded as an injustice, as is the denial of adoption rights to homosexuals.    Will students be expected to also regard as unjust, religious teachings which limit marriage to the union of man and woman?

In the subsection on “Recognizing and Analyzing Injustice” (pp. 24-25), we are told that one of the prescribed learning outcomes is that students will be expected to describe social injustice based on certain characteristics.    These characteristics are to include age, marital or family status, mental or physical ability, nationality or "rationality," political affiliation, race and ethnicity, religion and faith, sex, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. (p. 23).  While the list is suggestive of many topics worthy of consideration by students, one wonders what descriptions of social injustice in certain of these categories will be considered acceptable.  For example, will a student be expected to describe same-sex marriage as a move towards justice when discussing marital status and sexual orientation?  Such questions become particularly relevant when we read (on Page 40) that students will be expected to apply principles of social justice to analyze specific historical and contemporary examples of injustice in Canada related to . . . people who are LGBT (e.g., criminalization, institutionalization, marriage, adoption, employment discrimination, spousal rights, immigration, censorship, hate crimes, school safety)”  (emphasis supplied by the present writer).    On Page 41 we are told that students should be able to “identify legislation and public policies that relate to human rights in Canada”  and an example of legislation given in the Civil Marriage Act.

This would certainly indicate that students are expected to regard as an injustice the limitation of the legal definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples:  a definition only recently jettisoned.

Serious questions arise regarding the many concepts that may be inculcated in this course and regarding the attitudes students are expected to adopt when we consider that students are to be expected to “analyze the social justice implications of legislation, public policy, and other forms of government action in Canada with specific reference to . . . ”  (and among the legislation included is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the BC Human Rights Code, and the Civil Marriage Act), the.Human  Rights Code, and the Civil Marriage Act).

Students will also be expected to assess the contributions of particular individuals and groups who are identified with struggles for social justice.   What individuals and groups will they be expected to assess the contributions of?  After all, those whom some would regard as identified with a struggle for social justice others will regard as working for social injustice.  While practically all in our society might regard Wilberforce as an example of someone working for social justice (the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery), others would be much more controversial.  For example, pro-abortion supporters would regard Morgentaler as having worked for social justice, but pro-lifers would regard his work as a source of grave injustice.

Since, as we have seen, the prescribed learning outcomes include attitudes, what is to be the fate of the student who does not share the teacher’s attitude toward particular concepts of social justice?   Such a student may find his or her achievement is rated low at the end of the course, unless he has changed his attitude under peer or teacher pressure during the year.

Although the Social Justice 12 course as outlined in the approved IRP will deal with many topics worthy of students’ consideration, it is, due to bias and lack of specified direction, a course which allows for the possibility of gross abuse on the part of the teacher who might choose to use it to propagandize for his own particular viewpoint.   We have not had the time or resources to examine these learning resources for this course, but the process by which they were added without being open to criticism from the public leads to the possibility that they could, combined with the prejudice of a teacher who acts as a propagandist, result in a course that distorts the whole consideration of social justice in the services of a radical agenda,

E. S. (Ted) Hewlett
October, 2008


Page numbers given in the text of this essay are those used at the bottom of pages in the Social Justice 12 IRP online at  .

(URLs for website pages were as of October, 2008)

 1 Settlement Agreement between Murray Corren and Peter Corren (Complainants) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Education (Respondent).  The Agreement was signed on April 8, 2006.  A copy can be viewed at  .

 2  at


Gay couple files human-rights complaint against school board


Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun

Published: Saturday, October 18, 2008

The two men responsible for the creation of a new social justice course for B.C. high school students have filed a human-rights complaint against the Abbotsford school district for its decision not to offer the course this year.

Murray and Peter Corren say the district discriminated against students at W. J. Mouat secondary when it cancelled Social Justice 12 despite more than 90 students wanting to take it. They've asked the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to intervene.

Social Justice 12, an elective for senior students, was created as a result of a contract the province signed with the Correns in 2006 to end a long-standing human rights complaint that the curriculum discriminated against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students. . 

Earlier, Education Minister Shirley Bond said boards have a choice about whether or not to offer elective classes, but Murray Corren said the Abbotsford situation is different because the course was offered and then pulled. "It would have been an entirely different matter if the course had never (been) offered," Murray Corren added. .

[Click here to read the whole of this article on  the Vancouver Sun online.]

Gay-friendly high school may open here in 2010

PRIDE CAMPUS | Would provide 'heroes,' seek to combat bullying

October 9, 2008

A "gay-friendly'' Chicago public high school that will weave gay and lesbian "heroes" -- from James Baldwin to Gertrude Stein -- into its curriculum was among 20 new school proposals unveiled Wednesday

The Pride Campus of Social Justice High School would be open to all students citywide but would provide a safe, "gay-friendly'' atmosphere to combat the high bullying, dropout and depression rate many gay and lesbian students experience nationwide, advocates say

In U.S. history and other classes, "gay and lesbian historical figures'' would be taught so gay youth "have heroes,'' said Bill Greaves, Chicago's liaison on issues affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

"We will teach the history of all people, but we are just going to make sure these people are not invisible in that history,'' said Greaves, part of the Pride Campus design team.
[Click here to read the whole story online.]



"Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day" 

Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

 Saturday, October 11, 2008

 A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

 The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.

 A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.

 "She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.

 But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.

 "It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.

 "It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."

The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.

 "It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.

 California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

 Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.

On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.

"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.

 After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.

The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.

The two met on a dance floor two years ago.

"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.

 Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.

 "How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Marc Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."

 Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.

 "She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."

 Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.

 The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.

 Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."

 It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."

 As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."


This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle



"Gay" Sex Kills
"In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or 'sexual orientation'). "

Commentary by J. Matt Barber

April 21, 2008 ( - Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to "embrace who they are," pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn't stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially "in-vogue" behaviors that - both statistically and manifestly - are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned frowned-upon behaviors.

That's exactly what the homosexual activist "Day of Silence" is all about - advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

Just the Facts Ma'am

By recently admitting that "HIV is a gay disease," Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997. (see the study here: )

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.

"[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "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. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Yeah, so?

Of course, that's all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn't change reality, nor does it eliminate the study's disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation."

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, "have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among "gays," and Hepatitis C is twice as common.

But perhaps most shocking are today's syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

The "Day of Silence"

In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or "sexual orientation").

But instead, the "gay" lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to "embrace who they are," and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. "But always use a condom!" liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called "Day of Silence" on kids in thousands of schools across the country.

The "Day of Silence" (DOS) is organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most militant and well-funded of the powerful homosexual pressure groups. DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of children who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or "transgender." (For a sampling of the kinds of things GLSEN teaches children, click here: ; Be warned, though. It's pretty graphic.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with "bullying" and has everything to do with propaganda.

During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is "homophobic," "hateful" and "discriminatory."

Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It's the height of impropriety and cynicism for "gay" activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values.

So, it's time for the "Day of Silence" to finally live up to its name. It's time for these radical adult activists to be silent in our children's schools.

And you can to do something to help.

At DOS-participating schools all over the country, parents are joining with dozens of pro-family organizations, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a "Day of Silence Walkout." They're keeping their kids home from school on DOS as a show of protest. (For more information visit ).

Parents and children are also strongly encouraged to participate in the Alliance Defense Fund's non-disruptive "Day of Truth," which will follow DOS on Monday, April 28, 2008. (For more information visit ).

Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda.

It's time to shatter the silence with truth.

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

The "Day of Silence" in British Columbia

The following is from "Silencing homophobia",: an article that appeared in ""  (April 22, 2008):
"The silence is spreading.

"Donning colourful masks, pins and armbands, hundreds of secondary students across Greater Victoria kept silent in support of their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered classmates on Wednesday. . . . .

Reynold’s has a very active gay-straight alliance group, whose members have put up anti-homophobic posters and murals throughout the school.

“Homophobia in our school is still a big deal but it’s not as big a deal as the racism and ablism (against special education students),” said Reynold’s student Marissa Johnston.

“We have same-sex couples who are out and walk around the school holding hands. If anyone said anything... people know not to say anything.”

The Greater Victoria School District was the first in the province to develop a homophobia policy and action plan, five years ago. . . . ."




News Release from the Catholic Civil Rights League

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life has received the following news release from the Catholic Civil Rights League, and passes it on for the information of our readers.

Catholic Civil Rights League

120 Eglinton Ave. E, Toronto, ON  M4P 1E2

Phone: 416-466-8244,  Fax: 416-466-0091,


News Release

Western Region

Release Date: 14 March, 2008

For immediate release

“Serious concerns” raised about teacher guide

The Catholic Civil Rights League today released what a retired UBC professor of education calls “a comprehensive, finely detailed, extensively researched and documented critique” of a teachers’ manual designed to fulfil a private contract between the Ministry of Education and two homosexual activists.

The manual, Making Space, Giving Voice, explains how K-12 students will be introduced to “the full range of gender identity and sexual orientation.”

Walter Szetela, Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia, describes the League’s review of Making Space, Giving Voice as “superlative.” Retired UBC English professor Ross Labrie comments that the review “raises serious concerns about the dangers to democracy of an ideologically driven and secretive policy designed to impose a particular view of what is claimed to be social justice.”

According to the League, the recommendations of Making Space, Giving Voice are made at the expense of core curriculum subjects. It warns that the ‘ideological straitjacket” imposed by the Ministry on some subjects, like English and literature, “is spiritually and intellectually impoverishing.” The Ministry’s manual is also faulted by the League because it “draws false analogies . . . fails to make important distinctions . . . and omits information relevant to informed decision making.”

The League has asked the Minister of Education to waive the six week deadline imposed by her officials for public response to Making Space, Giving Voice.
“They gave the public four months to comment on a single social justice elective intended only for some Grade 12 students,” said Sean Murphy, author of the League’s critique. “But they allowed only six weeks for responses to a manual affecting teaching in every subject from Kindergarten to Grade 12.”

Murphy, a CCRL director for western Canada, hopes that the Minister will instruct her officials to consider the League’s submission, despite the deadline.

“It wasn’t possible to complete a proper review of the document in six weeks,” he said.

Read the CCRL review on line at


Western Contacts
Sean Murphy (BC & Prairies) Tel: 604-485-9765
Ed De Vita (BC Lower Mainland)  Tel: 604-430-9596



[The following, from the Catholic Civil Rights League, Western Region, summarizes a more comprehensive document available online at the URL given.]

A Critical Review of British Columbia MInistry of Education Guidelines Embodied in the Teachers' Manual 
Making Space, Giving Voice

Making Sense of Making Space, Giving Voice
Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region

A critical review of Ministry of Education guidelines issued as a result of the Corren Agreement.
Now available on-line at


  . . . trenchant, well-documented, and articulate. . . . raises serious concerns about the dangers to democracy of an ideologically driven and secretive policy designed to impose a particular view of what is claimed to be  social justice . . . 

Ross Labrie, Professor Emeritus,
Faculty of English, University of British Columbia

 . . .a comprehensive, finely detailed, extensively researched and documented critique. . .  an oasis with an abundance of observations and warnings which specify the negative nature and consequences of the Corren Agreement to children and their parents and upon restrictions of fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion and expression . . . superlative . . .

Walter Szetela, Professor Emeritus,
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia

Executive Summary

1. Making Space, Giving Voice proposes an ideology that identifies autonomy as the essential characteristic of the human person, teaches that human relationships and social justice depend primarily upon a balance of power, and denies the distinction between authority and power. This ideology is fundamentally flawed. It may account for some human failings, but it cannot comprehend man’s highest aspirations. It provides an unsatisfactory preparation for life in a liberal democracy.

2. The goal of Making Space, Giving Voice is to require students to affirm the moral and social acceptability of any and all sexual lifestyles presented to them. These include not just homosexuality and bisexuality, but "transgenderism" and a kaleidoscopic mix of purported "identities" and "orientations." Ministry of Education policy requires that all be portrayed in a positive light. "Acceptance" is presented as a moral, social and legal obligation imposed by the requirements of social justice. To require this is a direct attack on natural marriage, a fundamental human institution. Moreover, this kind of instruction presumes and even requires the suppression of critical thinking, the estrangement of many children from their parents and cultural and religious communities, and a continuing exploration of sub-cultures and activities beyond the experience of children and even most adults.

3. Making Space, Giving Voice is not part of the official curriculum, but, as a policy document, it establishes norms for state schools. It authorizes the introduction of " non-heterosexual realities" into every subject in the curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12, not excluding mathematics, entirely at the behest of the teacher, without consultation with parents, and even over their objections. It may be cited to justify professional persecution of non-conforming teachers and the withdrawal of state funding for non-compliant independent schools.

4. Notions of " diversity," "identity" and "culture" advocated by Making Space, Giving Voice do not withstand critical analysis. It draws false analogies and fails to make important distinctions and omits information relevant to informed decision making. At one point it is seriously mistaken about matters of public record, while at another it requires a polemical interpretation of complex and controversial information. Some sample lesson plans are ideologically driven, tendentious and, occasionally, seem less than honest.

5. The kind of social justice instruction proposed by Making Space, Giving Voice can only be accomplished at the expense of core curriculum subjects, since there is not sufficient time to meet core learning outcomes and also deal adequately with social justice topics and related issues. The imposition of an ideological straitjacket on some subjects, like English and literature, is spiritually and intellectually impoverishing.

6. The approach taken by Making Space, Giving Voice is openly authoritarian and includes elements that are characteristic of education in a totalitarian state: isolation of students from parents, destruction of natural marriage and natural family, and a methodology calculated to destroy the capacity to form and maintain convictions that are not approved by the state.

7. The development of state schools has, incidentally, provided the state or other powerful interests the means to bring their power to bear on fundamental freedoms. The Corren Agreement demonstrates the need to develop defences against the coercive potential of state education. This may require substantial changes to the scope of the powers and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, as well as other reforms. Ultimately, the preservation of democratic freedoms may require the separation of school and state.



Deerfield High School Offers Pornography to Students

DEERFIELD, Ill., March 6 /Christian Newswire/ -- North Shore Student Advocacy has learned that Deerfield High School, in Deerfield, Illinois, is offering the books "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes" (Part One & Two) -- laced with graphic sexual content, including gay sex, pervasive expletives, religious denigration and mockery -- in English classes this spring . . . .

"After almost 15 years of school advocacy and reviewing many objectionable books and curricula, I have never seen anything this vulgar and harmful to students," says Lora Sue Hauser, Executive Director of North Shore Student Advocacy. "Parents, taxpayers and concerned citizens must force themselves to read these excerpts, as horrific as they are, so you know what kids are being exposed to. The school justifies this egregious choice because of its themes of hope. Evidently, all great literature with themes of hope have already been exhausted so teachers need to start offering pornography. We say - enough."

North Shore Student Advocacy (NSSA) was made aware of these books last fall when a parent complained. The books were part of required reading until NSSA filed a formal complaint with the school, asking the books to be reviewed and removed. The school decided to remove the books from required reading but continued to offer them in the classroom as an optional title. "Optional Title," according to the principal, means that the student may select the books to study with peers and be guided by the teacher.

Deerfield High School has had a long history of presenting inappropriate curricula to students. Last year, teachers made Freshman students sign a "Confidentiality Agreement" in a class where they were allowing presentations by homosexual and transgendered students.




Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents
Parents vow to appeal decision all the way to the US Supreme Court

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOSTON, MA, February 2, 2008 ( - A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.

The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to "tolerate" gay marriage.

"It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage," the court admits. "That was the point of why that book was chosen and used."

However, in the appeals court's opinion, this doesn't mean the children were being indoctrinated with anything. "Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights."

The book referred to by the panel, "King and King", depicts a "prince" who isn't interested in a princess, but instead is "in love" with the princess' brother. Their "love" is portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and the two "marry" each other. They are shown kissing on the lips at the end of the book, which was read to second graders in 2006 in Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Two families complained to the school district, which responded that the school district was not obligated to advise families about such matters, and would not allow parents to opt-out. David Parker and other parents with children in the school district responded by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. After the suit was dismissed by Federal District Judge Mark L. Wolf in early 2007, the parents appealed. Now, the Federal appeals court has rejected their appeal.

However, the families are determined to press on all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the next step in the appeals process. "We are fully committed to go forward," Jeffrey Denner, lead attorney of the Parker legal team, told the pro-family group Mass Resistance. "We will continue to fight on all fronts that we need to."

"This ruling will surely embolden and enable the schools even more on this if it's not fought," said Parker. "There's going to be an accountability, you can count on it."

Denner told Mass Resistance that he is not discouraged, recalling the St. Patrick's Boston Parade case in the 1990s, in which parade organizers sued to vindicate their right to exclude homosexuals from the event. Although local, state, federal circuit court and appeals court judges ruled against them 17 times, they eventually won their case before the Supreme Court, successfully defending the right of Americans to organize themselves according to their convictions.

Related Links:

Federal court denies appeal in David Parker Civil Rights case on homosexual programs in elementary school

History oft the Parker Case

Exceprts from Book, "King and King", Approved by Federal Appeals Court



An object lesson in free speech and democracy

Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun
[The article from which the following excerpt was taken, though not as a whole sympathetic to the traditional moral view of homosexual behaviour, is nevertheless important for highlighting the attempt to close off critical comment on the subject.]

Published: Saturday, January 12, 2008

I have long appreciated Balwant Singh Gill's honesty -- even though it's now landed him in trouble.

As one of the most prominent "moderate" Sikh leaders in Canada, Gill has been interviewed by the mainstream media hundreds of times. He always bravely speaks his mind, even in the face of threats from "fundamentalist" Sikhs.

In late November, I again appreciated Gill's forthrightness when he agreed to be interviewed for The Vancouver Sun's five-page package, "Canada's Changing Moral Landscape," based on an Angus Reid poll. Gill, who says he speaks for 39 Sikh temples, responded frankly when I asked him (and a variety of other Canadians) about hot-button moral issues -- including prostitution, abortion, sex outside marriage, illegal drug use, and, of course, homosexuality.

Kaboom! Gill's comments "unleased a firestorm" within the country's gay and lesbian community, according to a Jan. 2 article in Xtra West, a long-standing homosexual publication.

"I hate homosexuality," Gill told me on the telephone three weeks before the morality package ran. "Most Sikhs believe homosexuality is unnatural and you can't produce kids through it. And, secondarily, no major religion allows it."

I told Gill at the time he was being very blunt. The long-time Sikh spokesman didn't backtrack.

Gill has not been as frank lately. He's "apologized" on CBC radio and, according to Xtra West, has been widely chastised by the ethnic media.

But, mixed in with his regret, Gill has publicly wavered about what he told me. As well, he's been saying he doesn't remember when the interview took place. That vagueness permitted some to claim to the media that Gill made his homosexuality comments three years earlier. Sheesh.

Xtra West has been among those correcting such false statements. But the red herring about the timing of the interview has fuelled the dangerous accusation The Sun went out of its way to target Sikhs as homophobic.

Some suggested The Sun was being "racist" in the way it handled the national morality poll, which indicated immigrants are making the country more morally conservative.

Before exploring that trendline, a few words about free speech.

It was important to publish Gill's beliefs because they are real. Such views, which he said are widespread among Sikhs, need to be held up to the light. The usual champions of political correctness called for police to investigate Gill, to charge him with a hate crime. But they would have only been able to make a case if Gill had said, "I hate homosexuals." Which he didn't.

In a free country, we have to live with how some of the 40 per cent of Canadians who find homosexuality morally unacceptable might "hate homosexuality." We can't legislate what people feel. Canadians have the right to hold offensive views about minorities -- so long as they don't actively discriminate against them.

Other Canadians, meanwhile, have the right to tell people with harsh beliefs exactly why they believe they're wrong.

It's called democracy.

I also reject the accusation from some minority-group activists that The Sun was being racist by highlighting Gill's remarks and citing data suggesting rapid immigration, particularly from Asia, might be causing British Columbians to lose their reputation as laid-back, freedom-loving liberals.

[Click here to read the whole Vancouver Sun article online.]

My conversation with a protester on the side of an Indiana country road.

The protesters lined up on the grassy shoulder because there was no sidewalk on this two-lane road through the cornfields. They spaced themselves 10 feet or so apart, apparently in a vain attempt to make it seem like there were more than the 10 or 15 people who showed up outside Trader's Point Christian Church. Inside the church, the daylong Love Won Out conference had just wrapped up.

Produced by Focus on the Family, the conference shares hope for people who are unhappy with their homosexuality and who desire to change. But based on the protest signs out front, you would never suspect that was the gentle spirit of Love Won Out.

I flipped on my video camera and walked from protester to protester to get some shots of the signs they were holding. One woman held a sign that read, "I love my lesbian daughter."

She looked like someone I might chat with in line at the grocery store, so I asked if I could speak with her, making clear I did not want to start a debate. "I just want to hear you," I said.

She said, "May I show you an e-mail from my daughter?"

She unfolded a sheet of paper, explained that her daughter had “come out,” and sent this note afterward.

The e-mail thanked her parents for how they had accepted her announcement, especially when they asked her to look them in the eyes and they made it clear that they loved her.

I was struck how much this story rang true with so many parents who had attended the conference. I shared that it was essentially the advice that had been offered inside the church that day, but added that offering unconditional love does not mean affirming everything someone does.

As the setting sun glinted off her sunglasses, the mom raised basically three arguments. That 10 percent of the population is gay. That among a hundred and something animal species, there are those that exhibit gay behavior. And that her daughter's relationship with her partner was not hurting anyone.

I saw a lot of tension in her eyes, likely from having this unexpected conversation as cars dashed past, but I also saw sincerity.

I shared with her that there are very good arguments to refute all of those points, but that standing on the side of the road was not the place to have that conversation. We agreed that we were not likely to change each other's minds at this brief meeting.

We spoke a little more, I thanked her for being gracious and headed back across the road.

On the flight home, I reflected on what I had learned on an Indiana country road: There are times to push back firmly but respectfully. But there's also a time to listen and hear someone's story.

. . . .  [from  ]


Forced Education in Homosexuality and Evolution Leads to Exodus of Mennonites from Quebec

By John-Henry Westen and Elizabeth O'Brien  
MONTREAL, August 16, 2007 ( - A community of a dozen Mennonite families in Quebec is ready to leave the province rather than succumb to provincial government demands that would require their children to be taught evolution and homosexuality. While the government sees its actions as nothing more than enforcing technical regulations, many view the case as intolerance of Christian faith.
The community runs a small Mennonite school out of a church in Roxton Falls where eleven children in elementary grades were expected to commence studies this Fall.  Subjects include reading, writing, math, science, geography, social sciences, music and French.  However, they are not schooled in evolution and homosexuality (sex education) as demanded by the official provincial curriculum.

Quebec Education Ministry Spokesman Francois Lefebvre told that the province has two requirements for approval of private schools.  "That the teachers are certified and that the provincial curriculum which is mandatory in all Quebec schools is followed," he said.

Ronald Goossen, a spokesman for the families, told the community rejects both demands.   With regard to certified teachers, he said, "we have pulled our students out of public schools and by asking us to have certified teachers they are asking us to send our teachers to public school.  So basically they're asking something of us that we don't feel we can do."

Regarding the curriculum, Goosen said, "Some of the things - the theory of evolution would be a problem, the attitudes portrayed, the lifestyles we don't ascribe to, making it look that single motherhood is fine, that alternate lifestyles are fine - gay 'marriage', we'd be very much against that."

After visiting the Mennonites in November, the Ministry of Education told the school that their teaching was not up to standard and threatened them with legal action. Parents were informed that their children must be enrolled in government-approved schools by the fall. 

Given other incidents in the province, Goossen was concerned that if they don't comply, children might be taken from their families by social workers. In 2002, social workers in Aylmer removed seven children from a Mennonite family because the family used spanking as a form of discipline. 

This move is an enactment of the Ministry of Education's decision last year to shut down schools that don't teach the full government-approved curriculum. The Ministry threatened to shut down private Evangelical schools that didn't want to teach evolution and sex-education (See ).

The Mayor of Roxton Falls, Jean-Marie Laplante, said that the majority of non-Mennonites in his town support the school. Laplante has complained to the education department and Education Minister Michelle Courchesne to save the school from being shut down.

"We want to keep these people here - they're part of our community," the Mayor told the National Post.  "They're good neighbours. They integrated into the community, they work hard, they have farms, they work in businesses in the region."

The prospect of losing the families, said the Mayor, "hurts economically, but it also hurts because everybody loves these people and we're saying, 'Why? Why is this happening?' " (Contact the Mayor here: )
Goosen told that the families are serious about moving and will be gone in a couple of weeks when school commences.  He noted that most have already rented housing in Ontario.  Should the government reconsider and allow them the freedom to educate their children within the boundaries of their faith, the community would gladly stay he said.

Lefebvre told that the school had not yet applied for permission to run privately.  However, Goosen responded that the ministry of education had all the required information and his application was not 'officially' submitted only due to a technicality related to the online submission process.

Moreover, said Goosen, "we have been informed that our application would be rejected since they require certified teachers and adherence to the curriculum."

August 21, 2007

A San Diego Mother Goes Undercover Inside of A San Diego Gay Community Children's Event: . . . .

Mother Reports Transvestites, Some Appearing To Be Using Drugs,

Accessing Children At Gay Community-Sponsored Easter Egg Hunt

. . . .

Reported By Arnae Davison - Produced By James Hartline

     She is a woman that has lived through some of life's most difficult battles over the past two years.  From raising two young children to battling a near-terminal case of bone cancer in 2006, Arnae Davison has faced it all in recent times.  Yet, nothing prepared this San Diego mother, wife and business owner for the people and debauchery that she encountered during a dangerous assignment that she undertook in April of 2007.  On April 9, 2007 Arnae Davison became an undercover journalist for the California Christian News.  During that assignment, Davison entered society's dark underbelly to investigate some disturbing allegations connected to a children's Easter egg hunt that was being sponsored by various elements of San Diego's gay community.


. . . .

 On April 9, 2007, Easter Sunday, my husband and I attended an Easter egg hunt that was sponsored by the San Diego League of Gentlemen.  I would not normally attend an event that is sponsored by a homosexual organization, especially one that has ties to a gay bar called The Eagle.  However, I thought that it was important to see for myself what business an openly gay organization had associating itself with children and Easter Sunday.  As Christians, my husband and I believe that Easter is a time to celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

. . . .

To begin the festivities each child with a parent was required to start at a registration booth.  

    Many of the older children who stood in line approached the registration booth with puzzled and confused looks on their faces as they were spoken to, and instructed by transvestites, in regards to registration information. I must admit that my husband and I too had the same puzzled looks on our faces and found ourselves staring uncontrollably.  It is quite a confusing sight to see what you think is a woman, but as you get closer you realize that it is a man. We could not believe what our eyes were seeing.  Whether or not an individual is a man or women should be the last question on the minds of children at an Easter egg hunt. 


. . . .at some point during the event we believe that there were drugs being used by the unclean looking men.  We concluded this because of our observations that some of the transvestites kept going in and out of the portable bathroom while carrying little pink envelopes.  The door to a portable bathroom was left open and we could clearly see one person in particular who went into the bathroom and used one of the pink envelopes.  When he came out it was very obvious from his conduct that he was under the influence of some type of drug. He began to stumble while walking and proceeded to look into the garbage cans while he adjusted his fake anatomy in public.  ~ At this point my family and I had seen enough and decided to leave. ~

     After attending this event I am more convinced than ever that the homosexual community has targeted innocent children with the desire of infiltrating their minds with a false, hidden agenda.  This agenda, I believe, consists of targeting children so that they can make them believe that same-sex relationships are moral, good and overall, normal. These homosexual relationships cause children to be confused, to stumble and to partake of an immoral lifestyle. 

[Click here to read the whole California Christian article from which the selection immediately above was taken.]


Read the Corren Settlement Agreement for Yourself


Readers of this bulletin who wish to examine the Corren Settlement Agreement for themselves may have had difficulty finding a copy.  For some reason, the Ministry of Education has not been particularly forthcoming with the details of this agreement, which--after all--should be readily available to all British Columbians, as well as to others who might be concerened about such an agreement being signed governing education in other jurisdictions.


We encourage our readers to read the Corren Settlement Agreement and to see for yourselves the terms of this document, and how it gives, to the two private individuals with whom the government signed, a special role in influencing educational curriculum .  [Click here to read the agreement.]

The Gay Shibboleth

Opposition to homosexual behavior may now be a bar to high office.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 7/11/2007 08:36AM


As a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council, physician James Holsinger voted with the majority to affirm Methodist teaching that bans practicing homosexuals from ordination. Holsinger also wrote a white paper for the denomination 16 years ago on the health hazards of gay sex and on the biological complementarity of the human sexes.


Should that bar him from serving (as President Bush desires) as U.S. surgeon general? It's not surprising that homosexual-activist groups like Human Rights Campaign think so. But most of the major Democratic presidential candidates agree. John Edwards was particularly harsh: "In a profession dedicated to healing and compassion, it cannot be hard to find a qualified candidate for surgeon general who sees all human beings as equals. … Holsinger's anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care."

The Boston Globe called for Bush to withdraw his nomination, since "no one should go into the job with a record of discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation." A Washington Post editorial called Holsinger's white paper "bigotry masquerad[ing] as science" and mocked him for this sentence: "In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other."

"Is he a doctor or the Ace Hardware man?" asked the Post. Satirist Stephen Colbert went further: "For years, we have tolerated smoking just like we currently tolerate homosexuality. But the surgeon general alerted us to the dangers of smoking with warning labels. With Holsinger at the helm, we can use the same approach for homosexuality. Every gay man and woman should come with a label: 'Warning! Plumbers have found homosexual behavior to be dangerous and unnatural.'" The Bush administration didn't exactly rush to Holsinger's defense. "That was not his belief. It was not his opinion. It was a compilation of studies that were available at that time," a spokeswoman said. "Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved." The spokeswoman added, "It should be noted that in 1991, homosexuals were banned from the military, and several years before that, homosexuality and Haitian nationality were considered risk factors for HIV/AIDS."

Contrast this with, say, 2007, when the military still bans "persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" and gays and Haitians are still at high risk for HIV infection.

So some things don't change. But tolerance for dissent on homosexuality apparently has. The Holsinger denouncements and the White House's assertion that Holsinger couldn't possibly have meant what he wrote suggest that opposition to homosexual behavior is becoming a disqualification from serving in high public office.

That's a remarkable change from even a few years ago, and we're not alone in seeing it. "On no issue is history moving faster than on 'gay rights'—an already antiquated term for full and equal participation and acceptance of gay men and women in American life," Michael Kinsley wrote in Time.

On the other hand, as of press time, Holsinger hadn't been rejected yet, and other newspaper editorials, along with Holsinger's medical colleagues (including some homosexuals) are defending him as fair, professional, and compassionate. Still, affirmation of homosexual behavior seems to be shifting from an in-group shibboleth to an unwritten requirement for American leadership.

      [Click here to read the rest of the Christianity Today article immediately above.] 


Pastor Who Fought For Gay Marriage Receives Canada's Highest Honor
by Newscenter Staff

July 2, 2007  
(Toronto, Ontario) The Rev. Brent Hawkes, who conducted a double wedding for two same-sex couples at his Metropolitan Community Church in 2001 and then went to court when Ontario refused to register the marriages in a case that resulted in marriage equality across Canada, has been named to the Order of Canada.
It is the highest civilian honor given in Canada and is awarded in the name of The Queen, by the Governor General, her representative in the country.
Hawkes will celebrate his 30th anniversary as pastor of MCC Toronto - a career that continually has seen him at the forefront of the fight for LGBT civil rights.. . .

Order of Canada Membership Awarded to Homosexual  Pastor Who 
Promoted Same-Sex "Marriage"* 

By John Jalsevac and John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, Ontario, July 3, 2007 ( - Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, the same man who flouted Canadian law by illegally "marrying" a homosexual couple in 2001, and who subsequently pushed homosexual "marriage" on Canada through the back-door of the judicial system, has now been awarded the highest honor that can be given to a Canadian civilian.

This past Friday, Rev. Brent Hawkes was awarded, along with several dozen others, the high honour of the Order of Canada, given in recognition of "a lifetime of distinguished service in or to a particular community, group or field of activity."

The award given under the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come as a shock to social conservatives and Catholics since Hawkes, in addition to flouting the law on marriage has attacked the Vatican. In an affidavit before the Supreme Court of Canada Hawkes bashed a Vatican document on homosexual unions and statements by Catholic bishops on the same as "expressions of hatred that should not be tolerated in our society."

According to the Globe and Mail, Hawkes recognized the "irony" of the situation: "I'm used to picketing governments," said Hawkes, according to the Globe, "taking them to court."

"It's amazing. My head's spinning a little bit," he said. "It's just an amazing moment to focus on what a great country this is."

In 2001 Hawkes illegally "married" a lesbian couple in his Toronto church, and when the Canadian government would not recognize the "marriage" as valid, he took the government to court. Subsequently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized the "marriage" as legal, beginning a process of judicial activism that eventually culminated in the legalization of homosexual "marriage" by Canada's Parliament.

Brian Rushfeldt, the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC), who has worked to defend traditional marriage in Canada, lamented the naming of Hawkes to the Order of Canada.

"Awarding the Order of Canada to someone who has worked tirelessly to destroy the foundation of marriage is a very questionable act," Rushfeldt said in an interview with LifeSiteNew.scom.

"I like the award, but to give an award to someone who has spent his energies undermining the foundation of man/woman marriage is certainly a wrong reason."

Rushfeldt also pointed out that the fact that this award was given while the Conservative government is in power does not bode well for conservatives.

"The fact that we continue to reward activists that are undermining the conservative values and the conservative value base is not going to fare well. Even if it was not something that that the government itself or the prime minister or a minister of the department would or could step into, for the governor general to approve this kind of an award is clearly an indication that she herself is in support of undermining marriage, the very essence and foundation of our society. And obviously the conservative government did nothing to change that or stop it."

* original title (Conservatives Award Order of Canada to Gay Pastor Who Attacked Vatican, Performed Illegal Gay 'Marriages' ")


The Corren Settlement Agreement:  How Did We Arrive at This Point and What Should Parents of Traditional Morality and Their Supporters Do About It?

[The essay below is in substance the talk given on June 5, 2007, by the president of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life at a community forum in Abbotsford, British Columbia.  The sections in square brackets were omitted from the talk due to time 
1. Background:  How Did We Arrive at This Point?

           The Corren Settlement Agreement gives two private citizens a special role in the review of educational curriculum.  Not only are Murray and Peter Corren given an extraordinary role, but so are any organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . . expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum.”  The Ministry has promised to “. . . solicit feedback directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP (that is program of study) Response Drafts when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website.  While the Ministry is to consider comments from other organizations and groups, the Correns are the only ones who are legally guaranteed that those they name will have their suggestions considered.  This is true for all courses, from kindergarten to Grade Twelve, not just for one course.1 

          How did we arrive at the point where two pro-homosexuality activists were given such a special role by government?  Well, it didn’t happen overnight, or without warning  On February 11, 1997, Murray Warren, as he was then known, made a presentation to Coquitlam school trustees.   In his presentation he indicated his overall aims when he said:  “Nowhere in the curriculum are the many and significant contributions of lesbian and gay people, living and dead, acknowledged.  Our school libraries are devoid of resources that positively affirm the achievements of gay and lesbian people in the arts, in literature, science, medicine, social sciences, politics, and in every other sphere of endeavor.”

          That presentation to the Coquitlam School Board was a wake-up call.  In the years following, we in British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life became more aware of the extent of pro-homosexuality propaganda planned for the schools, and sought to warn parents about it.

          Just a few days before Christmas, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its verdict in the so-called “Surrey Gay Books Case.”  In her judgement the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada found against the Surrey School Board for failing to approve as teaching material certain books promoted by homosexual activists.2

          It is relevant to point out that Murray Warren was one of the petitioners in this “book case” against the Surrey School Board.  It was also Murray Warren and his partner, Peter Cook, who brought the case before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in which they alleged that the Ministry of Education had failed to make the B.C. curriculum inclusive of positive and accurate portrayals of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students and same-sex families.  Rather than have this case continue, the BC government signed the Settlement Agreement which we are considering tonight.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, the united front which we should have had against this agreement did not develop. 

          Of course, we have had all sorts of indications—besides the actions of the Correns--of the directions pro-homosexuality propagandists are taking.  The case of Dr. Chris Kempling ought to be instructive.  This Christian psychologist, teacher and school counsellor of Quesnel, BC, has been harried through the courts and penalized for nothing more than voicing, as a citizen, his warnings against the pro-homosexuality propaganda being promoted in the schools. Now he has been silenced, forbidden to speak out on the matter of pro-homosexuality propaganda in the schools.  And after what happened to Chris, it is unlikely that we can depend on teachers to inform parents about what is going on in the schools.  Schools have become, in part, secret societies where activities go on that are not open to examination by the public.

          Gay-Straight Alliances have gradually increased in number in the schools of British Columbia, largely unnoticed by parents, it would seem.  Not only is a favourable view of homosexual behaviour conveyed, but students are propagandized to become activists and taught to regard as oppressive those churches which fail to approve of such behaviour.

          The approval of same-sex marriage (so-called) in Canada has enormously increased the pressure on the schools to convey a message that such homosexual unions are equivalent to traditional marriages.

Where do British Columbia parents now stand as regards the Corren Settlement Agreement?    In the public school system nothing guarantees students any safety from pro-homosexuality propaganda.  We are still hopeful, however, that sane and rational voices will be listened to.  There is reason to think that the provincial government, while unable or unwilling to formally allow others the same guaranteed input that the Correns had, may be cautious in flying in the face of a considerable body of parents and their allies who are concerned about the Corren Agreement.  The more input concerned parents and their supporters demand, the more likelihood there is that the plans of the Correns will not be completely carried to fruition.   But parents of traditional morality, and parents who for medical reasons are concerned about the pro-homosexuality program, will do well to be extremely wary.


Education Minister Shirley Bond has sent a letter assuring independent schools that they are not subject to the provisions of the Corren Settlement Agreement.  They are thus apparently protected for the time being.   We cannot, though, preclude possible lawsuits from pro-homosexuality activists that might challenge the protection afforded by independent schools.  Homeschooled students, of course, are protected as long as homeschooling is protected by our laws, in contrast to what is happening in Germany, where homeschooling is not allowed.


2. What Should Parents of Traditional Morality and Their Supporters Do About the Corren Settlement Agreement?


All that has been said so far has been said to call attention to a serious threat to the children and youth of our society.   If children in the schools are taught to accept as normal, behaviour that their parents consider as immoral or dangerous or both, what can those parents and their supporters do about the situation?

It is useful to consider this question in two parts:  What can parents do to protect their own children, and what can we do to protect education in general?  We all have responsibilities to those closest to us, and, as citizens, we also have responsibilities to our fellow-citizens which we should not ignore.

Parents can no longer take for granted—if they ever could-- that the schools their children attend are safe.  Now, more than ever, it is necessary for parents to be involved in the schools.  In spite of the fact that there are countless dedicated teachers in the public school system, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are forces seeking to use the schools to promote their own ideologies in radical opposition to the life-views of parents of traditional morality.

First of all, parents must know the school that their children attend. For busy parents this is not easy.  Parents need to know the teachers, and the teachers can change from year to year.  Parents need to know the principal and vice-principal, and these can change too.  In a large school, and particularly in a secondary school where your child can have many teachers in a given year, it may be almost impossible to get to know each teacher in a meaningful way.

Parents need to know the philosophy of the school.  This is difficult in the case of a public school, because there may be no consistent philosophy regarding the treatment of the most important life issues.

BC Parents and Teachers for Life, in an effort to help parents in their efforts to protect their children, has issued a “Parents’ Directive Regarding the Education of Their Children.”  We think that this document is written in respectful terms yet is firm in stating the parents' wishes.  Others have written similar documents.  We present this as reflective of issues we feel parents should be concerned about.

           This document when sent to the school does not come from British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life.  It is only of value if it is recognized as coming from the parents who deliver it.    We are happy to share this document with parents who request it.

           I would encourage parents to write, as the Catholic Civil Rights League has done,3   seeking assurances that students will not be penalized if their parents keep them home when certain sensitive topics (ones which are likely to be used to propagandize) are discussed in class.  Of course, parents will also need assurance that prior notice is given them before the discussion of such topics.

           Though no-one else has been given the guaranteed input that the Correns have been given, there is an opportunity on a government website for the review of draft courses as they are released to the public.  Individuals and organizations can also request direct notification when draft curricula and other documents are posted for public review.  The e-mail address you can use to send in your regular or e-mail address if you request such notification is  .  BCPTL has sent in its address, and would be happy to hear of any others who have done so.  Perhaps you would like to work with us on the review of draft IRPs for courses.

 Inevitably many parents will choose independent schools, many of them faith-based schools.  So far, independent schools receiving grants from the province may be allowed to continue to teach in a manner consistent with the faith of parents and supporting churches.  They may be allowed to ignore any sections of the curriculum devoted to affirming the validity of life-styles to which parents are opposed.

Enrolling students in independent schools does not absolve the parents of their obligation to know their schools.  Here too it is necessary to be alert to what is being taught.  As always, this does not mean being a busybody.  It does mean exercising your parental right to know the nature of your child’s education.

So far, home-schooling is an option in British Columbia.  [Parents have a great deal of freedom to choose the form that home-schooling takes, whether it is organized by the parents individually, or through a purchased program—or by distributed learning, or correspondence, which can come from the Ministry of Education.]  Home-schooling naturally offers the greatest opportunity for the parent to know what is taught to the students.  Before venturing into home-schooling, however, parents should count the cost.  If your child is not to be deprived of important components of education, you need to make sure you have the ablility and the resources of time to function as a teacher or guide in your child’s schooling.   You need to also make sure your child has sufficient opportunities for social interaction with others. 

So far, home-schooling is remarkably free of government restraints.  Looming on the horizon, however, is the possibility that this freedom may not endure.  Could we come to the situation in Germany where children have been taken from their parents beause those parents chose to home-school them?  Watchfulness is needed to ensure that our freedoms remain.  I think, too, that parents who home-school must be careful to keep up the standards of their children’s education, not only for the sake of the children, but to make sure that no reason or excuse is given for curtailing the right to home-schooling.

What is our responsibility as citizens?  Surely we do have a responsibility to our neighbours, including to our neighbours’ children.   Even if thousands of parents remove their children from public schools, many thousands will leave their children in the system, and many thousands of students can still be subjected to pro-homosexuality propaganda. 

 [The fact that large numbers of children are being removed from the public-school system and either put in independent schools or home-schooled has probably led to the loss of large numbers of parents who would otherwise be active in seeking to protect the public-school system.  I am not suggesting that children be left in dangerous situations simply to attempt to protect the school-system.  Adults, not children, should be the foot-soldiers in the struggle to save the public schools.] I am going to suggest that parents who choose methods of education other than the public schools still have a responsibility to those schools.  We are all taxpayers and citizens.   We have the privilege of voting, and the responsibility vote thoughtfully.  We need to ask those seeking election as school board members and MLAs to make written commitments as to what sorts of measures they will support if they gain office.   Whispered promises are not a substitute for firm written commitments.   Too often those who are pro-life and pro-family have voted for candidates who claimed to support their views, only to find that the support never materialized once the candidate was elected.


What of the Corren Settlement Agreement?  Can nothing be done to change or mitigate the provisions of that agreement?   Thankfully, there are things we can do.   First of all, each of us can write to the provincial government protesting its unwarranted action in giving a special role to the two activists involved in the Corren Agreement.    We can show that we are constructive people by suggesting positive principles that should guide the government’s actions.   Some positive principles were suggested in a statement drawn up in September of 2006 by a number of groups, including British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life.  We would be glad to share that document.4


          It is regrettable that there is no easy way to ensure that the schools are not used for propagandizing on behalf of pro-homosexual activists.  But there is no easy way to ensure the protection of our children and youth.  Parents and their supporters must be vigilant and active if the present perilous state of things is to be remedied.   For too long the warning signs have been ignored.  Only if we are aware of the danger to children and youth and willing to act-- only then will we be fulfilling our duty to the next generation.


1 Settlement Agreement between Murray Corren and Peter Corren and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British  Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Education [Settlement Agreement], April 28, 2006, Section 2B.

 In the case of the Social Justice 12 course the Correns and “experts” chosen by them get to review the draft before it is released to the public, and the public will only see the version that has had “appropriate” revisions made after the Correns have made their comments. (Settlement Agreement, 3A).


2   Chamberlain v. Surrey School District

While paying lip-service to the rights of parents to be involved in their children's education, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote: " . . . although parental involvement is important, it cannot come at the expense of respect for the values and practices of all members of the school community."

          It seems almost incredible that the learned judge actually said that school-board policy must respect the values and practices of all members of the school community. Logically, this means we must accept not only Asha Has Two Moms (one of the pro-homosexuality books in question), but Asha Has Three Moms, and Asha's Mom is Her Aunt--and so on, where not only polygamy, but relationships of incest would be held up as legitimate foundations for the family.
          In one matter the judge was obviously deadly serious: Schools must give “families” based on homosexual relationships the same official respect as traditional families. And children must be taught to respect such families. It did not matter that some parents believe that such relationships are immoral. Their rights were to be superseded by the rights of homosexual couples to have their “family” groupings officially approved.




3 Sean Murphy of the Catholic Civil Rights League has written to every school district in British Columbia, with the result that many districts have committed to allowing parents to withdraw their children from class when sensitive issues are being dealt with.   This is good news, but it depends on parents having the boldness to take this action, and also on parents being notified beforehand when such topics are about to be covered (which would require preventing the "teachable moment" being used to cover such topics.


4  (Among the other groups whose representatives agreed to the statement were REAL Women of British Columbia, Christian Social Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League, and Christian Coalition.)  The positive principles they agreed to were the following:

 “1. We affirm our common desire to see established within the schools of British Columbia an atmosphere in which harassment or abusive conduct directed at any student is not acceptable, regardless of their actual or apparent association or identification with any group.

“2. Access to the means of influencing the development of curriculum for all subjects in British Columbia public schools should be open to all citizens without discrimination.  No special rights of access or influence should be given to particular private citizens or groups.

“3. Parents have the right to educate children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions. Public schools must be transparent and accountable to parents about what is taught to students. Teaching materials should be open to examination by parents, and particular care should be taken that parents are directly advised, well in advance, when sexuality or other controversial or sensitive topics are to be discussed.


“4. Nothing in the curriculum or practice of British Columbia public schools should denigrate the legally protected moral and religious beliefs of parents and children.”


On the BCPTL website is a list of ways in which the above principles could be used to remedy the injustices of the Corren Settlement Agreement.






Texas Psychiatrist Questions
Sex Reassignment Surgery

By Mike Hatfield

June 12, 2007 - Theron Bowers, MD, an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, has recently written an essay that questions the wisdom of surgeons doing sexual reassignment surgery for individuals who believe they are trapped in opposite sex bodies (known by the umbrella term "transgenders").

In "Focus On Gender Politics: Is Changing Gender As Simple As Changing Clothes?" Dr. Bowers describes a recent Newsweek cover story that portrays maleness and femaleness as social constructions and promotes the idea that sex change operations are correct choices for individuals who suffer from gender confusion.

According to Bowers,


Sexual reassignment, with hormone treatment and surgery, is a woolly term which is used far too casually. Take the word "reassignment." What are the defenders of transsexualism implying when they use it? In my view, they are relying upon both hoary old Freudian ideas and a silly recent movement called constructivism. The upshot of these two schools of thought is that nature is unimportant compared to nurture. Society and technology always trump biology. So using the word 'reassignment' imples that sex is an arbitrary category imposed by the dominant culture through the family. From this perspective, sex is merely a societal convention.


Dr. Bowers also quoted Dr. Paul McHugh, writing in "Surgical Sex" for First Things. According to McHugh:


I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. . . . . 

[Click here to go to the complete NARTH article.]




For Immediate Release
June 20, 2007

For more information, contact:
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., 818.789.4440

American Psychological Association
Appoints Gay Activists to Monitor
Reorientation Therapy

Encino, California -- National Association For Research & Therapy Of Homosexuality (NARTH) President Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. has issued the following statement about the recent creation of the American Psychological Association (APA) "Task Force On Appropriate Therapeutic Responses To Sexual Orientation":


This new APA task force was created to monitor "reorientation therapies" - therapy for people who want to decrease their homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential. But the APA has sent the foxes to guard the henhouse. Reorientation therapy is for people who don't want to be gay--and it is now being monitored by gay activists who believe there is no such thing as a formerly gay person!



NARTH nominated a list of highly qualified names to serve on this new committee, but none were chosen. Out of the six individuals finally approved by the APA, five of them are committed gay-affirmative activists who are openly hostile to the reality that individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction can be helped.



The eventual findings of this committee are already predetermined. I predict that once this task force finishes its investigation into "appropriate responses to sexual orientation," it will issue a report calling upon the APA to declare reorientation/reparative therapy to be unethical and harmful. It will then call upon all psychological groups to ban such therapy.



If this activist-committee succeeds in its efforts, thousands of individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions will be unable to have access to qualified therapists to aid them. This is a clear violation of patient autonomy and self-determination, and a blow to the same diversity that the APA claims to champion.


NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education.
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1340
Encino, CA 91436-1801
Phone: (818) 789-4440



In the United States:

NEA Teachers Help Fund Homosexual Groups, Training

 Children are Endangered by Radical Agenda

Contact: Linda Harvey (614) 442-7998

(COLUMBUS, OH, June 27, 2006) The National Education Association (NEA),which gathers this week for its annual meeting in Philadelphia, has just been brought up short by an Ohio court ruling that an individual teacher’s union dues may not be used to fund pro-abortion activities, if that teacher objects for religious reasons.

But many teachers may not be aware that NEA and its state affiliates also fund pro-homosexual activities, including groups advocating the full expression of homosexuality and “transgendered” behaviors by children and teachers . . . .

The teachers’ union also sponsors training on “GLBT issues.” Its NEA-GLBT Caucus will holde "Mission on tcle a workshop on June 29 for the NEA board of directors and member teachers about how to support homosexuality in their schools and silence other viewpoints and warnings. There is no training planned with an alternate view.

[Click here to read the whole article on the "Mission America" website.]


 "Thousands cheer gay parade"

Jun 24, 2007 

Canadian Press
[Note the enthusiasm expressed by the writer in this article.--BCPTL website editor]

Thousands of people lined downtown Toronto's streets Sunday afternoon to enjoy the city's Pride Parade, Canada's largest gay pride celebration.

. . . .
Mexican tourist Nancy Figueroa, on a visit to Canada with her husband and daughter, said there were no parades like this where she is from and praised Canada's open-mindedness.

"It's good for the people to express themselves, what their preferences are," Figueroa said of the parade.

Figueroa had brought her daughter to the event in order to expose her to gay culture.

"(She) won't see something like this as something forbidden, or as something that is not right," she said. "Hopefully in the future, (she) will see this like something normal."

Several politicians also joined in the march, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory and Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff.  [boldface by editor of BCPTL website]

The event brings in an estimated $80 million to the local economy.


Chicago Board of Ed Sued for Teacher Allegedly Showing 'Brokeback Mountain' in Class

Fox News online, May 13, 2007

A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film "Brokeback Mountain" in class.

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.

The film, which won three Oscars, depicts two cowboys who conceal their homosexual affair.

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian. "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students' parents and guardians.

The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as "Ms. Buford."

The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

"This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

Messages left over the weekend with CPS officials were not immediately returned.

Students Take a Stand for Truth

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor, CitizenLink e-mail,, May 11, 2007

Nearly a month after the Day of Silence and Day of Truth, controversy continues.

Sophomore Oleg Manzyuk and many of his friends stayed home from San Juan High School on April 18, the Day of Silence. On that day, homosexual students and their supporters wore tape over their mouths in protest.

Two years ago, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) established the Day of Truth - April 19 this year - to express a Christian perspective. Nearly 7,000 students participated in the third-annual Day of Truth.

But Oleg wasn't in class that day either; he and about a dozen others were suspended by the Citrus Heights, Calif., school for wearing T-shirts with Scripture verses addressing homosexuality. In four California districts, at least 150 students were suspended.

"It was my idea for the shirt," Oleg said. "Some of the gay students wore shirts (with rainbows and mentions of gay sex), and they were not suspended. That's just ridiculous. They're showing their opinion; so can we."

The girl who wore the gay-sex shirt was suspended three days later.

Trent Allen, director of information for the San Juan Unified School District, said any shirt that creates an "atmosphere of intimidation" is not OK. "Students on both sides of the issue who are wearing shirts that do not continue the conversation in an educational manner" are asked to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.

The suspensions on the Day of Truth were expunged, but there were more suspensions in the weeks that followed. Protests outside some schools continued this week.

"We fully support both sides to have a discussion, as long as it doesn't disrupt the educational process," Allen said.

The students opposed to the gay agenda contacted Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the Pacific Justice Institute.

"Our position is that any of the shirts that are out there are lawful to wear," he said. "It doesn't mean they are necessarily seemly, or for ministry purposes. They are engaging in expressive conduct that is legal.

"It would be completely inappropriate for the government to ban speech that speaks to moral issues."

Snider has advised the students to stop wearing the shirts. Instead, the district, parents and lawyers have been meeting to find middle ground.

"Parties can either negotiate a middle ground," he said, "or it would be appropriate to go into the courts. We need to go forward in a logical manner. We need to aggressively either pursue negotiations or go to court."

David French, senior counsel for ADF, said there are two considerations in the T-shirt cases: legal equality and substantial disruption.

"If the school is going to allow one side unfettered free speech on the issue of homosexuality," he said, it has to let the other side speak, too. A high school cannot say speech is creating a "substantial disruption" just because one person is offended, he said.

"Just getting your feelings hurt is not disruptive to the educational process."

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, agreed.

"While we would encourage students to always use compassionate and respectful message on their T-shirts, the sad thing is, these kids shouldn't be having to deal with homosexual politics in their public schools at all," she said. "If schools are going to insist on allowing adult agendas to be promoted in their hallways and classes, then the least they can do is give equal access and equal respect to religious students' point of view."

The next Day of Silence is just about 340 days away.

"This would all be settled without a Day of Silence," Oleg said. "It's a promotion of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. I don't want that showcased at school."

YouTube Pulls Videos Showing Homosexual Indoctrination of Elementary School Children

By Hilary White

CAMBRIDGE, MA, April 26, 2007 ( – A video has been removed that was posted to the online video service, YouTube, showing teachers using homosexual materials in class to promote the normalization of homosexuality to young children.

The film, “It’s Elementary”, was made in 1996 by Women’s Educational Media, a San Francisco-based group that claims the film “has served as a catalyst for schools all over the world to become more proactive in addressing anti-gay prejudice in the classroom.”

The link to the site on YouTube where the video was, now carries a message saying, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Women's Educational Media.”

The videos [however] were cached on the website of Mass Resistance, a pro-family lobbying organization.

The video can be viewed at

Note by editor of this BC Parents and Teachers for Life website:  Since the above was posted, it has been revealed that the original posting on YouTube was done by someone who holds reprehensible views on other matters--views with which wse would not want to be associated.  This, however, does not change the fact that the excerpts from "It's Elementary" are ones that parents ought to be familiar with.  Actually, the excerpts from the viewing guide to "It's Elementary" published by "Women's Educational Media" contain far more explicit evidence of the propagandist nature of the film.

Examples from the "Synopsis of the Film" in this viewing guide give the flavour of the film, and indicate how it can be used for pro-homosexuality propaganda:

"Lesson #5: Photo Text Exhibit: Love Makes a Family. A principal explains her decision to display the photo exhibit of families with gay members, the controversy that ensued with mixed reactions from parents, and her reasons for going ahead. Children view the exhibit with serious interest; a veteran teacher learns from their response."

"Lesson #8: Volunteer Speakers’ Presentations
. Two gay young adults talk about their own lives, then open the session for earnest questions that demonstrate students’ lack of information and their desire to learn about what it means to be gay or lesbian. Speakers clarify that the purpose of their visit is not to discuss their sex lives. Students comment afterward on stereotypes they had believed but now understand aren’t true"

"The Controversy. Angry demonstrators quote the Bible, and the principal asserts the need for tolerance and mutual respect that cuts across religious lines."


The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation is Promoting the Week Against Homophobia, May 14th. 

What Can Parents Expect?


Last year the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) promoted a “Day of Silence” in which students, in the words of the BCTF website,  “ . . .take a nine-hour vow of silence to recognize and protest the harassment, prejudice, and discrimination—in effect, the silencing—that LGBT people face. Instead of speaking, high school and university participants hand out cards or wear stickers or t-shirts printed with the following message:

“Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?”

The Day of Silence is, among other things, the BCTF website states, about “raising awareness around LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered] issues.”


This year the BCTF is promoting not just one day but a week, which it entitles a “Week Against Homophobia.”  
(See )


What may parents expect in their children’s schools if they have a  “Week Against Homophobia”?   Well, in spite of the professed devotion to eliminating prejudice, these events when fostered by the pro-homosexuality activists who promote them, are anything but objective.  They are one more tool by which these activists may propagandize the youth.


The nature of the week’s activities may be gathered from the BCTF website’s suggestions on the web page the URL of which is given above.  Under the sub-heading “What can principals do?" are given, among others,  the following ideas:
”Talk positively about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues in your school community. Demonstrate leadership as a progressive ally.”
” Support LGBT staff members who choose to be “out” within the school community . . . “
Encourage someone from the local school or parent community to contribute to LGBT Pride Month (June). Recognize it within your school as you do other celebrations.”

Under the sub-heading “What can teacher-librarians do?” are the following suggestions:
”Find out what new books are available to positively portray lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and add some to your library collection.”

Under “What can elementary teachers do?” we find the following:
”Read a story and talk positively about same-sex families to students in your classroom. Titles appropriate for Grades K–3:
     King & King
     ABC—A Family Alphabet Book
     My Two Uncles
     Asha’s Mums
     Mom and Mum Are Getting Married
     Who’s In a Family?”
“Have a class discussion about Canadian newsworthy events—Grades 6–7
(i.e., same-sex marriage in Canada)”

Under “What can secondary teachers do?  are the following suggestions:

“Highlight famous LGBT people and discuss their contributions to society within your subject area (i.e., English, P.E., Science, Music). For information, check out the pages of the “Challenging Homophobia in Schools” handbook available in your school.”
”Start a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) Club in your school. Apply for a GSA bursary from GALE-BC for an event within your school that helps counteract homophobia.”
” Invite speakers to your class or an assembly during Pride month in June. Contact a local LGBT society in your area (i.e., Gab Youth Services, GALE-BC, PFLAG, ASIA, Youthco AIDS Society).”

What can parents do who are concerned about the possible effects of a propaganda-laden  “Day of Silence” or “Week Against Homophobia?  Well, first we suggest you take steps to find out if these events are going on in your child’s school.    Then express your concern to the appropriate authorities, emphasizing that you are against violence and harassment in the schools but are also against the propagandizing of students for a harmful life-style.  In the United States this year a national coalition of organizations has called on parents to boycott the “Day of Silence,” pulling their children out of school for the day.  If you choose to remove your child from school on that day or to remove him on one or more days during the “Week Against Homophobia,” we suggest you tell the school authorities the reason for your action


In the United States:

Contact: Cindy Roberts
662-844-5036 x227
April 4, 2007

AFA Warns Parents to Keep their Children Home from School 
on 'Gay Day' of Silence, April 18

The American Family Association (AFA) is alerting parents about a "Day of Silence" - sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) -- to take place in many schools across the country on Wednesday, April 18. The AFA is encouraging parents with children in those schools participating in the "Day of Silence" to keep their students at home on that day. GLSEN says they promote this "Day of Silence" to protest alleged oppression of homosexuals. In 2006, over 4,000 junior highs, high schools, and colleges participated in DOS, according to GLSEN."

Many school district superintendents, principals, and faculty members also endorse, promote or allow DOS -- subjecting traditional students to pro-"gay" activism that violates their religious beliefs and right to a non-politicized education.

"Students in our public schools should not be subjected to indoctrination and pressure from administrators, teachers, students, and especially homosexual activists," says AFA chairman Donald Wildmon.  "These school sanctioned activities promote intolerance and bigotry toward any student who holds a Biblical view of the dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle."

According to GLSEN, on last year's Day of Silence, over 500,000 students nationwide were confronted with mute homosexual peers and "allies" wearing stickers and passing out cards, which stated (in part):

"... My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?"

For a complete list of the schools planning to participate in DOS, visit



CitizenLink, Apr. 4, 2007  

Connecticut High School Agrees to Allow Day of Truth

The principal of Danbury High School in Connecticut agreed Wednesday to allow a student to promote and participate in the Day of Truth -- but only after receiving a letter from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The school initially had prohibited the student from taking part.

The school has endorsed the pro-gay Day of Silence on April 18, but officials told Rosemary Shakro she could not invite a speaker to a club meeting or post signs concerning the counter-event scheduled for the following day.

The principal called the Day of Truth too "controversial" and also prohibited "anti-homosexual" speech.

Matt Bowman, an attorney for ADF, said the letter to the principal simply explained Shakro's rights so the school could correct its error.

"According to the law, a school cannot allow students to promote one viewpoint and then prohibit promotion of another viewpoint," he said. "School officials also cannot ban speech just because they think it's unpopular or controversial."

Bowman said he hopes other schools will follow the example.

"The Day of Truth is an opportunity for Christian students to respectfully present a different viewpoint than students participating in the Day of Silence."

To learn more about the Day of Truth, click here.

Click here to view the letter sent to Danbury High School.

The free Adobe Reader is required to view this document. You can download it here.




From CitizenLink

Gay Lawmaker Pushes Bill to Muzzle Schools

by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor

Legislation would silence any curriculum that reflects adversely on homosexuality.

A gay-activist lawmaker has introduced a bill to require California schools to censor any instructional material that "reflects adversely" on people with perceived gender issues.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, an open homosexual, is the sponsor of SB 777, a bill almost identical to last session's SB 1437. That bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said Kuehl’s bill would further infiltrate the state's laws with definitions and protections for alternative sexual behavior.

"This bill claims to eliminate bias in education," he said. "Instead, it is intolerant of opposing beliefs and perspectives. The bill threatens an accurate portrayal of history and social science, in order for homosexuals to achieve a legislated sense of 'normalcy.' "

If the legislation succeeds, Prentice said, school-sponsored activities like homecoming king and queen would be forced to become more neutral or end altogether. In addition, if a student is one gender but claims the other, school districts would be forced to provide special treatment and services -- such as restroom facilities or participation in the opposite gender's physical education class.

"Senator Kuehl continues to push for the re-engineering of California’s schools," he said, "through the silencing of teachers and students."



A Significant Quote:  A Pro-Homosexuality Activist's Denies Parental Opt-Out 

But parents don't have a right to opt their children out of an inclusive education, regardless of whether or not it collides with their religious or moral values, counters James Chamberlain of the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC.

Just as a classroom teacher won't condone a racist parent for rejecting positive images of people of colour in a book, the same holds true for a parent who presents a homophobic objection, Chamberlain explains. Parents shouldn't have the right to opt out simply because it's a message they don't want their child to hear, he adds.

"It's a message of inclusion and tolerance, and the Supreme Court of Canada was really clear with that in the case Murray Corren, myself, and three other litigants took to the court a few years ago with the Surrey book issue. Sometimes the messages we teach children in school do collide with home values. That's called cognitive dissonance. It's just part of education," Chamberlain says.

Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for "Homophobia"
Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control" over curriculum and staff hiring

By Gudrun Schultz

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 27, 2007 ( - Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for "homophobic" teaching stemming from the schools' primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa's homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values."

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual . . .  teacher . . . , as saying, "All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic."

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn't "exerting more control" over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration's own qualification requirements.

In October 2006 the Quebec government ordered private Christian schools in the province to begin teaching sex education and Darwinism in compliance with the provincial curriculum, threatening schools with closure if they failed to comply.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham, then-director of law and public policy with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told LifeSiteNews at the time that parents’ right to educate their children in accordance with their religious beliefs is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that although an Alberta pastor who was running a school out of the basement of his church did have to license the school, the provincial government had to provide reasonable accommodation for religious belief.

The court ruled that the province must “‘delicately and sensitively weigh the competing interests so as to respect as much as possible the religious convictions as guaranteed by the Charter,’” Dr. Epp Buckingham quoted.

In an ongoing battle over homosexual content in BC public school curriculums, parents are struggling to gain assurance from the school board that they may withdraw their children from pro-homosexual content in the classroom.

Homosexual activists Murray Corren and Peter Corren were granted an unprecedented say over the development of new pro-homosexual content in the provincial curriculum, as part of settlement in a human rights lawsuit against the province's Liberal government in June 2006. The agreement also introduced a policy that would prevent parents from withdrawing their children from the classroom when the material was being taught.

The Catholic Civil Rights League is continuing efforts to ensure all 60 BC school boards acknowledge parents' rights to oversee the education of their children.

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Quebec Government Forcing Evangelical Private Schools to Teach Sex Ed, Darwinism
Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Homosexual Curriculum with No Opt-Out for Students or Parents
B.C. School Boards Refuse to Assure Parents of Right to Oversee Children’s Education

[Note by editor of this BCPTL website: In British Columbia, the Education Minister has assured independent schools that they are not subject to the provisions of the Corren Settlement Agreement.  They are thus apparently protected for the time being.  We cannot, though, precluded possible lawsuits from pro-homosexuality activists that might challenge the protection afforded by independent schools.]


Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor, Family News in Focus
[February, 2007]
Task force will review "appropriate therapy practices.”
Politics over Science

Under pressure from homosexual activists, the American Psychological Association (APA) plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.

At least two homosexual groups--the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute (NGLTF) and PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbian and Gays)—want the APA to get tough on anyone who tries to help gays change.

The groups “came to us and said from their perspective issues related to reparative therapy are still very important issues that affect the well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people," Dr. Clinton W. Anderson, director of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns office at the APA, told CitizenLink. "They said, 'We think it would be a good idea if you took another look at it.' "

The APA is inviting nominations for a five-member task force to consider the issue.

Anderson said he isn't sure if there will be a panel member appointed to represent homosexuals who have successfully sought change. 

"What we will do is look to see who is nominated," he said. "I believe that there will be a strong concern to have on the task force people with substantive expertise about the population you're talking about -- people who know the scientific and clinical literature very well; people who have both research and clinical understanding."

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy at Grove City College, said the APA is responding to pressure, not science.

"The reasons they recommended it was for political reasons, not for scientific reasons," he said. "They didn't refer to new research, or new studies -- they referred to new policy statements from other groups."

The APA already stands against therapies that treat homosexuality as a mental illness, Throckmorton said. If the group yields to demands from PFLAG and NGLTF and comes out against reparative therapy, discontented gays will have fewer options.

"What we're talking about is the right of clients who are unhappy with their feeling (of same-sex attraction)," he said. "Those people have the right to seek therapy to help them live the way they want to live -- the way they value."

Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, an ex-gay organization, said reparative therapy isn’t harmful. In fact, he said he's all the better for having gone though it.

“What I found in my life is that I had lasting change, a change in identity and something that I don’t feel tempted to be involved in homosexuality at all,” Chambers told Family News in Focus. “It took probably eight years for me to find freedom from the attractions and the desires that really held me captive for decades. But I believe that I have a heterosexual identity.”

Family News in Focus Correspondent Steve Jordahl contributed to this report.


Gay Student 'Weddings' Anger California Parents

Citizen Link; Feb. 27, 2007; from staff reports  

High school event offer counterfeit marriage certificates.

Some self-identified gay students at Glendale High School in California recently gathered in the cafeteria for fake wedding ceremonies -- a school-sponsored event.

A petition asking the government to end discrimination against same-sex marriage was also in the mix.

The "Freedom to Marry" event provided the couples with mock marriage certificates and included a petition drive calling on the government to allow same-sex marriage.

George Taylorson, a Glendale resident, said he's appalled the school would allow the event. 

"To encourage this type of lifestyle with kids that are 13, 14, on up, it just totally angers me and just disturbs me," he told Family News in Focus. "The schools have a big-enough problem as it is just educating the kids without getting involved in such a highly sensitive area."

The Pacific Justice Institute sent a warning letter to Principal Kathy Fundukian, urging her to act in the best interest of all students. The goal of the ceremonies, backed by an openly gay teacher and the school's Gay-Straight Alliance student club, was to "mock marriage."

Lynne Fishel, director of public relations at the California Family Council, isn't surprised by the tactic.

"They are a pretty organized group throughout California high schools," she said. "It's just kind of an in-your-face event, obviously for those of us that want to protect traditional marriage."

TAKE ACTION: If you'd like to ask Principal Kathy Fundukian to not allow students to make a mockery of marriage, you may e-mail her at



From: News Advisory:  February 23, 2007

Contact:  Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)



Neutral Unisex Bathroom Created for Cross-dressing Student


Montgomery County, Maryland –  Three parent organizations are asking the Maryland State Board of Education to halt the new sex ed curriculum approved by the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education (BOE).  Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), and Family Leader Network have filed an appeal requesting Maryland to stay Montgomery County Public School’s sex ed plans. 


The newly approved curriculum, entitled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality," promotes cross-dressers, homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, the intersexed, and other non-heterosexuals.  It teaches children about “coming out” as gay, “gender identity” for men who think they’re women and vice-versa, and “homophobia” as a label for anyone who disagrees.


In one lesson, a boy begins to wear dresses to school, calls himself “Portia,” and wants to be known as a girl.  The principal gives him a key to a private restroom and a new student ID identifying him as a girl.  “Although transgenderism is considered a gender identity disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, the lesson plan fails to recommend counseling for students with gender confusion,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX Executive Director.  “Instead, it implies that schools should create new unisex bathrooms for cross-dressing students.” 


The lesson also refers to “Portia” as a ‘she’ when the law and biology classify ‘her’ as a “he.”  “This gender bending forces students to acknowledge ‘Portia’ as a female when he is not and creates gender confusion for children,” said Griggs.  “This flawed educational policy is not based on medical or scientific facts.” 


Despite repeated appearances by former homosexuals and a former transgender before the BOE, the Board voted to exclude ex-gays from the lesson plans although gays, transgenders, and the intersexed are included and taught to students. “Why do the lesson plans censor ex-gays when every other sexual orientation is discussed and supported?” asked Griggs.   “The BOE violates its own sexual orientation non-discrimination policy by choosing which sexual orientations it favors based on politics and not science.  Its discriminatory actions contribute to the intolerance and open hostility faced by the ex-gay community.” 


PFOX was a member of the curriculum committee representing the ex-gay community, yet the BOE voted to teach students that it is normal to change your sex (transgender) but not normal to change your unwanted same-sex attractions (former homosexual).  “The lesson plans instruct students that homosexual orientation is innate and inborn, despite testimony by former homosexuals before the BOE and all contrary scientific research,” explained Griggs.  


“The lesson plans are entitled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” yet the ex-gay community receives no respect and is deliberately left out of the curriculum,” Griggs said.  “The actions of the Montgomery County Board of Education are discriminatory, endanger children, and are politically motivated.”


“What happens in Montgomery County will happen to the rest of Maryland, so it is imperative to stop this ‘sex ed’ program now before it is fully implemented,” said Griggs.  Concerned Maryland  residents can take action at




A copy of this news advisory is available online at:


A version of the essay immediately below was refused for publication by the Briltish Columbia Teachedrs' Federation'sTeacher Newsmagazine.  So here is the essay that B.C. teachers were not given the opportunity to see. 

The Goose, the Gander and the Elephant
Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region

This essay responds to a column by a homosexual activist published in the magazine of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation.

Writing in Teacher Newsmagazine in the garb of a "guardian of public education," Murray Corren urges his colleagues to assert their "professional autonomy" and "fend off" parents who refuse to allow their children to participate in classes for reasons of conscience or religion. He asks, “Whose worldview should we privilege and whose should we censor? Who should decide what gets taught and what doesn’t?”1

For an answer to this question, one has only to look at Mr. Corren's private agreement with the provincial Ministry of Education. It awards him and Peter Corren privileged status in the development of public education policy and curriculum.2 The agreement was signed secretly, includes a provision for continuing secrecy,3 and was kept secret for over a month after it was signed.4 The first part of the agreement is intended to prevent objecting parents from removing their children from Kindergarten to Grade 12 classes when "queer-positive" lessons are taught.5

Clearly, it is Mr. Corren’s worldview that is privileged. Those who disagree with it will be censored, and a coterie of ‘professionals’ who share his views will decide what gets taught.

For example, the Ministry of Education called an invitation-only meeting to discuss the proposed grade 12 ‘social justice’ elective with the Correns and others deemed worthy of consultation, like the BCTF and the SPCA.6 Representatives of the province’s religious traditions were not invited; groups opposed to the Corren agreement and concerned about curriculum revisions were deliberately excluded. The President of the BC Civil Liberties Association - one of the select invitees - sniffed that such groups “should not be contributing to any dialogue on education reform."7

Everyone is equal in public education, it seems, but some are more equal than others.

In the light of all of this, it is tempting, as Mr. Corren parades in his robes of office as a “guardian of public education,” to observe that the emperor has no clothes. But one does not do so. Instead, one humours his claim to the guardian of public education, on the condition that he admits that he shares the office with fellow citizens - including those who disagree with him. But his assumption of guardianship over other people’s children warrants a different response.

The Minister of Education is not the source of parental authority, nor is a teaching degree or professional certification the source of a teacher's authority as it relates to the educational and moral formation of students entrusted to them. Quite the reverse: the authority of the Minister, teachers and administrators with respect to students is delegated to them by parents, a delegation reflected in the traditional statement that teachers act in loco parentis.

Parents do not surrender their authority to the state, to a union, to a profession or to special interest activists when they entrust their children to a public school system. They remain the primary educators of their children, and this primacy is not only in order of time and importance, but in order of authority, regardless of religious affiliation. It cannot be suppressed by the Corren’s private agreement with the government, nor by fiat of the Ministry of Education.

Moreover, citizens do not surrender freedom of conscience, religion, thought and belief as a condition of attending a public school. No direction from the Ministry of Education and no private agreements with special interest activists can relieve teachers, administrators and school districts of their responsibility to accommodate these fundamental freedoms. Were that the case, it would give them the power to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a power which has been granted only to parliament and provincial legislatures. There is also the issue of international agreements, to which Canada is a signatory.8

Of course, it can be awkward to apply these principles in practice. Mr. Corren asks if the “sensitivities” of one parent should determine what novels are used in a public school classroom. Clearly not: no more than Mr. Corren’s sensitivities should force curriculum revisions on the entire public school system. If sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, his private contract with the government is markedly inconsistent with his scornful rhetoric about the sensitivities and religious beliefs of “a small segment of the parent population.”

Once more, everyone is equal in public education, but some are more equal than others.

Still, the question remains. How should a teacher respond if parents refuse to allow their children to participate in lessons or classes “mandated” by the curriculum?
Mr. Corren urges his colleagues to ”take a stand” and invite the objectors to avail themselves of “other educational options,” ignoring the fact that home-schooling is unrealistic for many families, and other alternatives may be unavailable. This could be remedied by increasing support for charter and independent schools so that parents in such situations would have a real choice, but, in the meantime, his solution remains unsatisfactory.

More to the point, Mr. Corren’s answer - “my-way-or-the-highway” - is a wrong answer that comes of asking the wrong questions. His questions do not lead to an enlightened response to the dilemma posed by profoundly divergent worldviews reflected in the classroom. Rather, one should ask how a state educational system can respect differences among families with diverse moral and religious outlooks while developing broadly acceptable curriculum standards.

That different parents have different moral or religious outlooks does not make it impossible for a state educational system to respect those differences while developing broadly acceptable curriculum standards. If, despite appropriate consultation, the standards are unacceptable to some parents, they can be accommodated by acknowledging their authority to withdraw their children from the objectionable lessons or classes. Alternatively, discussion between the parents concerned and school authorities may yield other acceptable solutions. What Mr. Corren thinks of their solutions is unimportant.

The accommodation of religious and conscientious conviction is not merely possible; it is a legal obligation that binds teachers and school districts to the point of undue hardship. Mr. Corren's call to teachers to "take a stand" against the accommodation of religious beliefs is, arguably, a statement of an intention to discriminate, something forbidden by Section 7(1)a of the BC Human Rights Code. So, for that matter, is the Ministry’s ‘clarified’ Alternative Delivery Policy and the letter from the Deputy Minister of Education quoted by Mr. Corren. Both of these, by the way, are products of his private agreement with the government.9 An uninformed reader would be unaware of this, since Teacher Newsmagazine does not follow the practice of professional journals that require disclosure of an author’s ‘competing interests.’

Turning to Mr. Corren’s assertion (backed by the Deputy Minister) that students from objecting families “are not exempted from meeting the prescribed learning outcomes,”it is time to introduce the elephant in the room.

It is almost unheard of for students in Kindergarten to Grade 8 in British Columbia to be "held back" (fail a grade) because they have not met prescribed learning outcomes. Whether or not they meet curriculum standards for reading, writing, mathematics, socials, or any other subject, students pass from one grade to the next until the end of Grade 8. Only in Grade 9 are students required to meet a minimum standard in order to pass a subject, and, even then, a mark of 50% is all that is needed. This may or may not reflect an achievement of half the learning outcomes, but it does indicate that something substantially less than the full complement is acceptable. Further: students in British Columbia are not suspended or expelled from school for failing to do assignments or participate in a class activity.10

Thus, if a Kindergarten to Grade 8 student does not meet a prescribed outcome related to Mr. Corren’s “queer-positive” curriculum for reasons of conscience or religion, that would not justify holding the student back or imposing other penalties for non-compliance, since that is not done in any other subject. Similarly, there would be no justification for failing or penalizing a Grade 9 to 12 student in similar circumstances who was otherwise meeting the course standard.

To sum up: Mr. Corren’s appeal to his colleagues to refuse to accommodate freedom of conscience, religion, thought, opinion and belief is an invitation to engage in wrongful discrimination that is likely to embroil them in confrontation and even litigation, all in the service of his personal agenda and his private contract with the government. It is inconsistent with respect for authentic pluralism in a liberal democracy, and it is not in the best interests of students, parents or teachers.


1.  Corren, Murray, “A censor? Who, me?"Teacher Newsmagazine Volume 19, Number 4, January/February 2007  Accessed 2007-01-31.

2.  Settlement Agreement between Murray Corren and Peter Corren (Complainants) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as Represented by the Ministry of Education (Respondent), 28 April, 2006.  Hereinafter, “The Agreement

3.  “Subject to any public statement made pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement, anything said by a participant or any information or documents exchanged during any meetings or discussions covered by this Agreement are confidential, except to the extent to which the parties agree, or may be required by law.” Article 9, The Agreement.

4.  "The parties will attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable public statement about the terms of resolution of the complaints. If such agreement cannot be reached on or before May 31, 2006, the parties may issue their own respective public statements. The parties further agree that they will not publicly discuss the settlement of the complaint, including the terms of settlement, prior to May 31, 2006." Article 5, The Agreement.

5.  “Ultimately, the most frequent reason for parents to opt their children out of classes had to do with any discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity and same-sex parents,” Murray Corren said. “We felt it was extremely important for the ministry to delineate exactly where this policy applies and where it doesn’t.” Smith, Charlie, "Correns unfazed by right-wing backlash." Georgia Straight, 9 November, 2006. Accessed 2007-01-29.

"There's no point in us making the curriculum more queer-positive if people can take their kids out." Peter Corren, quoted in Luymes, Glenda, "Hooky touted for anti-gay parents: Trustee claims Education Ministry policy on opting out takes away 'freedom'". The Province, 12 September 12, 2006

6.  Steffenhagen, Janet, “Activist wants animal rights taught in B.C. schools: 'Speciesism' is a prejudice too, says humane society.” Vancouver Sun, 25 September, 2006

7.  Hasiuk, Mark, “Concerned Parents accuse ministry of discrimination.” The Vancouver Courier, 4 October, 2006

8.  “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education thatshould be given their children.” (From Article 26 - United Nations, Universal Declaration on Human Rights – 1948). “The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.”(From the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Principle 7)

9.  “The Respondent [Ministry of Education] will amend the Policy to state expressly that the Policy applies to Health and Career Education K-7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10 and not to any other IRPs; and that it applies only to the Health curriculum organizer of each of these three IRPs and to no other curriclum organizers. The Respondent will draft a letter to all public School Board Chairs and school district Superintendents (“Letter”) that will be copied to the BC School Trustees Association, BC School Superintendents Association, BC Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association, BC Teachers’ Federation and the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils that will clarify the true nature and limited reach of the Policy. The Respondent will provide the amended draft Policy and the draft letter to the Complainants [the Corrrens] for their review on or before July 15, 2006. The Complainants will provide their comments on the . . . Policy and . . . Letter on or before August 1, 2006. The Respondent will finalize the wording of the Policy and the Letter, and will implement the Policy and send out the Letter, with copies of each to the Complainants, on or before September 15, 2006.” Article 1B, The Agreement.

10.  The statement reflects the usual practice. It is contrary to Ministry of Education policy to have students repeat a year before Grade 4. “In Grades 4 to 12, the decision for a student to advance or repeat a grade or course will be made in the best interest of that student by the teachers, parents and the school principal. In making placement decisions, those involved should consider the available research, the age of the student, and the intervention support available.” Ministry of Education, K-12 Education Plan: Placement Accessed 2007-01-03.  See also Ministry of Education, K-12 Education Plan: Letter Grades and Symbols  Accessed 2007-01-03; Provincial Letter Grades Order Accessed 2007-01-03; BC Ministry of Education, Special Program Branch, Focus on Suspension: A Resource for Schools (1999)  Accessed 2007-02-03.

The practice may explain an observation made by Project Literacy in Victoria, BC. Many of their clients report “that they have reached a grade level in school that is significantly higher than their skill set actually reflects.” One young man who had reached Grade 9 or 10 had about a Grade 4 reading level, and he was unable to write in cursive script; he could only print. In its presentation to a legislative committee, Project Literacy cited a study indicating that “about 20% of Canadians have lower literacy skills than their education level might indicate.”
Project Literacy Victoria, Presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Education, Victoria, BC (26 April, 2006) Accessed 2007-02-07.




This 'right' for gays is an injustice to children

By Roger Scruton
From, updated 28/01/
Western societies have, in recent decades, undergone a radical change in their attitudes to homosexuality. What was once regarded as an intolerable vice is now regarded as an "orientation", no different in kind, though different in direction, from the inclinations that lead men to unite with women, and children to be born. This radical change began with the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct, and with a growing readiness not just to tolerate homosexuality in private, but to talk about it in public. We saw the emergence of the "public homosexual", the flamboyant propagandist for that "other" way of life who, like Quentin Crisp, tried to persuade us that "gay" is after all the right description. There followed the movement for "gay pride" and the "coming out" of public figures —to the point where it is no longer very interesting to know whether someone is or is not of the other persuasion.
For the most part, the people of this country have gone along with the changes. They may not be comfortable with its more demonstrative expressions, but they are prepared to tolerate the homosexual way of life, provided it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy the activists. For to tolerate is to disapprove. It is only when conduct offends you that you need to exercise your toleration, and the activists want people to treat homosexuality as normal. Through the slippery notions of discrimination and human rights, they have used the law to advance their agenda. Homosexuality is now treated by the law as a tendency comparable in almost every way to heterosexuality, so that any attempt to distinguish between people on grounds of their "orientation" — whether as applicants for a job, or as recipients of a privilege — is regarded as unjust "discrimination", comparable in its moral heinousness to discrimination on grounds of race or sex.


On the whole we have accepted that laws against discrimination might be needed, in order to protect those who have suffered in the past from hostile prejudice. Every now and then, however, we wake up to the fact that, although homosexuality has been normalised, it is not normal. Our acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, of same-sex couples, and of the gay scene has not eliminated our sense that these are alternatives to something, and that it is the other thing that is normal. This other thing is not heterosexual desire, conceived as an "orientation". It is heterosexual union: the joining of man and woman, in an act which leads in the natural course of things not just to mutual commitment but to the bearing of children, the raising of a family and the self-sacrificing habits on which, when all is said and done, the future of society depends. The propaganda that has tried to rewrite heterosexuality as an "orientation" is really an attempt to persuade us to overlook the real truth about sexual union, which is that it is, in its normal form, the way in which one generation gives way to the next.

This truth is recognised by all the great religions, and is endorsed in the Christian view of marriage as a union created by God. This explains, to a great extent, the reluctance of religious people to endorse gay marriage, which they see as an attempt to rewrite in merely human terms the eternal contract of society. To put it in another way, they see gay marriage as the desecration of a sacrament. Hence the growing conflict between the gay agenda and traditional religion, of which the current dispute over "adoption rights" is the latest sign. According to the Christian perspective — and it is one that is shared, I believe, by Muslims and Jews – adoption means receiving a child as a member of the family, as one to whom you are committed in the way that a father and mother are committed to children of their own. It is an act of sacrifice, performed for the benefit of the child, and with a view to providing that child with the normal comforts of home. Its purpose is not to gratify the parents, but to foster the child, by making him part of a family. For religious people that means providing the child with a father and a mother. Anything else would be an injustice to the child and an abuse of his innocence. Hence there are no such things as "adoption rights". Adoption is the assumption of a duty, and the only rights involved are the rights of the child.

Against that argument the appeal to "anti-discrimination" laws is surely irrelevant. The purpose of adoption is not to gratify the foster parents but to help the child. And since, on the religious view, the only help that can be offered is the provision of a real family, it is no more an act of discrimination to exclude gay couples than it is to exclude incestuous liaisons or communes of promiscuous "swingers". Indeed, the implication that adoption is entirely a matter of the "rights" of the prospective parents shows the moral inversion that is infecting modern society. Instead of regarding the family as the present generation's way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present one. We are being asked to overlook all that we know about the fragility of homosexual partnerships, about the psychological needs of children, and about the norms that still prevail in our schools and communities, for the sake of an ideological fantasy. . . . .  [Click here to read the whole article.]
• Roger Scruton is a writer and philosopher. His website is

In the United Kingdom:

[From "" Dec. 28, 2006]

Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.

It called for parents and children to identify schools that ignore "homophobic" language in the playground and teachers who produce "homophobic" lessons.

And it called for head teachers to bring lessons about "homophobia" on to school timetables and to involve their pupils in gay "awareness weeks".

The advice from Home Secretary John Reid's officials comes at a time of deep concern among churches that new gay rights laws due next spring will bar traditional teaching on sexual morality in schools and force them instead to include gay rights dogma in lessons.  [Click here to read the whole article on ""  .]


Egale Leader Looks for Classroom Victories

Egale Canada is a lobbying group for “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered activists.

Kaj Hasselriis, formerly of Canadians For Equal Marriage, interim executive director of Egale, recently made this significant statement:.

"I think that Egale has been very associated in the public with legal issues, and it will continue to be — and there have been good reasons for that association because of the victories we've had in this country and at the Supreme Court level and at Parliament Hill. But there are all sorts of other victories that won't come in the courtroom, they'll come in, let's say, the classroom. It's important for us to look at how we will make the next gains for [queer] equality in Canada."  [quoted in:  Long struggle back for Egale,”  by



Schools Withhold Sad Facts About Homosexual Lifestyle
By Rick Fitzgibbons

Teachers are being irresponsible when they teach that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

Tuesday, 24 October 2006 - When parents in the Philadelphia School District received an official calendar recently marking October as Gay and Lesbian History Month, they were confronted with a trend that is gathering momentum in many countries. In Victoria, Australia, family groups are up in arms over instructions to celebrate homosexuality in the classroom to counteract "homophobic bullying". Something similar is happening in England, where new sexual orientation laws may force primary school teachers to make books such as Hello Sailor and Daddy's Roommate available in class.
     Challenges to these moves are occurring in forums ranging from school board meetings to the courts, but parents are losing ground. And yet, says a psychiatrist who specialises in this field, the health and even the lives of their children may be at stake. In this interview with MercatorNet, Richard P. Fitzgibbons MD explains why -- and what can really help children vulnerable to same-sex attraction.

* * * * *

MercatorNet: Any health intervention these days requires informed consent. Does this apply to the promotion of homosexuality in schools?

Rick Fitzgibbons: It's a matter of great concern that educators are presenting homosexuality and same sex attraction to young people as a healthy lifestyle when the medical literature shows it is not. Numerous studies show an inability to maintain a commitment, rampant promiscuity and resultant serious depressive illness. In his book, The Sexual Organisation of the City, E. Laumann reported that among homosexuals in five urban areas the average length of a relationship was six months. M. Xiridou in 2003 reported that a long-term relationship among those he studied was 18 months, and overall they had an average of 18 to 26 partners per year. Consequently, due to AIDS and other diseases sexually active homosexual and bisexual males can lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.
     The inability to maintain commitment and promiscuity contribute to sadness, anger and mistrust leading to hopelessness and suicidal ideation. Many studies also demonstrate that these conflicts lead to a high prevalence of abuse in same sex relationships which is not communicated to students. In 1999 three very well-designed studies were published in the Archives of General Psychiatry -- one from New Zealand, one from the Netherlands and one on twins. These showed there is a much greater prevalence of psychiatric disorders among homosexual population -- more than six times the general risk of suicide among young adults.
     Dr John Diggs has assembled overwhelming medical evidence on the serious health risks of the lifestyle in his article, "The Risks of Gay Sex". And yet young people are not being informed about this. They are being denied the truth. Instead, they are told being homosexual is as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle. It really seems that educators are teaching bad science and that political correctness is trumping science here.
     Now, it's not clear whether teachers are bound by informed consent principles legally, but school psychologists certainly are. I would say the schools, particularly school psychologists, are very vulnerable to litigation if they don't inform young people, as well as principals and school superintendents, about the serious health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Some people are working to warn national organisations of school psychologists of their liability if they fail to provide informed consent to students. . . . .

MercatorNet: Is there a problem with a young person's identifying as gay or lesbian while still in high school? Can same-sex attraction be a phase or a fad at this age?

Dr Fitzgibbons: Yes, there is a fair amount of research showing that same-sex attraction (SSA) is not something that is locked in at a certain stage, but it can be fluid and actually change over the course of a person's life. But young people are being told by educators, the media and health professionals that SSA is genetic so they will be that way for the rest of their lives. In fact, there is no proof that it's genetic. If it were, then all identical twins should be completely concordant for homosexuality, and no study has shown more than 50 per cent concordance. Last year the first genome scan of male sexual orientation was published in Human Genetics (No. 116) and the conclusion was there is no genetic basis.
     The thing that troubles me greatly is that in asking young people to embrace a particular identity at an early age they're denying that child the right to self-knowledge. It's easier to think, "Oh, I have same sex attractions," rather than, "I was deeply lonely for a male friend when I was growing up," or, "I was too afraid to trust men, to trust my father."
     Another issue is the danger of entering a relationship where you use another human being as a sexual object. A utilitarian sexual philosophy permeates the homosexual lifestyle, as evidenced by numerous studies which document a high level of promiscuity, and it can be very traumatic for a young person to be repeatedly used sexually by another person. Ultimately this trauma can lead to severe depressive illness and even suicidal ideation and excessive anger with abuse of others in the lifestyle.

MercatorNet: One reads various claims about the prevalence of homosexuality in the population. A Philadelphia group said 5 to 6 per cent. What does the research show?

Dr Fitzgibbons: Numerous international studies put it at 1-3 per cent. In a study of 5,898 adults in the Netherlands by T. Sandfort only 2.1 identified themselves as homosexual. Among 15,705 adults with a median age of 35, B. Cochran found less than one per cent were homosexual: 0.99 per cent of males and 0.75 of females. . . . .

MercatorNet: Even in adult life can one's sexual attraction can be changed successfully?

Dr Fitzgibbons: Yes it can. The major evidence here is Robert Spitzer's study published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, October 2004. This is very significant because Spitzer led the taskforce which removed homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of psychiatry in 1973. Thirty years later he was going to a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington where there was an attempt to pass a resolution that no one should be allowed to treat patients with unwanted SSA. Outside there were people who had overcome their same sex attractions who were picketing and he walked over and talked to them. They said, "Study us." Spitzer, a professor at Columbia University, said, "All right, I'll study you." Among 200 men and women out of the lifestyle at least five years, he found 61 per cent of the males and 44 per cent of the females met criteria for good heterosexual functioning. His conclusion was that people have the right to pursue their heterosexual potential.
     My own clinical experience is this. If there's significant self-knowledge, forgiveness of offenders in one's life and a spiritual component to the treatment, as there is in the treatment of compulsive behaviours in substance abuse disorders -- in Alcoholics Anonymous, for example -- we find the emotional pain that causes the SSA can be healed. A person thinks he is powerless over his emotional pain and compulsive behaviours, turns them over to God and begins to practice meditation -- which is also used now in the treatment of hypertension and coronary artery disease -- for 15 minutes twice daily, with the help of a spiritual director.
     It's a process in which the adolescent or college student works at understanding those who have hurt or rejected him, and works at forgiving them. Then, as well, if they can grow in the sense that God is a loving Father and Christ is their friend and brother, the inner emptiness can be filled, the loneliness healed and the confidence strengthened. No longer does the person feel angry with his father or peers for not building or for damaging male confidence. Instead, he appreciates that his male gifts and identity are special, God-given and meant for a particular mission in life.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist and Director of Comprehensive Counselling Services in W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania and was a major contributor to Homosexuality and Hope, published by the Catholic Medical Association of the United States.

[Click here to read the whole article of which the above selection is an abridgement.l



Comment from Mission America on the article immediately below: “Note that part of the settlement includes an ‘anti-bullying’ program, which will no doubt teach all students to accept homosexuality.”
"Long Battle Over Gay Club In Georgia School Nears End”

[From the pro-homosexuality website “”     12/23/2006]

(Cleveland, Georgia) A battle over the formation of a Gay Straight Alliance at White County High School that has raged on for nearly two years is almost over with a reported agreement in principle that the school district will implement an anti-bully program and pay about $170,000 in legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union.  Both sides must still sign off on the agreement and it must be approved [by] the judge.

In July a federal judge ruled that the high school must allow students in the gay-straight alliance club to meet on campus.  U-S District Court Judge William C. O'Kelley said that the school cannot deny the GSA, called  P.R.I.D.E., equal access or a fair opportunity to conduct meetings on school premises during noninstructional time.
O'Kelley said that school officials had violated the Federal Equal Access Act by barring the group from meeting on campus, while allowing other non-curricular clubs to do so. His ruling also said that the school cannot discriminate against student groups on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical or other content of their speech.

In February 2005 students were told they would be allowed to organize thne Gay-Straight Alliance, which later became Peers Rising In Diversity Education, P.R.I.D.E..  About two weeks later about 250 angry parents attended a White County school board meeting to protest the club and the board decided to ban all non-academic clubs.
The move staved off a threatened suit by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the students, but when some of the non-academic clubs began holding meetings on school property and have their meetings promoted during morning announcements the ACLU filed a federal discrimination suit.

Judge Kelly's ruling settled part of the lawsuit with charges the school district had turned a blind eye to widespread systemic bullying of LGBT students to be resolved.  The agreement reached this week between the district and the ACLU ends that phase of the dispute.
While neither side will comment officially on the terms of the settlement until it is signed sources close to the district tell the White County News Telegraph that it provides for payment of the ACLU legal fees estimated at $168,000, $10,000 to the student plaintiffs, and implementation of the anti-bully program.



Radical Homosexual Groups Approved by UN 
with Bush [Administration] Support

By Bradford Short

     (NEW YORK — C-FAM) The U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) recently granted official status to three gay-rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs): the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians, the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD) and the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA).  ECOSOC granted the consultative status to the gay-rights NGOs despite the fact that the UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations recommended against it, and the fact that one of the groups had clear links to pro-pedophilia organizations in the past.

     ILGA is probably the most infamous of the groups granted ECOSOC consultative status last week.  A “global federation of organizations and individuals seeking to” advance gay rights, ILGA, was repeatedly rejected for official UN status many times in the past several years for its connection to a child-sex group called the the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).  NAMBLA is probably the leading pro-pedophilia group in the United States.  ILGA is said to have expelled NAMBLA but, according to UN delegations, refused to condemn adult-child sex. ILGA said “these groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership.”  This claim, at least until last week, gave UN delegations pause since the name "North American Man Boy Love Association makes it fairly clear the group promotes homosexual sex between men and children.
     Another approved group, the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians considers itself to be an organization that takes a “conservative” approach to gay-rights advocacy in Denmark.  That is, its support for gay “marriage,” for gay adoption, and for laws that would force churches to bless gay unions, all are “conservative” endeavors because in doing these things Danish homosexuals do not “want to change the world,” they “just want to be in it on equal terms.”  The Association does understand, however, the concerns of “subversive” Danish homosexuals, who want to prevent the “extensive heterofication of [Danish] society” that they say is happening because gays are pursuing “conservative” ends, such as marriage.  In this way does the Association understand itself as a moderate gay-rights group.
     LSVD includes member divisions such as “LSVD fresh,” which is supposed to be a support group “for youngsters” who are gay.

     Twenty-three nations on the Council voted for the groups’ accreditation, while sixteen voted against it, and ten abstained.  Among those voting in favor of the gay-rights groups was the United States, which has recently been voting in favor of groups that advance the homosexual agenda at the UN.  One UN permanent representative told the Friday Fax that, “while the Bush Administration has been solid on life issues, it seems irrational to me that they insist on favoring gay groups that clearly seek to undermine marriage and the family.” 
Copyright 2006 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required


What GLSEN Doesn't What You to Know
Learn how a leading gay-activist group works to get in public schools.

[This article from Citizen Link refers in places to conditions in the United States,  but offers information and suggestions valuable for Canadians and those in other countries where organizations like GLSEN are active.]

Few parents send their kids to school to be force-fed pro-homosexual messages day in and day out. Yet, that's exactly what's happening in an increasing number of schools across the nation. How are gay activists getting around parents and into America's classrooms?

To find out, I attended a conference sponsored by one of the nation's largest gay-advocacy groups -- the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) -- which boasts of having more than 3,000 pro-homosexual clubs in middle and high schools. The April 29 event was presented by GLSEN's Boston chapter.

Particularly interesting was a workshop led by GLSEN's national communication director, Joshua Lamont, who gave talking points on how to overcome "resistance from various stakeholders."

It quickly became clear who these troublesome "stakeholders" were -- parents and school board members who dared to oppose the gay agenda. While GLSEN publicly claims to respect "every member of the school community," privately it's holding training sessions on how to undermine the members with the most vested interest in public education -- taxpaying moms and dads, and the people they've elected to represent them.

"We need to take the power back," Lamont told the audience.

Tactic 1: Broaden the debate

Lamont's audience that day included gay and lesbian teachers, as well as an "adjustment counselor" and a school librarian.

Lamont gave them an "umbrella" talking point he said was developed with the help of the National Education Association: "Addressing anti-LGBT harassment in schools creates safer and better schools for all students."

Teachers were advised how to use that talking point to justify things such as pro-gay curricula and GLSEN's student clubs.

But one gay activist in the audience objected: Why do we have to give in to the "other side's" argument by putting the emphasis on "all" students? Why can't we just be up front about wanting to focus on gays and lesbian kids?

Lamont's response was revealing: Most students in GLSEN's 3,000 clubs are actually heterosexual, he said. And the majority of complaints regarding homosexual-related harassment come from "straight" kids.
So, "use this tactic of broadening" to "every child," he said.

It's a smart strategy: Not only does it mask the fact that there aren't enough gay students to warrant the immersion of entire student bodies in pro-gay propaganda, but it also gives GLSEN convenient heterosexual student "allies" who put themselves in the role of defending perceived gay "victims."

How to respond:

As good as this tactic is, it's still possible for parents to counteract it by exposing it as a Trojan horse, said Caleb Price, a research analyst for Focus on the Family.

"Make it a fairness issue," he advised. "While it's true that every child needs a safe school, there's no need to create a special class of citizens who get more protection than others. Parents can point out that approximately 80 percent of school kids experience some form of bullying at school -- so why not give attention to all children who need protection -- including those who are overweight, wear glasses, etc."

. . . .

Even Brenda High, whose son committed suicide after being bullied, has opposed safe-school policies that create special categories for homosexuals.

"The efforts to include definitions of classes of victims, also excludes other victims, making it more difficult to protect all kids," she said.

Parents can also expose GLSEN's true agenda -- one of its student manuals, for example, mentions getting homosexual themes "fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels."

Tactic 2: Make it personal

Lamont also revealed that GLSEN put together focus groups of kids to determine which messages resonated most powerfully.

The conclusion? Moms and dads have the most influence. After that, "the most effective tactic proved to be personalization" -- i.e., stories kids hear from their peers or other people who are personally affected by homosexuality.

To illustrate the point, Lamont related what happened when researchers showed the group a video featuring Judy Shepard, whose son, Matthew, was murdered in 1998 in Wyoming.

"I'm glad I was behind glass, because I almost fell out of my chair," Lamont said.

The very first comment from a focus group kid was, "How much did that [profanity referring to Judy Shepard] get paid?" Lamont remembered. "Because to them it looked like a paid celebrity preaching to them."

But when researchers replaced the video with the "personalization" method, he said, "one of the kids even came out in the focus group."

"Wow, that's powerful," one teacher commented.

Which is why GLSEN is working tirelessly to get gay speakers into public schools.

How to respond:

If your school invites a homosexual speaker, challenge the school to open the forum to other perspectives, including ex-gays.

To find local ex-gay speakers, contact Exodus International.

There is solid legal backing for this approach: At least one federal court has ruled that school districts are illegally engaging in "viewpoint discrimination" by excluding ex-gay and conservative perspectives when addressing homosexuality.

Tactic 3: Threaten lawsuits

"This is almost our trump card," Lamont told his audience. "Make it a money issue."

When all else fails, he said, threaten a lawsuit. Warn schools they're "legally liable for not protecting young people."

"In all the cases brought, to date, the student either prevailed after trial or achieved a settlement," read a handout distributed at the workshop.

How to respond:

But what GLSEN doesn't tell schools is that, rather than deflecting lawsuits, they may actually become more vulnerable to them by adopting policies and curricula that single out gay and lesbian individuals, said Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group based in Arizona.

"Schools are better off using blanket-protection policies," he said, "that shield all students from bullying or harassment."

The dark side of sexual-orientation policies advocated by GLSEN, Johnson said, is that they often trample on the free-speech rights of students with opposing viewpoints.

"Organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund have won hundreds of free speech cases nationwide and are willing to stand in the gap for parents, students and school officials," he said.

Gay history month in city schools seen part of trend

By Susan Brinkmann

The Catholic Standard and Times (

PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (The Catholic Standard and Times) - The surprise addition of Gay and Lesbian History Month to the Philadelphia public school system’s October calendar has caused concern among local parents, and may be a harbinger of things to come.

Not so, says Cecilia Cummings, senior vice president of communications and community relations for the school system.

“There’s a real misconception that the corridors of the school district are going to look like a gay pride parade, and that is not what is happening,” Cummings said. “The district is not hosting any activities.”

At most, the city’s 35 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs, which meet after school, were permitted to recognize the month with special activities, she said.

For the first time, this year ninth-grade students will read a collection of short stories titled, “Am I Blue?” which is about people who have been affected by the coming-out experiences of youth.

“But this has nothing to do with Gay and Lesbian history month,” Cummings said.

She confirmed that her office has received more than 100 complaints from parents about the inclusion of gay and lesbian history in the schools’ calendar. . . .

“There have been a lot of people who don’t agree,” she said. “I don’t know where this is going to land.”

Parents of city school children may only hope for better results than those of other school districts across the nation that have adopted similar policies.

For instance, until two parent groups hired Liberty Counsel lawyers to stop it, a Maryland school district curriculum was about to teach 8th- and 10th-graders that Jesus condoned homosexuality because He never mentioned it by name, that Christians often use the Bible to justify hatred and that being homosexual is similar to being left-handed.

Meanwhile, a legal battle has been raging in Massachusetts for several years over a school that teaches about homosexuality to kindergartners without parental permission. Homosexual activists filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, claiming they have the right to teach their doctrine to grade-school students regardless of the students’ religious beliefs and without their parents consent.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger recently vetoed several bills that would have changed school textbooks to require positive portrayals of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

And in Kentucky’s Boyd County school district, all students and faculty are under a court order to attend diversity sessions that normalize homosexuality, after the school lost a court battle to prevent a student homosexual rights group from forming on campus.

Some of the fuel behind the movement is coming from what many believe is an overly cozy alliance between the National Education Association (NEA) and gay activist organizations, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the nation’s leading pro-homosexuality education group.

“GLSEN is very closely aligned with the Gay-Lesbian caucus inside the NEA,” said Jeralee Smith, a California school teacher and the outgoing chair of the NEA’s Ex-Gay Educators Caucus. . . . ”

Neglecting to inform students fully of the known health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle is not just alarming, but dangerous, according to experts.

“The fundamental issue here is that children have the right to be informed - to know the truth,” said Richard P. Fitzgibbons, a suburban-Philadelphia psychiatrist. He is the lead author of the Catholic Medical Association’s, “Homosexuality and Hope.”

“The norm in this lifestyle is rampant promiscuity, and there is significant published research demonstrating three-to-five times more psychiatric illnesses in those in the lifestyle,” Fitzgibbons said.

The physical risks, such as dramatically increased rates of HIV/AIDS, anal cancer and other sexually transmitted diseases, are so high that some studies have shown up to a 20 year reduction in the life-span of sexually active homosexual males.

“They’re advocating a lifestyle that is filled with serious medical and psychiatric illnesses, but they’re deliberately not telling the children,” Fitzgibbons said. “Either these schools don’t know, and in fairness to them they may not know, but they have a responsibility to know it, particularly school psychologists. All health professionals have a responsibility to provide informed consent.”

The bottom line, Fitzgibbons said, is: “Children have the right to know the truth in order to protect themselves, their mental health, their emotional health, and to protect their well-being.”

Denial of those rights is landing many school administrators in court.

“The lawsuits parents are winning have to do with equal treatment, equal access,” said Rena Lindevaldsen, a full-time law professor at Liberty University School of Law and its chief attorney.

“Say you have a school-sponsored panel on sexual orientation, you’ve got to present both sides,” she said. “If you allow a day of silence to take place, you have to allow students to hand out counter-literature. Those are the battles we’re winning. But on parental rights, we’re losing.”

Three U.S. circuit courts have decided against parents who wanted the right to remove their children from a pro-homosexuality class or event, Lindevaldsen said. “These courts have held that parents can decide where to send their child to school, but once they put that child in a public school, they have no rights over what happens in the school,”she said. “Three circuit courts in this country have said that you have no rights as parents.”

What if a student later becomes ill, after having been encouraged to embrace the lifestyle by a school program that deliberately withheld information about the risks? Could the student sue?

Absolutely, Lindevaldsen said.

“We’d love to get a plaintiff that looks like that,” she said. “I was recently contacted by somebody who, because of one-sided information being provided by doctors, went through a sex-change operation. His mental issues just got worse, and he now realizes this isn’t the choice anyone should make. He wants to sue because he wasn’t provided with full information.”

In the meantime, Lindevaldsen said, “This is all politics. It’s all politics in the courts and it’s all politics in the schools. And the pawns are our children.”

[Click here to read the whole of the article immediately above.]


British Columbia Ministry of Education September, 2006, Letter on the Alternative Delivery Policy

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement with the Correns, the provincial Ministry of Education sent out a letter regarding "Clarification of the Alternative Delivery Policy."  The letter was sent to all the bodies the Settlement Agreement requires the Ministry to send it to.  It should also be noted that the Correns, in accordance with the agreement, would have been provided with a copy of the amended draft policy and the letter by July 15th and the Correns will have provided their comments on the draft policy and letter by August first.  The government, according to the agreement, was then to implement the policy and send out the letter with copies to the Correns.
The Correns, then, right up until the stage of finalization,  were to have a privileged part as advisors regarding the policy and letter on the Alternative Delivery Policy.

The Ministry of Education's letter is given immediately below.


Murray Corren on the Rights of Parents 

[The following quotation from an article by Murray Corren is significant for showing that he regards the teaching of the acceptanceof same-sex marriage as non-[negotiable and colnnected with basic "Canadian values." ]

So, the question then is: What rights do parents have to determine what parts of the provincially mandated curriculum their children will learn and how they will learn it? Many teachers may be surprised to learn that those boundaries are very restricted and, have, for years, been clearly defined by the Ministry of Education. The policy, currently described as the Alternative Delivery Policy, clearly defines the areas of the curriculum where students and their parents or guardians may arrange for alternative delivery of instruction; namely, the Health curriculum organizer of Health and Career Education K to 7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10, and the Personal Development curriculum organizer of Personal Planning K to 7. The policy does not apply to any other prescribed learning outcomes in those IRPs. Nor does it apply to any other BC provincial curriculum.

In a letter from the deputy minister sent to all the education partner groups in September 2006, this policy was, once again, reiterated "in order to clarify some common misunderstandings" with regard to its application. "The policy does not permit schools to omit addressing or assessing any of the prescribed learning outcomes within the health and career education curriculum," the letter states, and goes on to say, "Neither does it allow students to be excused from meeting the expectations of any prescribed learning outcomes related to health. It is expected that students who arrange for alternative delivery will address the learning outcomes and will be able to demonstrate that they have done so."

Just so that we are all clear, the Alternative Delivery policy applies only to the health organizers of the above-named IRPs and to no others. What this means is that there are no other areas of the curriculum that students have the option of not being in attendance or accessing alternative means by which to achieve the required learning outcomes. So, when a student says he or she can’t participate in lessons, other than those of the health organizers, for whatever reason, our response needs to be that they are required to be in attendance and are not exempted from meeting the prescribed learning outcomes.

This brings us back to the examples described earlier where teachers have allowed parental pressure to determine what and how we teach to meet the requirements of the curriculum. As professionals, we have a duty to address the learning needs of all our students by ensuring that they be exposed to ideas, materials, and knowledge that informs and educates them about the world in which they live. When we relinquish our right to professional autonomy and bend to the dictates of a small segment of the parent population, we do a disservice to our students as a whole.

So, when a parent declares that a teacher’s choice of a novel to be used in class must be vetted by the parent first; when, in social studies, children are learning about the different family models, a parent objects to the inclusion of same-sex parented families; or when a child is not permitted to attend music or physical education classes because of the religious beliefs of the family, we need to take a stand. Our response should be, "This is the public education system and I am required to follow the mandated provincial curriculum.  If you are not happy about that, there are other educational options available to you and to your child."
[From Teacher Newsmagazine, Volume 19, Number 4, January/February 2007]


BC Gov’t Urged to Add Animal Rights in Mandatory Gay-Friendly Social Justice Course

By Gudrun Schultz

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, September 26, 2006 ( - If animal rights activists have their way, BC high school students will soon be taught to give cows and chickens the same care and attention enjoyed by cats and dogs, in a broad new course on “social justice.”

The controversial high school curriculum already includes “gay-friendly” content, designed to promote acceptance of homosexuality in the schools. A deal between the BC Ministry of Education and a homosexual couple granted the two men the right to privately determine pro-homosexual content in the course, after they filed a complaint against the Ministry in 1999. The complaint accused the Ministry of failing to adequately “address issues of sexual orientation” in the existing curriculum.

The men, Murray Corren and Peter Corren, not only sought and won the inclusion of explicitly pro-homosexual material in BC classrooms, but also ensured the material would be mandatory. Parents were denied the right to request that their children opt out of the material.

Now, an animal rights activist is promoting the inclusion of “speciesism” in the course, saying prejudice against groups of animals is the same as prejudice on the basis of race or gender.

Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society told a private meeting of educators and social-justice experts that assigning greater or lesser values to animals or a particular species of animal is not acceptable and should be brought to the attention of students, reported the Vancouver Sun yesterday.

“We aren’t trying to make [Social Justice 12] into an animal-rights course,” Fox said. “[But] it is my opinion that if we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as oppression and exploitation, animals should be included.”

The exclusive meeting, by invitation-only, included such parties as the B.C Teachers’ Federation, the B.C. School Trustees’ Association, the Aboriginal Education Association, Educators Against Racism, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, among others. The Correns were invited along with members of the Gay and Lesbian Educators of B.C.

Conspicuously absent, according to Brian Roodnick of the Concerned Citizens of B.C., were any representatives who would speak on religious discrimination. In an interview with the Sun Roodnick questioned why no one was invited to speak to the group about such issues as anti-Semitism or prejudices against the Muslim community.


Today’s Family News
September 27, 2006

One of two homosexuals under contract with the B.C. Ministry of Education to take the lead in developing new social justice public school curricula is unsuitable for the job due to his “anti-Catholic bigotry,” according to the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL).

Peter Corren was reacting to an editorial in The B.C. Catholic by Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin in which he warned that this agreement “could lead to the introduction of morally objectionable material in the school system.”

Corren told the Vancouver Sun that the Catholic Church “has victimized our society through history.” And he told The Province that Roussin’s response reflects the Church’s ongoing “homophobic diatribe against Canadian society.”

“Mr. Corren’s absurd accusation,” said CCRL spokesperson Sean Murphy, “exemplifies either knee-jerk, anti-Catholic bigotry or appalling ignorance.”

The National Post agreed. “It should be remembered,” it stated in an editorial, “that Catholics pay taxes too, and should not be forced to fund slanders against their religion.”

In fact, people of faith are not alone in expressing concern about the government’s contract with Peter and Murray Corren – a married same-sex couple – which gives them unprecedented input in developing a new Grade 12 elective on social justice issues, including sexual orientation.

In late August, 15,000 people signed a petition organized by the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association that called on the government “to defend and to preserve parental and children’s rights” and to “stop selling out to special interest groups.”

As well, a new group, Concerned Parents of B.C., has started meeting with local school boards to protest what it sees as the basic unfairness of giving a special interest group a say in the education of their children.

“We are in favour of the [social justice] course, but what we are saying is if you are going to grant a level of access to basically an unelected private citizen then you need to be granting that same level of access to the parents of the kids,” chairman Brian Roodnick told Victoria News. “You can honour the agreement and also do what is democratically right – include all the stakeholders.”

The Vancouver Sun reported last week that the initial planning stage of Social Justice 12, the new course’s official title, is already underway behind closed doors. Concerned Parents was not invited.

Roodnick believes that if students are going to be taught about sexual orientation, then they should also be told that some religions believe homosexuality to be morally wrong.

“[Social Justice 12] has to reflect accurately and fairly all these different points of view,” he told the Sun. “ . . . I don’t want it to be written by only a few groups because then it’ll be propaganda.”

Over the next year, the Correns will also review B.C.’s entire Kindergarten-to-Grade 12 curriculum with a view to propose changes to ensure that children are given “information on the gay and lesbian reality,” Murray Corren told the Sun.


Controversial school course planned

Hotly debated Social Justice 12 was part of a provincial settlement with same-sex couple.

Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun

Published: Monday, September 18, 2006


Social justice and legal experts are to gather today in Richmond to plan a new Grade 12 course that will bring formal lessons about sexual orientation and gender issues into B.C. schools for the first time.

The two-day meeting, organized by the B.C. Education Ministry, is expected to include representatives from the RCMP, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Law Courts Education Society as well as trustees, principals, superintendents and members of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

The ministry says the meeting is for invited guests only and is closed to the media.

The new course, called Social Justice 12, is to be piloted next September in selected schools and available more widely the following year as an elective course. Its creation was promised by government as part of a deal signed with same-sex couple Peter and Murray Corren to make the curriculum more inclusive of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues.

The Correns said earlier the meeting is intended to make broad plans for the course but participants will not write the curriculum. The B.C. Teachers' Federation has invited its members to apply by Sept. 29 to do that work along with ministry officials.

In an interview Sunday, the Correns said they will attend today's meeting but didn't want to talk about it or their agreement with government, which has sparked controversy recently and has been hotly opposed by a group called Concerned Parents of B.C.  . . . .

Brian Roodnick, spokesman for Concerned Parents of B.C., said Sunday his group was not invited to today's meeting. "We don't have any voice in that at all," he said. "That's annoying."

What he says is even more troubling is that there is no indication that Social Justice 12, a course intended to examine discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and gender, will address religious discrimination. "What about anti-Semitism? What about Islam? Don't they deserve social justice and a voice in this?"

Social justice is defined in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality for everyone regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, he noted, adding that Social Justice 12 should address all those concerns.

If schools are going to teach about sexual orientation, they should also tell students that some religions believe homosexuality is morally wrong, he said. "[Social Justice 12] has to reflect accurately and fairly all these different points of view . . . I don't want it to be written by only a few groups because then it'll be propaganda," said Roodnick, who teaches in a Vancouver independent school. . . . .
[From The Vancouver Sun]


Rally in Vancouver to Protest Corren Settlement

A rally held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on  Saturday, August 26th, saw an estimated 800 people gather to protest the Corren Settlement whereby the provincial government has given an unprecedented special role in the review of school courses to two homosexual activists.  [See below on this page.]  The rally was organized by CASJAFVA, a Vancouver group with strong backing in the Chinese-Canadian community in the city.  Among the groups participating in the rally with statements of concern and support were BC Parents and Teachers for Life (the sponsors of this website), REAL Women, and the Catholic Civil Rights League.

Statement at the August 26, 2006, CASJAFVA Rally
 on Behalf of British Columbia  Parents and Teachers for Life

 For many years, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life has been
standing up for the welfare of students and the rights of parents as prime
educators of their children.   We have become deeply concerned as we have
seen parental rights eroded and students subjected to harmful propaganda.
We have raised the alarm about the Corren Settlement and joined with others
to oppose its terms because we believe that it is a threat to students and
to the rights of their parents.

 The Settlement Agreement gives an unprecedented role to two private
citizens—a role that is given to no others.  No such legal document gives
any such role to parents’ organizations or to any organization which might
have concerns about the plans which these two activists might have for
education.   These two activists are guaranteed the right to review every
course as it is revised—in effect, alowing them to lobby so that a
favourable view of homosexuality will be conveyed. .

 Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, but so are any
organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . . expertise in
sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity
in the curriculum.”    The Ministry has promised to  “. . .solicit feedback
directly from these organizations.” 

Section 1 of the Corren Settlement agreement ensures that parents who might
have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned will not, for most
subjects, be able to opt for  an “Alternative Delivery” of the courses, as
they can now for a very few of them.  Parents will not be able, for example,
be able to have students opt out of sections of most courses, when they
object to their content, and teach them themselves. 

 The “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns is particularly disturbing in
view of the nature and extent of the course revisions which they may be
expected to demand.   Pro-homosexuality activists are asking that a positive
affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals be reflected in every course
in the curriculum.   They have made it clear that their plans include the
indoctrination of the youngest and most vulnerable of our students.  What is
being asked for is not education, but propaganda
We have written the Minister of Education expressing our concerns and we
here call on the provincial government to take immediate steps to nullify
the harmful effects of the Corren Settlement and reassert the principles of
the legitimate rights of parents and the  protection of children from
harmful propaganda.

Text of Message Regarding the Corren Agreement Sent by BC Parents and Teachers for Life to Each Member of the British Columbia Legislature:

Dear Member of the Legislature:
I am writing you on behalf of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life to express our grave concerns regarding the “Settlement Agreement” signed between the Ministry of Education and Murray and Peter Corren, on April 28th of this year.

The Settlement Agreement gives an unprecedented role to two private citizens—a role that is given to no others.  This in itself is a cause for concern.

Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, but so are any organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . . expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum.”  The Ministry has promised to  “. . .solicit feedback directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP Response Draft(s), when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website."

Although this agreement has implications for all courses of the curriculum, Section 1 ensures that parents who might have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned will not, for most subjects, be able to opt for  an “Alternative Delivery” of the courses.  In view of the anticipated revisions, the least the Ministry ought to have done is to have extended  the Alternative Delivery option to the other subjects.

The “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns is particularly disturbing in view of the nature and extent of the course revisions which they may be expected to demand.   From their public statements we may conclude that they are asking that a positive affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals be reflected in every course in the curriculum.   What is being asked for is not education, but propaganda.

We are asking that each Member of the Legislature  take measures to stand up for the rights of parents in this province.   Will you, at your earliest convenience, send us your answers to the following two questions?   Do you as an MLA disagree with the terms of the "Settlement Agreement" with the Correns?    Will you work to reverse the terms of this Agreement which discriminate against parents by imposing the wishes of a minority on the educational system as a whole? 



Letter Sent by BC Parents & Teachers for Life to the BC Education Minister

[This letter, dated July 3rd, was responded to on behalf of the Minister of Education by Pierre Gilbert, Manager, Content and Achievement Standards Unit, in the letter that follows this one]

Hon. Shirley Bond, Minister of Education, Deputy Premier,
   and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy
Room 249, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC   V8V 1X4

Dear Ms Bond:

      I am writing you on behalf of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life to express our grave concerns regarding the “Settlement Agreement” signed between the Ministry of Education and Murray and Peter
Corren, on April 28th of this year.

The Settlement Agreement gives an unprecedented role to two private citizens—a role that is given to no others.  This in itself is a cause for concern.

Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, but so are any organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . . expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity
in the curriculum.”  The Ministry has promised to  “. . .solicit feedback directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP Response Draft(s), when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website. 

Although this agreement has implications for all courses of the curriculum, Section 1 ensures that parents who might have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned will not, for most subjects, be able to opt for  an “Alternative Delivery” of the courses.  In view of the anticipated revisions, the least the Ministry ought to have done is to have extended the Alternative Delivery option to the other subjects.

The “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns is particularly disturbing in view of the nature and extent of the course revisions which they may be expected to demand.   From their public statements we may conclude that they are asking a positive affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals be reflected in every course in the curriculum.   What is being asked for is
not education, but propaganda.

We are concerned for the welfare of all the students of British Columbia, but we are also concerned that independent schools teaching to the provincial curriculum may be forced to adopt the proposed curriculum revisions.  Will such schools have to adopt those revisions?

Ms Bond, will you give us assurance that you will take measures to stand up for the rights of parents in this province and take measures to negate the “Settlement Agreement” that has been signed with the Correns?  We would ask for your reply at your earliest convenience.

Letter Responding to the Above Letter:

What Does the Ministry of Education 's Reply  [Above] Tell Us?

Mr. Gilbert's reply restates much of the substance of the Corren "Settlement
Agreement." It states the openness of the Ministry to "input from all
interested parties," but does not address the issue that the Correns have
been given a legally binding commitment of an extraordinary role.
Neither--significantly--does Mr. Gilbert's letter answer a question we asked
regarding the effect of the Agreement on independent schools.  Our questions
was phrased as follows:  "We are concerned for the welfare of all the
students of British Columbia, but we are also concerned that independent
schools teaching to the provincial curriculum may be forced to adopt the
proposed curriculum revisions.  Will such schools have to adopt these
revisions?"  Mr. Gilbert's failure to answer this question, and the apparent
failure of anyone else in the provincial government to address the same
issue when raised by others, would suggest that we have indeed been right to
raise the alarm regarding the probable effect on independant schools.  

BCPTL Sends New Letter to the Minister of Education
On September 21st (2006), British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life sent a new letter to the Minister of Education.  The text of that letter is given below:

Hon. Shirley Bond, Minister of Education, Deputy Premier,
   and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy
Room 249, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC   V8V 1X4

Dear Ms Bond:

This will acknowledge the July 20th letter sent on your behalf  by Mr. Pierre Gilbert in response to our letter of July 3rd, addressed to you and dealing with our concerns about the Settlement Agreement signed with the Correns.

 Mr. Gilbert’s letter in the main restates the main provisions of the Settlement Agreement, but fails to address our questions.  It states the openness of the Ministry to "input from all interested parties," but does not address the issue that the Correns—private citizens and activists for a particular program—have been given a legally binding commitment of an extraordinary role in the development of curriculum.  Neither does Mr. Gilbert's letter answer a question we asked regarding the effect of the Agreement on independent schools.  Much time has passed, and we would respectfully request that you give us a timely answer to the following questions:

.1. Will the Ministry remedy the situation in which these two activists and organizations chosen by them are given an unprecedented role denied to parent groups and to citizens’ groups who differ in their outlook from the Correns?

 2. Will Independent Schools whose funding depends on subscribing to the learning outcomes of the prescribed curriculum be forced to adopt the curriculum revisions introduced in response to the demands of the Correns and their allies?  If not, what will be the mechanism to exempt them when those changes will be scattered throughout courses from Kindergarten to Grade Twelve?

We once again appeal to you to stand up for the rights of parents by remedying the injustice of the denial of others’ rights inherent in the Settlement Agreement with the Correns.  

Reply, Dated October 18th, 2006, from the Ministry of Education 
to British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

In the letter below our readers will note that neither of the two questions we asked in the letter immediately above were answered.

Letter Dated October 5, 2006, from BC Attorney General 
to BC Parents and Teachers for Life

The following letter was in reply to our e-mail of July 4th!  It basically goes over some of the provisions of the  Settlement Agreement with the Correns.  Far from showing an understanding of our concerns, the Minister appears to take pride in the Agreement.


An Assessment of the Settlement Agreement between the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and Murray and Peter Corren

Parents and others concerned about education should be alerted to danger on
reading the news that the Province of British Columbia has signed an
agreement giving an unprecedented role to two private citizens in the review
of courses--these citizens being pro-homosexuality activists who have made
it clear that they seek a thorough revision of curriculum to ensure that
homosexuality is given a favourable treatment. 

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life was alerted years ago to the
plans disclosed by one of the two activists, and ever since has been warning
of the agenda of the proponents of homosexual propaganda for the schools.
Unfortunately, our warnings and the warnings of that unusually courageous
teacher Chris Kempling have been largely ignored by many of those who, one
would think, would be most concerned.

We predict that not only students in public schools but also those in
Independent schools and those taking British Columbia Ministry of Education
courses in home settings will be affected by the Province's agreement with
the Correns.  It seems highly unlikely that any exemption will be allowed,
or at least allowed to stand, that permits alteration of the curriculum to
respect the wishes of parents or of independent institutions to which
parents might entrust their children.

We have now had a chance to read a copy of the “Settlement Agreement”
between Murray Corren and Peter Corren on the one hand  (“complainants”) and
the British Columbia Ministry of Education (“Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of
Education”).  In the paragraphs immediately following we will give our
analysis of that agreement.

The first point in the Settlement Agreement is an agreement regarding the
“Alternative Delivery Policy.”  This part of the settlement ensures that
parents who might have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned
will not, for most subjects, be able to opt for the “Alternative Delivery
Policy” which may exist for Health and Career Education K-7, Health and
Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10.   The agreement with the Correns
guarantees that the option of an “Alternative Delivery” will not be
available except in those subjects.

What is meant by an “Alternative Delivery Policy”?  For an explanation we
may turn to something called Policy Document: Opting for Alternative
Delivery -- Health and Career Education 8 and 9 and Planning 10  [Reference:
.  This document says, under the sub-heading “Policy”:

 “The health component of Health and Career Education 8 and 9 and Planning
10 addresses topics which some students and their parents or guardians may
feel more comfortable addressing at home. In some cases, students, with
their parents' or guardians' consent and in consultation with their school,
may choose not to participate in classes when these topics are discussed
and, instead, address the topics in an agreed upon alternative manner.

“It is expected that students will complete the related learning outcomes
and demonstrate their knowledge of the health topic(s) they have chosen to
learn in an alternative manner.

“This option is only available for topics that are part of the health
component of Health and Career Education 8 and 9 or Planning 10. This option
is not intended for any other curriculum.”

Under “Procedures” the Ministry document explains:

”School boards are expected to have policies for alternative delivery of
these topics in place.

“School boards are encouraged to develop a variety of ways for topics that
students and their parents or guardians may feel more comfortable addressing
at home to be covered through alternative delivery. They may also invite
parents or guardians to propose alternatives for delivery of content, which
are suitable to their needs.

“There are several options that school boards can provide for students who
request the opportunity to complete topics that they may feel more
comfortable addressing at home outside of regular classroom instruction.
Examples include:

* home instruction using a school-determined package of materials or
other agreed upon materials

* Distributed Learning (formerly distance education/distance
electronic learning) 

* self-directed studies”

It should be noted that even under “Alternative Delivery” the options of the
parents might be limited, depending on the exact policy developed by a local
school board.  However, had the “Alternative Delivery Policy” been extended
to the many subjects other than those named which will be affected by the
revisions referred to in the “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns, there
might have been some acceptable ‘out’ provided for parents who objected to
the proposed revisions.  This door has been locked before it could be
opened.  For every other subject, when the course is revised, the following
statement will be added to its “Integrated Resource Package” (which is
equivalent to a “Program of Studies”):  “The Opting for Alternative Delivery
Policy does not apply to this IRP.”

It is worth noting that a letter regarding the agreed “Opting for Delivery
Policy,” to be sent out to School Board Chairs and school district
superintendents, with copies to various bodies, will first be provided in
draft form to the Correns for their review.  Only then will the finalized
letter be sent out:  this to be done before September 15, 2006.

The extraordinary role given to the Correns also appears in the terms of the
“Settlement Agreement” regarding the “Internal Review Process.”  The
Ministry will draft internal review guidelines to use in reviewing draft
IRPs to ensure, ostensibly, “ . . . every draft IRP incorporates
consideration of equality and respect for all learners.To that end [the
Settlement Agreement says], the Guidelines will provide a framework for the
Ministry to review each draft IRP from the perspective of inclusion and
respect for diversity with respect to sexual orientation and other grounds
of discrimination, and an over-arching concern for social justice.”  Not
only will the Ministry consult with the Complainants (the Correns) in
preparing the Guidelines, but also it will provide them with a draft of the
Guidelines for their comment before finalizing the Guidelines for
implementation on or before September 30, 2006.

Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, so are any
organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . .expertise in
sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity
in the curriculum.”  The Ministry promises to “ . . .solicit feedback
directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP Response
Draft(s), when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website.”
The Complainants are also given a special role in reviewing the schedule for
revision of the IRPs.

At this point it is worthwhile to pause and consider what sort of revisions
to the curriculum the Correns and their allies will likely be demanding.
“Demanding” is the right word, because later on in the Settlement Agreement
it is made clear that anything the Correns consider noncompliance with the
Settlement may be appealed to a mediator appointed by the Human Rights
Tribunal and in the event of that mediation being unsuccessful, to the
Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The extent of the revisions the Correns will be demanding was indicated
years ago in a presentation one of the activists made to the Coquitlam
School Trustees.  In asking for a program to address the supposed needs of
“sexual minority” students, he complained, “Nowhere in the curriculum are
the many and significant contributions of lesbian and gay people, living and
dead, acknowledged.  Our school libraries are devoid of resources that
positively affirm the achievements of gay and lesbian people in the arts, in
literature, science, medicine, social sciences, politics, and in every other
sphere of endeavor.” 

What the Correns are seeking in the school curriculum, we may conclude, is a
positive affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals in every area of
human endeavour.  Hence the proposed revisions will affect every course in
the curriculum.

A second part of the settlement with the Correns promises a new Grade Twelve
course on social justice issues  (a “Social Justice IRP”).  “The purpose of
this IRP [the Settlement states] will be to explore, from legal, political,
ethical and economic perspectives, the concept of a just and equitable
society in which there is full participation of all peoples.  One topic of
study within the Social Justice IRP will address issues of sexual
orientation/gender identity.”   Again, the Complainants are given a special
consultative role.  It is also agreed that “Prior to release of the Social
Justice 12 Response Draft for public review and response, the Respondent
[the Ministry] will provide the Complainants with a draft of the sexual
orientation/gender identity portion for their review, and will make
revisions as appropriate in light of the comments received.  The
Complainants may consult experts, on a confidential basis, to assist them in
providing such comment.”

We should note the fact that this consultation with the Correns is to take
place before the draft course is released to the general public.  A pilot
version of the new course is to be completed on or before June 30, 2007, and
full implementation is to take place in September, 2008.

It is true that Social Justice 12 is to be an elective course, and so
perhaps only a small minority of students is likely to take it, and
presumably Independent Schools will not have to offer it.    Surely, though,
we should be concerned about the propagandizing of any sector of the student
body.  And, judging by what pro-homosexuality activists have produced so
far, a course produced to conform to these activists’ desires is indeed
likely to be propagandizing in nature.

The main concern of parents, surely, is the proposed revision of all courses
to conform to the demands of the pro-homosexuality lobby.   There is
something seriously wrong if parents do not respond in a body to register
their protests with the British Columbia Ministry of Education over the
unprecedented step it has taken in allowing an unprecedented role for two
activists in shaping the educational environment of all British Columbia
students in public schools, and—we believe—in all schools using the
provincial curriculum.

Some years ago I gave the following picture during a talk to a pro-life,
pro-family group.  Unfortunately, the imaginary journey through a school
seems to be coming true in an all-too-literal fashion.  The fictional
journey went as follows:

“Please allow me to walk you through a day in an imaginary school.  . . . .
Imagine for a moment, John and Jane, two high-school students who attend
school in the future brave new world of social engineering . . . . . .A day
at Margaret Sangers High School might start out with English class, where
the class is introduced to Earl Birney’s poem “David,” in which an injured
mountain climber is ‘mercifully’ pushed over a cliff by his companion.  The
lesson is the perfect setting for a representative of the local right-to-die
association to come in and give ‘relevance’ to the poem.  The next period
might be Career and Personal Planning, where students look at the options
for reproductive or non-reproductive choices.  Abstinence may be mentioned,
but in a very cursory manner.  The main emphasis will be on the avoidance of
the results of pre-marital sex:  the condom, the pill, and—in this land of
free choice—abortion.  The third period of the morning is science.  Here the
student is exposed to the marvels that have resulted from experiments on
human embryos, and the hope for the bettering of the human race:  the hope,
in effect, of creating a Superman—or rather Superperson.

“After lunch, our students of the future attend a mathematics class.  Here
the familiar lesson in pure mathematics is preceded by a short introduction
telling of the brilliant work done by a homosexual mathematician.  (Teachers
had not thought it necessary to mention his sexual orientation prior to the
introduction of the new, humanistically inclusive mathematics program.)
Finally, we may imagine John and Jane in social studies class, at the end of
the day, where the students are in their second week of a unit on the
history of homosexual rights.  Today the lesson is on the right to adoption,
and the splendid environment that may be provided by homosexual couples for
their adopted children. 

“A little far-fetched, you may say [remember this talk was given some years
ago]; and it may be unlikely that a single day would see students encounter
so many radical topics.  But it is entirely likely that, in the
not-so-distant future, in the course of part of a year, all the above topics
and more of the same may be encountered.”

So much for an imagined future for education.  The point is that education
is threatened now by the attempts of activists on many fronts to shape the
education of the young.  The present apparently successful coup by Corren
and Corren has to have been one of the boldest of such actions.  It is one
that, if allowed to stand, will, we may confidently predict, affect the
education of practically all students in the province, and set an
unfortunate, even tragic, example for the rest of Canada.

We urge all those who care about the children and youth of British Columbia
to write to the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Attorney General,
and your local Member of the Legislature.  We would appreciate your letting
us know that you have taken action.  If you don’t mind, please send us a
copy of your letter; and if you receive an answer, a copy of the reply you

Ted Hewlett, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
June, 2006

Letter from British Columbia Education Minister Shirley Bond 
to President of the Federation of Independent Schools, July, 2006



Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Homosexual Curriculum 

By Terry Vanderheyden and John-Henry Westen

VANCOUVER, June 1, 2006 ( - A homosexual teacher and his same-sex partner who launched a human rights complaint with the British Columbia government have settled with the Government of British Columbia.  According to the homosexual activist who launched a human rights suit, homosexual issues will soon be a mandatory part of school curricula taught in classrooms throughout the province, without the ability of students or parents to opt out.

BC's Ministry of Education and Ministry of the Attorney-General agreed to review the province's curricula to ensure that the issue of homosexuality is included in all so-called 'social justice' discussions - such as those involving racial inequality and women's rights. The decision was the result of a settlement reached with Murray and Peter Corren, who launched their formal human rights complaint in 1999, which alleged "systemic sexual discrimination" in the classroom.

However, a key element in the Corren complaint was the attempt to ensure that the courses teaching positively about homosexuality are mandatory, and that neither students nor parents are able to opt-out.  Speaking at the time of the launch of the human rights action, last July, the activists' legal council, Tim Timberg, said, "The second issue is there's an opting-out provision in the curriculum that where a subject is deemed to be sensitive, the school teachers are under an obligation to in advance advise parents that they'll be raising a sensitive issue in the classroom."

Coquitlam teacher Murray Corren told the Vancouver Sun today that the settlement will also make it more difficult for students and parents to opt out of lessons dealing with sexual orientation.

Attorney-General Wally Oppal said Wednesday that the province was indeed shaping a new 'social justice' course that will incorporate the homosexual issues. "I think it's a fair settlement," he claimed. "We listened to their [the Correns'] complaints and we decided there was some merit in what they were suggesting." Oppal added that he hoped British Columbians were a "mature enough society" to accept "that there is an understanding that there is a place for this in our curriculum."

A press release from the BC Government notes that in addition to revamping the provinces educational curriculum to ensure it "reflects inclusion" for the homosexual lifestyle, the province is commencing immediately to offer an elective grade 12 course on "justice and equality" which will address "sexual orientation.

Corinna Filion, spokesman for the Ministry of Education told that the agreement included provisions to bar some parents and students who had been opting for home education or other arrangements on topics of sexuality.  While the province will still allow parents and students those alternative options when it comes to sex education (health and career courses), students will be forced to remain in classes dealing with sexual orientation outside of sexual education in spite of any objections students or their parents my have.

"For example in social studies if they are reading a book about same sex families . . .  the policy (of allowing for alternative arrangements) would not apply," explained Filion.

A copy of the agreement was not available to reporters by press time.

See related coverage:
B.C. Gay Couple Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum Without Parental Opt-Out

 Gay and lesbian issues course for B.C. students

Last updated Jun 1 2006 CBC News

The B.C. Ministry of Education has agreed to add an elective social justice course to the high school curriculum that includes gay and lesbian issues.

The move is part of a settlement between the provincial government and a Lower Mainland couple who had filed a human rights complaint seven years ago.

Coquitlam teacher Murray Corren and his same-sex partner, Peter, had accused the Ministry of Education of discrimination against gay students and the children of same-sex partners.

[Click here to read the whole story on the CBC site.]


Today’s Family News
June 2, 2006

British Columbia continues to lead the way in the assault on family values with the provincial government’s decision on Thursday to include more gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues in the school curriculum. The government also plans to make it more difficult for parents or students to choose to opt out of classes that address these topics.

The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of the Attorney-General made this decision as part of a settlement to a complaint filed in 1999 with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. In the complaint, Murray and Peter Corren argued that homosexuals were being discriminated against because of a "lack of positive portrayals of gay, lesbian and transgendered people."

A bulletin from the provincial government stated that the settlement includes the development of a “social justice” course for Grade 12 students with content that “will include issues such as race, ethnicity, gender, family structure and sexual orientation.”

However, changes are not limited to this one course. The bulletin also states that the province “will also establish a process and schedule to review the B.C. educational curriculum to ensure that it reflects inclusion and respect for the diverse groups that today make up B.C.’s population.”

According to Thursday’s Vancouver Sun, homosexual activist Peter Corren revealed that “the settlement will also make it more difficult for students and parents to opt out of course lessons that address topics pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Last summer, TFN readers were informed that Peter and Murray Corren wanted independent schools to be included in the complaint to the government. However, a spokesperson from the office of the Attorney-General told TFN on Thursday that independent schools are not being included in this decision to introduce more sexual diversity into the curriculum.

It is expected that this decision will increase the already growing percentage of families that are choosing alternatives to public education such as private faith-based schools and home schooling.  

Take Action> As more of the details are being worked out regarding how this settlement will affect the education system, now is the time to express your concerns to the B.C. government. Contact Minister of Education Shirley Bond, Attorney-General Wally Oppal or your local MLAs. Remind them that parents have ultimate responsibility for the education of their children and there should be no restrictions on parents who wish to exempt their children from any teaching on sexual orientation.  [We might add that it is not the proper role of the public school system to alter its curriculum to portray homosexual behaviour in a favourable light to any of the students in the system. --Editor of this BCPTL website]


Documents Reveal Government Signed Over Control of Education to Homosexual Activists

By John Jalsevac

VANCOUVER, B.C., June 19, 2006 ( – A legal contract obtained by the Vancouver Sun under a freedom of information request has revealed that the province of British Columbia has granted homosexual activists Peter and Murray Corren an unprecedented say in the curriculum review that is set to affect courses from kindergarten to grade 12. The review is being undertaken in order to insert so-called LGBT issues into the curriculum, starting at the kindergarten level.

Wayne Ross, an education professor at the University of B.C. said that he was unaware of any similar contract in any other province that offered such unprecedented clout to a private party, giving them an “explicitly designated seat at the table in terms of curriculum development that’s going to affect an entire province.”

The province signed the settlement contract with the gay couple after the couple launched a human rights complaint in 1999 which alleged “systemic sexual discrimination” in the classroom. 

When the agreement between the Ministry of Education and the gay activists first became public the Ministry mildly indicated that the province would be implementing a new Grade 12 elective course on social-justice and that “The Province will also establish a process and schedule to review the B.C. educational curriculum to ensure that it reflects inclusion and respect for the diverse groups that today make up B.C.’s population.”

The contract obtained by the Vancouver Sun, however, has revealed that the province has agreed to give the Correns themselves an enormous amount of influence and personal involvement, not only in designing the Grade 12 elective course, but over the entire curriculum, from K-12. Although no one knows just what changes are going to be made, it is clear that they are going to be much more sweeping than the mere introduction of the elective course.

Murray Corren has indicated that the new K-12 curriculum should include, “Queer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models -- past and present -- the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) people, same-sex marriage and adoption."

Under the terms of the agreement obtained by the Sun the Ministry has agreed to meet with the Correns every six months until Sept. 1, 2007 to discuss the development of the new homosexual friendly curriculum. By August 1 of this year the Ministry has agreed to draft guidelines for the K-12 curriculum which will be handed to the pair of activists for comment. And under the contract the Correns will also play a vital role in designing the entirely new “social-justice” elective course for Grade 12 students.

Murray Corren has also said that stricter regulations preventing parents from removing their children from the classroom when homosexuality or other similar issues are being discussed, will also likely be introduced under the new curriculum. The Correns have long been fighting against the right of parents to discern when and how their children learn about issues pertaining to sexuality. Speaking at the time of the launch of the human rights action, last July, the activists' legal council, Tim Timberg, said, "The second issue is there's an opting-out provision in the curriculum that where a subject is deemed to be sensitive, the school teachers are under an obligation to in advance advise parents that they'll be raising a sensitive issue in the classroom."

The Correns have since sought to ensure that LGBT issues are removed from the list of "sensitive" issues.

British Columbia’s independent schools, most of which are faith-based, have also expressed some significant discomfort with the changes to be made in the curriculum. Ministry officials have not yet made it clear whether the changes would also apply to the Independent Schools, which are normally required to follow the province’s curriculum. One official offered the hazy assurance that “it’s not anticipated that any change would impact the ability of an independent school to continue teaching courses from a faith-based perspective.”


See the Vancouver Sun’s coverage of the deal:

See related coverage:

Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Homosexual Curriculum with No Opt-Out for Students or Parents

B.C. Gay Couple Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum Without Parental Opt-Out

Text of Message Regarding the Corren Agreement Sent by BC Parents and Teachers for Life to Each Member of the British Columbia Legislature:

Dear Member of the Legislature:
I am writing you on behalf of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life to express our grave concerns regarding the “Settlement Agreement” signed between the Ministry of Education and Murray and Peter Corren, on April 28th of this year.

The Settlement Agreement gives an unprecedented role to two private citizens—a role that is given to no others.  This in itself is a cause for concern.

Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, but so are any organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . . expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum.”  The Ministry has promised to  “. . .solicit feedback directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP Response Draft(s), when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website."

Although this agreement has implications for all courses of the curriculum, Section 1 ensures that parents who might have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned will not, for most subjects, be able to opt for  an “Alternative Delivery” of the courses.  In view of the anticipated revisions, the least the Ministry ought to have done is to have extended  the Alternative Delivery option to the other subjects.

The “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns is particularly disturbing in view of the nature and extent of the course revisions which they may be expected to demand.   From their public statements we may conclude that they are asking that a positive affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals be reflected in every course in the curriculum.   What is being asked for is not education, but propaganda.

We are asking that each Member of the Legislature  take measures to stand up for the rights of parents in this province.   Will you, at your earliest convenience, send us your answers to the following two questions?   Do you as an MLA disagree with the terms of the "Settlement Agreement" with the Correns?    Will you work to reverse the terms of this Agreement which discriminate against parents by imposing the wishes of a minority on the educational system as a whole? 


Saturday, October 7, 2006

Teacher fails girl for stand on 'gays'

Students told not to discuss assignment
about 'homosexual colony' with parents

© 2006

Fly me to the moon? No thanks, said a 13-year-old girl who refused, because of her faith, to write an assignment for her health and physical education class about being the only heterosexual in a lunar colony with 10 homosexuals.

The class at Windaroo Valley State High School, made up of 13- and 14-year-old girls, was given the scenario and told to answer 10 questions, including how it felt to be a "minority" and what they would do to cope with their situation. They were also told to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

While many of the students were uncomfortable with the assignment or said they didn't understand the questions, one girl instantly refused because of her religious faith.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher.

For this, she was given her first-ever failing grade in a health and physical education class.

According to the Brisbane Sunday Mail of Australia, students were told that details of the assignment were to remain in class and they weren't to discuss it with their parents.

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the teen's mother, who only learned of the assignment after her report card was sent home.

"When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' ... I was shocked by the content," she said of the assignment.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions. She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

The mother was told it would be better if she withdrew her daughter from the public school system and enrolled her in private school.

Jeff Seeney

"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Queensland, Australia Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said.

The government "has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said. "It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs. It's not the job of our schools to politicize our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and math."

The revelation of "faith-based grading" came to light in the same week Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop announced plans to take control of the schools from Australia's separate states.

The state education systems, she told a history teachers' conference, had been hijacked by leftist "ideologues" promoting ideas "straight from Chairman Mao."

Regarding Windaroo Valley's homosexuals-on-the-moon assignment, Bishop said it was one more reason to be concerned about Australia's schools.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said. "Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

"Knowing the content," said the girl's mother, was precisely what Windaroo Valley High did not seem to want, noting that school officials seemed more concerned about how parents learned of the assignment than her daughter's religious beliefs.

"That's what concerns me most ... the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," she said.

Upon questioning by the Daily Mail, a spokeswoman for Queensland's public education system said the school had decided to drop the assignment from the curriculum and would work with the family for a "satisfactory resolution."

"The aim of the assignment was to encourage students to think about diversity, culture and belief systems," she said. "Schools can offer alternative assessment topics in consultation with parents, if the school is aware of concerns about an assignment."

That should be good news for one 13-year-old girl at Windaroo Valley High where the school's website makes this promise:

"Ultimately we offer choice, opportunity and potential. There is something for everyone with new additions being made every year to enhance our progressive curriculum. We want students to be happy."



Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada - Battleground Homosexuality
Paper: Clergy but Not Faithful Should be Allowed to Express Opposition to Homosexuality

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, October 6, 2006 ( - The gloves have come off, the Parliamentary debate in Canada has moved beyond homosexual 'marriage' and on to refusing freedoms for those with religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality and those with conscientious reasons for opposing it.  The mere suggestion of a 'Defence of Religions Act', to be put forward should the attempt to restore traditional marriage fail, has created a firestorm in the overwhelmingly pro-gay media and in Parliament with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc arguing ferociously against such a proposal.

The Regina Leader Post newspaper, has joined the fray demonstrating the lack of tolerance for opposition to homosexuality.  While the paper would allow for priests to oppose homosexuality publicly, it suggests that opposition by non-clergy should be illegal.  "There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion's tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far," says the editorial in the paper today.

In today's Globe and Mail in his column, "Sex, religion, politics, boom", Rick Salutin, described in Wikepia as "a strong advocate of left wing causes", castigates those who advocate the religious protection law as "yearning for authoritarian leadership". He adds that such religious, conservative moral movements have historically given "rise to fascist movements which weren't necessarily rascist. God, of course, would be the strongest leader." However, contrary to Salutin's charges, the Nazis and Italians fascists mercilessly persecuted and murdered those who held traditional Chistian beliefs and especially murdered thousands of clergy who preached faithful Christian doctrine.

The current Prime Minister, while Leader of the Opposition during the introduction of the homosexual 'marriage' legislation warned that if passed the legislation would hamper the free speech rights of Canadians opposed to homosexual 'marriage' and the freedoms of religious groups in Canada.  He promised to protect religious and free speech rights. (see coverage: )

However, when the Globe and Mail claimed that a source has revealed a legal proposal to protect religious and free speech freedoms vis a vis homosexual 'marriage', the Conservatives denied knowledge of any such measure. 

Nevertheless, the opposition parties have been hammering away at even the notion of such a proposal, equating freedom to criticize homosexuality out of religious or intellectual conviction to illegal discrimination.

Liberal Leader Bill Graham claimed yesterday in the House of Commons that even the proposal of added protections to ensure freedom of speech and religion has made it so that "Gay and lesbian Canadians are fearful of their future."  Liberal Lucienne Robillard continued the attack saying, "After it loses the vote on same-sex marriage, the government plans to table a radical bill legalizing discrimination against the gay and lesbian community.  How dare the Prime Minister impose his right-wing values on Canadians?"

In response Conservative MPs merely reiterated that all such talk of a 'Defense of Religions Act' was "speculation".

Incredibly, no MP during yesterday's raucous debate stood up to speak for the need to protect religious freedom in Canada. 

The best defence of the need for a Defense of Religions Act came in the editorial of the National Post today which stated:

"Given the current climate, DORA would be of value in making clear that expressions of moral and religious opinions about sexual orientation do not amount to hate speech. Already we have seen unfortunate examples in Canada whereby religious Christians who simply have been articulating Church doctrine in regard to homosexuality and gay unions have been censured and punished by human rights tribunals. It is not fanciful to imagine that these same individuals might, in future years, be thrown behind bars for expressing their religious beliefs."

"Any new law should specify clearly that those who oppose same-sex marriage should not be at risk of hate-speech charges. More broadly, Canadians should be free to say that homosexual practices are forbidden by God or contrary to natural law, or that they are symptoms of a mental illness or amount to a disorder, as the late Pope John Paul II put it. While we do not believe any of this to be true, millions of traditionally minded Canadians do - and it is not the role of the criminal law to prohibit the expression of views that, however unfashionable in the modern era, are deeply rooted in true religious faith and conviction, and indeed defined mainstream thought within living memory. True, hate speech against homosexuals does exist, however. Incitement to assault or kill any group of human beings, or to make them subject to murderous hatred, should remain illegal. The history of the 20th century shows that extremist rhetoric - calling any group "a cancer on society," for instance - leads down dark paths. But not every expression opposing homosexuality is or should be criminal. New federal legislation protecting freedom of speech and conscience in this way might seem merely declaratory. But a measured, well-worded and authoritative statement from the Parliament of Canada would help to shield the Canadian people from our homegrown fanatics of political correctness."

To contact the Prime Minister with your concerns:

Philadelphia schools promote 'gay' agenda
District threatens truancy charges against parents who keep kids home

October 5, 2006
© 2006

The Philadelphia School District has launched a new advance in the battle to indoctrinate school children into the "gay" agenda with its announcement that October is "Gay and Lesbian History Month."

And a report on Family News in Focus said officials there will make sure parents relinquish their children for that "education."

"If there is a parent who wants to remove their child from school," district spokesman Fernando Gallard told the report, "they would have to deal with the truancy regulations."

His comments came after a number of protests erupted over the school system's formalization of its "gay" agenda recognition.

The district reports that it already has had about 120 complaints about the recognition, even though Gallard explained there are no special activities associated with the formal recognition.

One of those complaints was from a parent who said she would keep her child home for the month, and that prompted Gallard's threat.

School officials say they added the recognition this year "to be more inclusive" and follow a district policy requiring equity for all races and minority groups, according to Cecilia Cummings, a school community relations executive.

However, of the many minorities available for recognition, the only other groups receiving that are the Hispanic Heritage in September, African American in February and Asian Pacific American in May, officials confirmed, all three racial minorities.

"We knew that this would be controversial," Cummings told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "When you deal with diversity, there are some hot-button issues that emerge."

Parent Senita Watson took it a step further than many, traveling to school district headquarters to see about arrangements for her to homeschool her daughter for October.

"How can you celebrate gay and lesbian month? What are you going to teach my daughter," she demanded. She also called on other parents to boycott the district.

Leaders within the "gay" movement have praised the school district's decision to promote, at its own expense, their goals. A "gay" newspaper Philadelphia used the school district's announcement for a promotion, asking a survey question on its website about whether schools should be teaching "gay" perspectives.

They already are, according to Alberta Wilson, of Faith First Education Assistant Corp. She told Family News in Focus that even elementary school phonics cards have been through the "'gay" editing process.

"They're teaching three syllable words, the word 'fam-i-ly,'" she told Focus. "And on those phonics cards they have a mom and a dad, an elderly grandparent and grandfather raising children, and then they have two men and two women," she said.

"They are teaching our young children that this is acceptable and that they should tolerate it. It is an outrage; it's against God, and God is not pleased."

One e-mail about the situation gave rise to a new perspective on the issue.

"Whatever happened to the separation of church and the state, that liberals keep harping about? Everyone knows, or should know that homosexuality is one of the tenets of the church of the devil. So, why is it that the devil's tenets can be espoused in school, but not the word of God?"

"Besides, is there a month for heterosexuality?"

Cummings said school officials have heard such questions over and over, but the district hasn't made plans for any such balancing recognition.

And Peter LaBarbera, president of the conservative Americans for Truth, told Baptist Press in promoting homosexual rights "by definition you have to undermine people's religious rights and religious beliefs.

"If you have a gay history month, you're basically saying, 'This is a wonderful part of American history - homosexual history - let's celebrate it and let's teach the kids that this is like civil rights.' Are they going to teach the role that homosexual behavior had in the onset of HIV and AIDS?"

National . . . [Pro-Homosexuality]  Groups Fight Parents Over Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in Mass. Schools

Groups filing amicus brief attacking parent's right to sue schools ignoring state parental notification law

By Gudrun Schultz

BOSTON, Massachusetts, October 6, 2006 ( -  National pro-homosexual lobby groups and organizations have joined an ongoing legal battle over the right of Massachusetts parents to shield their children from exposure to homosexual material in the classroom, filing a court brief attacking the parents' legal right to file suit.

David Parker filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in April 2006, together with other concerned parents, against school officials and the Town of Lexington for refusing to notify him about the introduction of classroom material promoting homosexuality in his son's elementary school, despite parental notification laws in place in the state.

The lawsuit was the culmination of a lengthy battle between the parents and the school over the issue. At one point Mr. Parker was arrested and jailed over his request--and the school's refusal--to notify him when homosexuality or transgender issues would be taught to his 6-year-old son.

Now, multiple homosexual activist organizations have joined the battle by filing an amicus brief attacking Parker's right to file suit, the pro-family Massachusetts coalition  MassResistance reported yesterday.

Among the groups behind the brief are the Human Rights Campaign--the world's largest homosexual advocacy group--the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (Glad), and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

"Why are all these groups--especially the national groups--so interested in a parent's right to decide what moral issues are taught to his children by adults in elementary school, especially regarding homosexuality?" Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance, said in a press release yesterday.

"This is outrageous and very frightening. They must see David Parker's case as quite a threat to their ability to push their message on children."

The brief claims that the state has a legal obligation to teach homosexual issues to young children in the public schools, and said parents do not have the right to remove their children or even to be notified. "This really seems to expose their true agenda," said Camenker.

MassResistence said they anticipate the groups will offer legal and financial support to stop the Parker lawsuit, given the level of interest shown toward the case at this point.

The brief was filed days after Parker's lawyers, with the law firm Denner Pellegrino, LLP, filed a rebuttal to a motion to dismiss by the case, defending Parker's right to file suit.

A full listing of the pro-homosexual groups follows:

Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Campaign Foundation
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Massachusetts Teachers Association
Lexington Teachers Association
Lexington C.A.R.E.S.
Respecting Differences

News from "MassResistance" Shows Pro-Homosexuality Activists with Similar Agenda and Philosophy to That of their Counterparts in British Columbia:


1. Defendants in David Parker's Federal Civil Rights lawsuit file 57-page motion to dismiss case.

School Committee, Superintendent, teachers, Town of Lexington claim that presenting homosexuality to children against parents' wishes is NOT illegal and does NOT interfere with freedom of religion!

  • Claims that because of gay 'marriage' in Massachusetts, state has "legitimate interest" in presenting homosexuality to children.

  • Claims that Parental Notification Law does not apply.

  • Compares parents' religious rights to American Indians smoking peyote!

  • And more -- a skillful twisting and mangling of legal "precedent" to rob parents and children of all rights and protections from the homosexual agenda in the schools!

  • This landmark federal case could affect the entire country!!!

For background to the above news, see below on this page for the article:
Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son's kindergarten class.


UK Government “postpones” gay propaganda in Kindergarten after parents object
By Hilary White


LONDON, October 18, 2006 ( – “Hello Sailor,” “The Sissy Duckling” and “Daddy's New Roommate” are among the book titles on a recommended government reading list for primary school children to teach them about homosexuality. New government regulations to place them in classrooms have been held back after officials were “inundated” by parent’s objections.

The British government’s “anti-discrimination” regulations were to come into effect this month but the UK’s Telegraph reports that Cabinet ministers are “at odds” over the proposals which some warn will lead to reverse discrimination against Christian and other religious groups who hold homosexual acts to be sinful.

Colin Hart, director of The Christian Institute, a group that tracks the growing incidents of anti-Christian legislation and prosecutions, said: "The thought that new regulations could make these books compulsory is outrageous."

The Christian Institute warns that the regulations will make it unlawful for teachers to refuse to use the material in class. A media release from the Institute said, “Most parents would be alarmed to see the gay rights books already recommended by the Government for primary schools.”

Cases in the UK against Christians and others who object to the homosexual political advance, are alarming some rights groups. Colin Hart said his organization is particularly concerned about “the impact of these planned laws on religious liberty and on the school curriculum.”

“We do not want to see school lessons become the focus of litigation by crusading gay rights groups.” 

Examples of this kind of anti-Christian harassment abound already in the United Kingdom.

In November 2003, the Anglican Bishop of Chester was investigated by the Cheshire police after he told his local newspaper of research showing that some homosexuals re-orientated to heterosexuality.

In December 2005, family-values campaigner, Lynette Burrows, was investigated by police after she expressed the view on a radio programme that homosexual men may not be suitable for raising children.

In January 2006, Patrick Harvie a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Green party, asked Strathclyde Police to investigate with the intention to prosecute, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, for defending marriage in a sermon at a church service.

The Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of Glasgow, Ronnie Convery, said that the action was a “publicity stunt” and was “not worthy of serious consideration”.

“It does however show once more that there are none so intolerant as the so-called champions of tolerance,” Convery said.

Read about many more “Christianophobic” incidents in the UK:



Homosexual Activists Target UK Faith Schools, Adoption Policies

By Gudrun Schultz

GREAT BRITAIN, June 2, 2006 ( – Faith-based schools in the UK are facing efforts by a homosexual activist group to ensure the schools’ acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyles for their students.

Schools Out has called on the government to ensure the new Equality Act, which will prohibit any discrimination based on sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, including education, will be fully enforced in the faith schools.

The organisation is also calling for changes to the education system that would emphasize the “culture and history” of LGBT people in school curricula.

Meanwhile, Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland are reacting to proposed legislation that would allow homosexual couples to jointly adopt children. The agencies are requesting an exemption allowing them to opt out of facilitating homosexual adoptions, should the measure become law. The Catholic Church has specifically condemned placing children in a homosexual environment, saying homosexual adoption must be considered  “gravely immoral.”

Under current Scottish law, only one member of an unmarried or homosexual couple can legally adopt a child. The Adoption and Children Bill would remove that restriction.

Stephen Small, from the St. Andrew’s Children Society, told members of parliament the agency believes homosexual adoption could be damaging to already vulnerable children, reported The Scotsman.

“We still have an issue about the effects on children – especially those who have already had major disadvantage and discrimination in their lives, being placed with what we would still regard as an untested family situation.”

Michael Mesarowicz, of St. Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society, said there were “strong feelings” in the Catholic Church about the issue. “The Catholic Church has been very vocal about what they view is the right and proper family unit.”

Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien condemned the legalization of homosexual adoptions when the measure was proposed last year, The Scotsman reported.

“Such a measure would distort the understanding of the family, cause harm to children and promote the status of homosexual relationships,” Cardinal O’Brien said. “Homosexual unions are notoriously fragile and unstable, and the small number of homosexual couples living together make the suggestion that this measure would increase the number of potential adoptive parents unrealistic.”s unr

“To place children in such a situation is to put them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognised in the UN Convention on the rights of the child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”


A Call to Action after Public Sector Employee Fired for Speaking out against Homosexuality
By Gudrun Schultz
BALTIMORE, Maryland, June 19, 2006 ( - The American Family Association (AFA) is asking supporters to express their concerns after a Metro transit board member was fired for expressing opposition to homosexuality.
Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. fired Robert J. Smith of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority last Thursday, after the board member, a Roman Catholic, referred to homosexual behaviour as “deviant” on a talk show interview.
One of his colleagues on the transit board, who is openly homosexual, complained about the comment during a board meeting on Thursday and demanded Smith retract his comments or resign from the board, the Baltimore Sun reported.
Smith declined, saying he stood by his beliefs as a Roman Catholic, and a few hours later he received notice from the governor that he was fired.
“Robert Smith’s comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable,” Gov. Ehrlich said in a statement. “They are in direct conflict to my administrations’ commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity.”
The governor said he was intolerant to any view that opposes the full social acceptance of homosexual behavior and its promotion in government, the AFA reported.
“Gov. Ehrlich contradicted his own statement,” the AFA press release said. “He is promoting tolerance toward homosexual practice while being intolerant to Smith’s Christian beliefs and the teaching of his church.”
The AFA has launched an email campaign asking readers to “help preserve the rights of Christians to publicly express their beliefs and the teaching of their church on homosexuality without the fear of being fired,” by challenging Governor Ehrlich to reinstate Robert Smith.
“If this firing stands, it means that any Christian who states publicly that homosexual practice is morally wrong does so at the risk of being fired.”
Speaking to reporters after the confrontation with Jim Graham, Smith reaffirmed his remarks and said he was “entitled to his opinion.”
"The comments I make in public outside of my [Metro board job] I’m entitled to make.” His personal beliefs, he said, have “absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses and have not affected my actions or decisions on this board.”
“The notion that I consider homosexual behavior as deviant behavior is correct,” Smith said. He declined to apologize to Graham, saying, “I didn’t make the comments to Mr. Graham…I’m sorry that he feels that way, but I don’t agree that his lifestyle is an appropriate way to live one’s life.
To contact Governor Ehrlich:
Phone: 1-800-811-8336

“Day of Truth” Counters Gay-Sponsored Student “Day of Silence”

By Gudrun Schultz

SCOTSDALE, Arizona, April 27, 2006 ( – Christian students at more than 700 high schools across the country observed a national Day of Truth today, offering a peaceful witness of Christian viewpoints on homosexual activity to their fellow students and school faculties.

The second annual Truth day was sponsored by the Alliance Defence Fund, an organization that defends religious freedom in the U.S., in response to yesterday’s Day of Silence. Sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, the Day of Silence is a no-talk day observed by students in protest of opposition to homosexuality.

The Day of Truth was established to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective,” says the Alliance Defence Fund’s website.

“In the past, students who have attempted to speak against the promotion of the homosexual agenda have been censored or, in some cases, punished for their beliefs. It is important that students stand up for their First Amendment right to hear and speak the Truth about human sexuality in order to protect that freedom for future generations. The Day of Truth provides an opportunity to publicly exercise our free speech rights.”

Students are encouraged to participate by wearing T-shirts and handing out cards with the message:

I am speaking the Truth to break the silence.
Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint.
Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed.
By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

The ADF says student registration for the event this year has doubled over last year’s event, despite several cases of pressure from school authorities against students attempting to promote the event.

“We wouldn’t have come up with the Day of Truth if Christian kids hadn’t been silenced in the first place,” Mike Johnson, an ADF attorney from LA, told Fox News. “The public school is part of the free market of ideas – if the other side is going to advance their point of view, it’s only fair for the Christian perspective to present their view, too.”

The ADF say the Day of Silence is a vehicle for GLSEN to promote homosexuality, despite the organization’s claims that the protest is about ending harassment of gay students.

“No one is for bullying and harassment,” Johnson said. “But that’s cloaking their real message – that homosexuality is good for society.”


British Columbia Teachers Federation Endorses "Week Against Homophobia--May 15-19, 2006"
Last year the BCTF endorsed the "Day of Silence."  This year it is the "Week Against Homophobia."   The BCTF announces on its website:

"The B.C. Teachers’ Federation and the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC (GALE-BC) have endorsed this event. Schools can participate during the week of May 15–19, 2006.

"This year the focus of the national campaign is 'Homophobia in the Workplace.' "

Among the suggestions for teacher-librarians are the following:

  • Find out what new books are available to positively portray lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and add some to your library collection. Log onto to find resources.
  • Set up a book display or purchase a bin of age-appropriate LGBT themed books that teachers can borrow to use in their classrooms.  

Among suggestions for elementary teachers:

  • Read a story and talk positively about same-sex families to students in your classroom. Titles appropriate for Grades K–3:
         King & King
         ABC—A Family Alphabet Book
         My Two Uncles
         Asha’s Mums
         Mom and Mum Are Getting Married
         Who’s In a Family?
  • Put up a Homophobia Free Zone or “That’s So Gay!” poster in your classroom and discuss the harmful effects of using anti-gay slurs. You may download free posters at by clicking on the resources icon.
  • Read a story with an LGBT character in it to your class. Some examples:
         From the Notebooks of Melanin Sun—Grades 6–7
         S.P. Likes A.D.—Grades 4–7
         The House You Pass on the Way—Grades 6–7
         Jack—Grades 6–7
    . . . . .
  • Have a class discussion about Canadian newsworthy events—Grades 6–7
    (i.e., same-sex marriage in Canada).

Among suggestions for secondary teachers are the following:

  • Highlight famous LGBT people and discuss their contributions to society within your subject area (i.e., English, P.E., Science, Music). For information, check out the pages of the “Challenging Homophobia in Schools” handbook available in your school. To order the second edition (2004) of this resource with many new lesson plans log onto
  • Host an anti-homophobia poster competition in your school.
  • Start a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) Club in your school. Apply for a GSA bursary from GALE-BC for an event within your school that helps counteract homophobia.
  • Invite speakers to your class or an assembly during Pride month in June. Contact a local LGBT society in your area (i.e., Gab Youth Services, GALE-BC, PFLAG, ASIA, Youthco AIDS Society).
  • Put up a Homophobia Free Zone poster in your classroom and draw analogies between many forms of oppression. Download free posters at Click on the resources icon on the home page to find them.

[Click here to go to the BC Teachers' Federation website with the full list of suggestions.  Your child, if you are the parent of a student in Kindergarten up to Grade 12 in British Columbia, may experience the results of these BCTF plans.]



Alberta MLAs kill conscience bill

Today’s Family News
May 17, 2006

Opposition MLAs in the Alberta legislature have effectively killed a bill that would have shielded Albertans from being fired from their jobs or sued because they disagree with same-sex marriage.

Introduced last month by Conservative MLA Ted Morton, Bill 208 was intended to complement a section of the federal law redefining marriage that gives limited protections to people of faith and religious institutions who could not in good conscience endorse the change. As critics pointed out when Parliament passed Bill C-38, many of the areas of protection cited are under provincial jurisdiction. With Bill 208, Alberta took the lead among other provinces in trying ensure adequate protection for freedom of conscience and religion.

Bill 208 would have exempted Alberta’s marriage commissioners from being required to marry a same-sex couple if doing so clashed with their religious or moral beliefs, CBC News reported. And it would have given parents the right to decide whether or not they wished their children to be exposed to any classroom discussion of homosexual relationships.

Although the bill had passed second reading – or approval in principle – opposition  members adopted stalling tactics to prevent the bill from being debated on what was likely the final day of the current session for dealing with private members’ bills.

 “It’s a sad day for democracy when the Liberals and [New Democrats] won’t allow a debate on an issue this important,” Morton told Canadian Press.
But Morton remains optimistic that this is not the end of his hope for stronger protection of conscience and religion.

“I’m predicting that Bill 208 will be back as a government bill next February," said Morton according to CP. “I know I have the support of about three-quarters of caucus plus the premier.”

As the Edmonton Sun reported, gay rights activists had denounced the bill as “odious, hateful,” “premised in ignorance and fear,” and “a cheap, uncalled-for ploy to undermine tolerance and acceptance in the province.”

“Mr. Morton swore on the Bible to uphold the laws of the land,” said acting police commissioner Murray Billett. “He did not swear on the laws of the land to uphold the Bible. Much of what we’re seeing today is biblically-based and, I think, not appropriate.”

Morton disagreed.

“Parents, not the [Alberta Teachers’ Association] or the state, have the right to decide how their children get educated. That’s common sense,” he told CBC News. He also pointed out that Article 26 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “[p]arents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
Above article on "Today's Family News" website.


The survey says what?

Sexual-orientation questions cause stir at Port Washingtonhigh school

May 15, 2006
Port Washington - Parents are angry and school leaders are promising action in response to a "Heterosexual Questionnaire," approved by two teachers, that asked students questions such as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"
Hundreds of Port Washington High School students were told to submit written answers and discuss the survey.
The questionnaire was distributed by a student organization, which then led a full class-period discussion. Two teachers approved distribution of the survey. The principal did not.
Parent Lisa Krier on Monday called for the two teachers to be disciplined, saying the survey was a form of sexual harassment by teachers against students.
"If somebody doesn't call them on it, it will continue," she said.
Both Principal Duane Woelfel and Patty Ruth, president of the Port Washington-Saukville School Board, said the survey was inappropriate and that proper authorization was not given before it was brought into classrooms.
"The message that really needs to go out at this point is that this administration will ensure that this type of survey will never go out again," Ruth said.
Woelfel said he has received complaints from about two dozen parents and community members regarding the survey. The principal said he was not aware of the survey until a parent gave him a copy a day after it was distributed.
"We were extremely concerned when we found out about it, and we're going to make sure that it doesn't happen again," Woelfel said.
The teachers who Woelfel said are responsible for the survey . . . .  could not be reached for comment.
Woelfel estimated that the survey was given to about 400 of the school's 930 students on April 25, the day before the national Day of Silence, an annual event co-sponsored by the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.
According to the Day of Silence Web site, the event is a "student-led day of action" that attempts to eliminate harassment of non-heterosexual students.
Woelfel said that, in connection with the Day of Silence, the school's Students for Unity spent the day visiting classrooms. They distributed the surveys and led discussions, he said.
Woelfel said that the Students for Unity's goal of trying to prevent harassment of all people with "alternative lifestyles" is good but that the survey was not appropriate. The two teachers "are very remorseful," he said.
Some of the questions apparently were intended to make heterosexuals understand what it's like to be gay or lesbian. Those questions included: "What do you think caused your heterosexuality?" and "When did you decide you were heterosexual?"
Students in the group presenting the survey were trying to convey that "students who have an alternative lifestyle get asked these questions every day, so please be considerate. It was an exercise in compassion and understanding that did not work out real well," Woelfel said.
Woelfel said the survey violated school policy because parents were not notified in advance and given the opportunity to decide whether their children should participate.
Students were mixed in their reactions.
Sophomore Justin Perry said he didn't like being surveyed because he is against homosexuality - although he doesn't think it's something that people should be harassed about.
Perry said he did not understand the point of spending a class period on the survey. "I know it's a survey," he said, "but what is it trying to teach us?"
Freshman Jaime Reuter said the survey caused such a stir that, even though her class didn't take the survey, her social studies teacher made it part of a class discussion a couple of days later.
Reuter said she would have been offended if asked to take the survey. "I shouldn't have to answer that because it's private information," she said.
Reuter said she was sympathetic to supporters of the survey who had hoped it would reduce harassment of homosexuals, but she thought the survey backfired.
"I think it just got people really, really mad," she said.
Woelfel said he is still investigating the incident but would decide soon, along with the superintendent's office, whether the two teachers will be disciplined.
He also said the staff is working on a proposal that would impose tighter rules on circulating surveys in schools.
Ruth, the School Board president, said the board's Policy Committee could begin discussing a new policy as early as next week.  [Click here for the whole story on the Internet.]
From the May 16, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel


The conflict referred to in the next article seems already underway in Canada--editor of BCPTL website:

Banned in Boston:
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
by Maggie Gallagher
05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."

It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."

How did this tragedy happen?

It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.

Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.

Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith."

But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.

Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.

To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important."

From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.

So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?

I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, "from Anglicans to Zoroastrians," as its founder Kevin J. Hasson likes to say (referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended).

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

"The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations." Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don't even notice that "the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."

For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly where the borders of church and state are located? "Wait a few years," Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers, there are boom times ahead. As one Becket Fund donor told Picarello ruefully, "At least you know you're not in the buggy whip business."

Picarello is a Harvard-trained litigator experienced in religious liberty issues. But predicting the legal consequences of as big a change as gay marriage is a job for more than one mind. So last December, the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: "All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming."

These are not necessarily scholars who oppose gay marriage. Chai Feldblum, for example, is a Georgetown law professor who refers to herself as "part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement leaders committed to advancing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] equality in this country." Marc Stern is the general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress. Robin Wilson of the University of Maryland law school is undecided on gay marriage. Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school has supported legalizing not only gay marriage but also polygamy.

Reading through these and the other scholars' papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead--perhaps because they tended to find it "inconceivable," as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that "a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage." That's a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a "long way" from equating orientation with race in the law.

By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that's pretty close to the world in which they live now.

[Click here to read the whole of the immediately foregoing  article.]

Scottish Parliament Plans to Go Ahead with Gay Adoption 

By Terry Vanderheyden

EDINBURGH, May 18, 2006 ( – An overwhelming majority of those involved in a consultation on adoption by same-sex couples in Scotland are opposed to the move – 89% according to Scotland’s Catholic prelate, Cardinal Keith O’Brien. Despite the opposition, lawmakers there plan to go ahead with the measure anyway.

That decision has prompted the Cardinal to threaten to opt out of the consultation process. “What is the point of all this consultation process continuing if it is going to be ignored?” he said in an interview with Vatican Radio.

“We know that children should be brought up in a stable society with one man and one woman,” Cardinal O’Brien emphasized. “When two gay people are living together, it is in no way like a marriage at all; it is a distorted experiment – a proving of gay unions in the first place; it’s further distorted by allowing a gay couple to adopt a child.”

“I cannot see how children can not be affected by being brought up in such a union,” O’Brien added. “No matter how good the two males or two females are at housekeeping or whatever else, the children growing up are bound to know that daddy is going to bed with another man or mommy is going to bed with another woman – it’s just not normal” compared to “what other children will be observing in their own homes. Consequently, I have described it as a distorted social experiment. In that redefining what we have always understood as marriage down through the centuries – this is a distortion.”

'Diversity Day' canceled 
Homosexual couple didn't want Christian [or ex-homosexual] viewpoint represented

 March 22, 2006

[Apparently the organizers of this event did not want too much diversity!--BCPTL website editor]

© 2006

Amid controversy over a homosexual speaker, a high school in Wisconsin has canceled its "Diversity Day" event scheduled for tomorrow.

Speakers at Viroqua High School in Viroqua, Wisc., for the biannual event were to include Hmong,  Jewish, Muslim, American Indian, African American, Latino, Buddhist, physically handicapped and poor people, the La Crosse Tribune reported.

The paper said, however, the event was called off late last week after the Florida-based public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel raised a potential challenge, insisting the program include the viewpoint of a former homosexual.

The last event, in 2004, initially was canceled by the school board after 400 people signed a petition protesting the inclusion of speakers on homosexual and transgender issues. The event was reinstated in the spring, however, when elections changed the board's membership.

This time, a fax from Liberty Counsel stated local pastor Don Greven of Bad Axe Lutheran Church and the grandfather of a senior at the high school raised concerns about no Christian, or formerly homosexual, viewpoint being included among the speakers, the Tribune reported.

Liberty Counsel argued a federal court in Michigan had ruled a similar exclusion unconstitutional.

"By excluding the Christian and ex-gay viewpoints, the (Viroqua) District violates the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection," the group said.

Greven, 61, told the paper diversity means, "in our understanding, that the various views are presented, and that was lacking."

Gregg Attleson, a teacher on the Diversity Day planning committee, told the LaCrosse paper the intent is to introduce students to minorities and people with alternative lifestyles.

"Our students are not going to be living their lives out in Viroqua," said Attleson. "They'll be out and about in the world - in jobs, in the military, in the university - and they're going to come into contact with people of different backgrounds. And we feel it would be real helpful for them in a nice safe place, like a high school, to have contact and be able to dispel some of the stereotypes."

Attleson said the homosexual couple scheduled to speak refused to be on the program alongside an "ex-gay" viewpoint, saying they would be uncomfortable.

The committee then decided it would be best to cancel the whole program.

The agenda was to feature two keynote speakers, a movie and small-group discussions with three of the 10 speakers.

Attleson said students were free to choose which small groups to attend and could opt out of the program if parents contacted the school in advance.

"Non-positive groups were not what we were going for," said committee member Ellen Byers in response to the decision to cancel.

The homosexual couple's appearance was not about "proselytizing" or alienating people, she said. The planners wanted to help resolve misunderstandings about the issue because the school has homosexuals among its student body.

"It's ironic, because we're trying to be tolerant and at the same time we might be accused of being intolerant, said Byers, an English teacher.  
[For more WorldNetDaily articles, click her]

Brokeback:  Understanding Propaganda

By Dr. R. Winfield
The most effective propaganda comes in under the radar, it's innocuous and appeals to our humanity and emotions. Having studied propaganda and its effects on societies for over 50 years, I can state unequivocally that the film Brokeback Mountain is one of the most blatant propaganda pieces of recent times.

In a society that is purposely and effectively dumbed down, the rarest and most valuable of commodities is discernment. Increasingly crucial, discernment is an attribute of astute acumen, and vital as your enemy uses crafty subtlety. As a people, we have lost discernment. Logic, rational and intellectual discourse, are shunned from the public square. Feelings, emotional sentiment and compassion are no longer tempered with intelligent reason. Now truth is sacrificed on the altar of "tolerance.  [Click here to read the whole article online.]

Kentucky Governor Sued After Baptist College Expels 
Student for Gay Lifestyle

By Gudrun Schultz

WILLIAMSBURG, Kentucky, April 27, 2006 ( – A gay-rights group has launched a lawsuit against Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher for his decision to allow a Baptist university to receive state funding. The school expelled a student earlier this month for “engaging in and promoting” homosexuality.

The University of the Cumberlands expelled 20-year-old Jason Johnson after the student discussed his gay boyfriend on a popular student website. The school’s policy on “attitude and conduct” in the 2005-06 student handbook states that participating in or promoting “sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside of marriage and homosexuality)” may result in suspension or expulsion from the university.

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance filed the lawsuit against Gov. Fletcher, saying the Kentucky Constitution prohibits the use of state tax money to support religious institutions or entities that are discriminatory, reported the Associated Press.

The University is slated to receive $10 million for a proposed pharmacy school and $1 million in funding for scholarships.

Gov. Fletcher said he would not veto the funding, but he would delay disbursement of the grant until the question of constitutionality was settled in court.

“I believe we need to answer once and for all in Kentucky the legality of funding private faith-based institutions for public purposes,” he said in a televised statement April 24.

University of the Cumberlands is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

To contact Governor Fletcher

To respectfully contact Kentucky Fairness Alliance
Click on underlined lines

Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, April 6, 2006 ( - A decision by Canada's broadcast regulator, the CRTC, yesterday approved a new all-homosexual radio station in Toronto. It is the first new English-language radio station approved by the CRTC since 2001.  In 2003 the CRTC rejected the application for an all-Catholic radio station in Toronto.  This, despite the fact that about 2 million of Toronto's (GTA) population of 4.5 million identify themselves as Catholic and surveys have demonstrated that only 1% of Canadians identify as homosexual.

Evidence of homosexual activism at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is present in the decision rendered yesterday, as one of the conditions, set out by the CRTC, under which the radio station was permitted its licence was that they fund gay 'pride week'.  "The licensee shall contribute a minimum of $30,000 in each broadcast year to payments to musical artists showcased at the Pride Week celebrations," said the ruling. (see it in full here: )

In 2003, the CRTC rejected the application of the Catholic Radio Endeavour which attempted to commence an English-language all-Catholic radio station in the city, which is home to some two million Catholics.  Tony Gosnach, a member of the Catholic Radio Endeavour, told, "After putting in lots of hard work, not to mention large amounts of money, toward an ultimately unsuccessful application for a full-time Catholic radio station in Toronto, I and others involved in that effort are appalled to learn that our federal broadcast regulatory body approved a gay FM radio station for Toronto."  (To read about that effort: )

Gosnach, a Catholic writer, assistant editor of the Interim and a member on the editorial board of Catholic Insight, has called on Catholics to express their concerns to their members of parliament, the Canadian Heritage Ministry and the CRTC.

To send concerns to the Canadian Heritage Ministry email:

To register a complaint with the CRTC visit:

See related past LifeSiteNews reports:




Canada Broadcast Regulators Allow Al Jazeera and CNN, Fox News still under Consideration


From Article 8 in Massachusetts,  :
Judge sets July 10 date for trial in homosexual activist lawsuit 
against Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition [of Massachusetts] for exposing "Fistgate" in Apl 2, 2002

The homosexual movement continues to use whatever methods it can to "punish" and destroy anyone who gets in its way, and to intimidate anyone else from exposing their activities with children.

On Monday, July 10, [2006] the trial is scheduled to begin against Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition in the lawsuit being brought against them by Margot Abels, lesbian activist and former state employee who was fired for her involvement in a workshop where children were taught about hard-core homosexual sex.

Abels is claiming that her "free speech rights" were violated and says she is seeking "injunctive relief, compensatory damages including damages for emotional distress," as well as attorneys' fees.

The American Family Association Center for Law and Policy has taken the case free of charge. AFA attorneys Stephen Crampton and Michael DePrimo were in Boston this week for the hearing. In addition, Michael Williams of the Center for Constitutional Law is representing Scott Whiteman.

"This is an incredible miscarriage of justice, and the law they are using is clearly unconstitutional," said Crampton. "We will appeal this case until we obtain justice, up to and including the US Supreme Court."

At the hearing, Abels' lawyer reiterated that one of her objectives is to keep Camenker, Whiteman, and PRC from being able to disseminate information to anyone about this incident.

Click here for photos from the hearing:

The judge also set June 6 for a final preliminary hearing, to discuss witnesses and other issues pertaining to the trial.

Click here for the Mass News article describing how depraved this "Fistgate" conference was. You will see why the homosexual movement will do anything to keep us from talking about it.

Click here for more background. This is the SECOND lawsuit that the homosexual movement has attempted against us on the "Fistgate" incident.

The homosexual movement is very serious about changing society, and proselytizing children in the public schools with their behavior. But we are not backing down! If this is to remain a free country, then we ALL need to be just as serious about stopping them! If we allow them to win this, then they will have succeeded in spreading fear across Massachusetts -- and across the country -- to anyone who would confront their activities in the public schools.

There will be a lot more on this coming up!


Horrendous Pro-Homosexuality School Bill in California Assembly

From California
Capitol Resource Institute

The History and Danger of AB 606
[Note:  Compare this California bill with the move to compel British Columbia schools to carry pro-homosexuality materials.  See article below entitled "Corren Case Moves Forward."]

AB 606 (D-Levine) was recently amended to require broad-sweeping changes to indoctrinate school children concerning homosexual, bisexuality and transsexuality.

As amended, AB 606 would require California school districts to take specified actions to increase awareness and prevent incidences of discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender. It would also require curriculum read by young school children to contain information on accepting and embracing these various forms of sexuality.

If a school district fails to comply with the provisions in AB 606, the state superintendent has carte blanche discretion to withhold state-funding from that school district.

In order for you to understand exactly how disastrous AB 606 really is, you need to know a little background information.

AB 606 builds on AB 537, the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (SSVPA).

AB 537 added two new forms of discrimination (actual or perceived sexual orientation and actual or perceived gender) to the list of discrimination prohibited in California's public schools. In the spring of 2000, Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin established the AB 537 Advisory Task Force to identify, research, and recommend guidelines for implementing the SSVPA. The goal was to ensure that "AB 537 did not become another law that sat on a bookshelf."

AB 606 is an effort to codify (make mandatory) some of the more outrageous AB 537 Task Force recommendations.

The AB 537 Task Force recommended that resources are used to "create positive, grade-appropriate visual images that include all sexual orientations and gender identities for use in school common areas throughout the school year."

The Task Force also recommended that public schools "acknowledge lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender historical figures and related events, concepts, and issues in the revisions of content standards and curriculum frameworks, when appropriate."

Additionally, it recommended that public schools "identify and expand the available lesbian, gay, bisesxual, and transgender resources for school library materials."

These specific goals are satisfied by AB 606.

AB 606 would repeal current provisions in the law that keep curriculum from being forced on school districts in order to advance SSVPA objectives. In other words, AB 606 would mandate that curriculum and classroom time be used to teach children to embrace homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

AB 606 would require all public schools to do what is currently being done at San Leandro High School in the Bay Area.

At San Leandro High School, a rainbow-flag poster, with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride, and containing a pro-homosexual message, has been ordered to be posted in all classrooms. Five teachers have protested, based on their religious convictions. This has resulted in a standoff between these teachers and the school administration.

Pushing homosexual indoctrination on young children is being packaged and sold in the name of "preventing violence." No one wants incidences of violence to occur on school campus. Violence is never acceptable on public school grounds. AB 606, however, goes beyond addressing violence on school campus.

If the goal were simply to prevent violence, legislation could be enacted to ensure that public school administrators promptly address all incidences of violence when they occur, regardless of what they are about.

AB 606 is not about safe schools, it's about molding and shaping the minds of young children to accept various forms of sexuality regardless of what their parents or religious beliefs tell them.

AB 606 will surely conflict with parental rights and the religious beliefs of both parents and students.

McGill University Homosexual Activists Shut Down Blood Clinic
Protesters told to “lie about your sexual history”

MONTREAL, February 1, 2006 ( - A group of homosexual activists have shut down a Montreal blood donor clinic that was screening out sexually active “gay” men. 10 to15 men showed up at the McGill University blood drive Wednesday, dressed in women’s clothes and waving sex toys.

Workers with the Quebec blood agency found an anonymous note posted in men's bathrooms encouraging homosexual donors to lie on their blood donor questionnaire.

The note urged the men to "act faggy" and "lie about your sexual history."

A homosexual activist group called Queer McGill condemned the agency’s lifetime ban on sexually active homosexuals as discriminatory. Medical realities, however, give little room for pandering to political correctness and the agency, not willing to take chances, shut down the clinic. The agency’s policy is to refuse men who have had sex with another man since 1977.

Andre Roch, a spokesperson with the agency said, “When we collect blood, we collect blood for patients. And what we must do is ensure safety is paramount.”

In 1998, the federal and provincial governments paid out $1.1 billion in compensation to Canadians who had been infected with hepatitis C from transfusions of tainted blood through the 1980’s. This followed a previous payout by the federal government in 1989, of $150 million for 1,250 Canadians infected with HIV.



Christians slam 'homophobia' resolution
European Parliament's action equates condition to racism, anti-Semitism
February 1, 2006
By Mary Jo Anderson
© 2006
The European Parliament's recently passed resolution "Homophobia in Europe" has raised alarms among European pro-family groups, Christians and others who worry the measure is a move to cut off public debate over same-sex unions and force universal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.
The controversial resolution urging member states to ban "homophobia" states that "homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice, similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and sexism."
Homosexual activists point to recent tension, including so-called "hate speech," between traditional values and the growing public expression of homosexuality throughout Europe as the catalyst for the resolution. Last year, Premier Edmund Stoiber of Bavaria declared his intention to challenge Germany's proposed law favoring homosexual adoption. In June, conservatives in Spain took to the streets to protest the passing of same-sex unions.
Conflict between the newer Eastern European member states of the European Union is increasing. Poland, Latvia and Estonia have refused to permit homosexual unions. Italy also voted against homosexual unions, while Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain have legalized them. Poland's prime minister, Kazimeierz Marcinkiewicz, a founding member of the Christian-National Union Party, called for state protection against homosexual "contamination" of Polish culture. And Polish President Lech Kaczynski refused permission for "gay pride" demonstrations when he served as mayor of Warsaw. Lativa also disallowed homosexual-themed parades.
Homosexual advocates sought Parliament's passage of the "homophobia" resolution.
"It's a tragic thing that the term 'homophobia' has actually made its way into the resolution," said, Jane Adolphe, associate professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Mich. "Even though a resolution is legally non-binding, if the term is used often enough in official documents it eventually becomes part of customary international law." A nation may be bound by customary law, even when that nation has not specifically enacted into its domestic law the provisions held in international customary law.
American Family Association Center for Law & Policy agrees that the European resolution should stir American family advocates into immediate action "before it is too late." The organization's chief counsel, Steve Crampton, believes that the European resolution can have an impact on American Courts.
"Our Supreme Court seems enamored with citing foreign sources of law… what happens in the European Union today is going to become the law and policy of America tomorrow," noted Crampton.
Adolphe noted that a defense against the term "homophobia" reaching binding power in treaties and thus legal force for nations such as the United States is to employ the "persistent objector principle."
"By constantly objecting to the term in formal statements, in voting records at international fora, by inserting reservations into all documents, a nation declares its intention to be free of the term," she said.
Though German homosexual-rights activist Jörg Litwinschuh admitted that the resolution is little more than a wish list at the moment, he predicted that sanctions against non-compliant nations will be the next step.
"If nothing changes, sanctions have to happen," he said. Litwinschuh spearheads the Queer Nations Initiative lobby.
European Justice Minister Franco Frattini moved last week to make sanctions against those nations a reality. Frattini replaced Rocco Buttiglione at the Parliament when Buttiglione was rejected for his stand against homosexual marriages. In Strasburg, Frattini announced that nations that did not eliminate all forms of discrimination, including the approval of homosexual "marriages," would be subject to sanctions and eventual expulsion from the European Union.
The European resolution also attempts to locate homosexuality in the category of racism by calling on member states to "fully recognize homosexuals as targets and victims of the Nazi regime." Litwinschuh was also instrumental in pressing the city of Berlin to build a memorial for homosexuals persecuted by the Nazis.
The comparison to racism is not valid, according to Adolphe: "Race is an immutable characteristic, homosexual acts are a chosen behavior."
Some are stunned at the speed with which the homophobia resolution has been applied to everyday life in Europe, despite its non-binding status. Of particular concern for Christians, Jews and Muslims is this statement in the resolution that mentions religious freedom and the rights of conscience: "Homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms such as hate speech … and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind reasons of public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection."
Adolphe noted that a "phobia" is a psychiatric term and thus only a doctor could determine if a set of behaviors amounted to the condition of "homophobia."
"We could say that homosexual advocates have an aversion to, a phobia of, heterosexuals, a 'heterophobia,'" said Adolphe "Is it a phobia if you want to discuss outlawing homosexual 'marriages,' a policy only allowed in four countries in the universe? To suggest so is an infringement on the right to free expression, free speech."
Free speech and religious freedom are uppermost in the response of people of faith. Aldo Giordano, secretary-general of the Council of European Bishops' Conferences, told Vatican Radio: "The declaration shows an aversion for certain values of our tradition, notably religious values. … Such resolutions risk de-legitimizing the European Parliament. It should be clear that certain subjects, especially those relating to the family, are not within the direct competence of the European Union but are the recognized competence of nations."
Cardinal Camillo Ruini denounced the "equating the rights of homosexual couples with those of true and legitimate families."
According to Euro-Fam, an interdenominational family advocacy organization, the pressure of the resolution on free speech is ominous:
"It is important to note that quoting biblical passages dealing with homosexuality have led to imprisonment and to legal actions in the past on the basis of so-called homophobia. Hence, it is disturbing that the resolution does not clearly reaffirm the freedom of religion and even seems to want to suppress the freedom of expression (for those who wish to refer to the Bible)."
Angelika Niebler, a member of a conservative German group of MEPs voted against the resolution, saying, "I think that this is a case of Europe getting involved in things that are none of Europe's business."
Euro-Fam's newsletter states: "The EU must not interfere with the EU Member States in matters which concern the right to private life and family rights, freedom of thought, of conscience and the religious freedom: it has no competence in these fields. The EU Member States must be able to preserve their national family laws."


Fairy Tales Don't Come True:
Impressionable Kids and Homosexuality

Linda Harvey

Josh is thirteen, and like many kids his age, he's often unhappy. Everything about his life is uncertain. He's only 5'4" and many of the girls in his middle school class are taller than he is. He has no idea how his body will end up. Will he be tall, short, plain, handsome? He's slightly overweight and hasn't found a sport he excels in. He only has two or three close friends. Sometimes his voice changes an entire octave, up or down, at a moment's notice. He is an average student, and sometimes dreads going to school, because it doesn't interest him much.

On top of all this, Josh has troubles at home. His parents don't get along. His father works long hours, and his mother yells a lot. She's stressed out over unpaid bills, problems with his older sister, who sometimes uses drugs, and her own ongoing treatment for depression. They don't have family dinners except around holidays, and they haven't been on a family vacation in two years. Josh can't remember the last time he had a conversation with either parent involving more than two sentences.

In other words, Josh is a fairly typical American adolescent. His family only has casual ties to a church, and his parents consider themselves moderate politically, when they have time or interest to think about it.

Josh's standards, therefore, are being formed not by parents of high character, but by the American culture, including television, his public school and the Internet. That's where he developed a keen curiosity about sex and it's also where he gets his information and values. And his values right now are leaning toward believing he is a homosexual.

He has absorbed the information at school that most homosexuals are victims of terrible discrimination, even sometimes violence, so "good" people are those who accept homosexuality, bisexuality and gender changes. Most of his teachers believe homosexuality isn't a choice, and that students who have same sex attractions should just accept them. At least three separate school programs left him with these ideas: a book on different types of families his teacher read to them in third grade; a sixth grade anti-bias and "tolerance" unit; and an assignment in his literature class where he read a novel about teen boys exploring homosexuality.

After reading that book, he got on the Internet, found some web sites (including several "gay" porn sites) and decided he was homosexual. He wanted to talk to someone but his parents were too busy, and they probably wouldn't really object much anyway. The church they sometimes attend had a sermon last year about the hatefulness of those "other" churches that disapprove of homosexuality. His dad said he thought the minister was probably "gay" and his mom just nodd

Josh has no significant barriers to exploring homosexuality, because he has never heard or read an opposing viewpoint. Not at school, not on any TV sitcoms, not on the Internet (because relatively few sites exist), and not at his church.

If he's a homosexual, he thinks, this would explain why he craves being close to other boys. Sometimes he thinks it's just because he never sees his dad, but he's not sure. Also, girls aren't interested in him. Girls seem like a lot of trouble. It would be so much more fun to be physical with someone who likes the same things he does--Nintendo, movies and role-playing games. And having sex without any thoughts of pregnancy, commitment and all that serious stuff. Wouldn't that be great? Besides, he was physically aroused looking at "gay" porn sites. Doesn't that prove he must be a homosexual?
[Read the rest of this Mission America article on homosexuality and impressionable youth.  The article is written from a Christian standpoint.]

Noted U.S. Psychologists Condemn Gay Activist Influence on APA
Accuse mental-health associations of allowing gay activists to distort research

By Gudrun Schultz

LOS ANGELES, United States, December 20, 2005 ( – Senior members of the psychological community delivered a scathing condemnation of the American Psychological Association (APA), at the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) conference last month.

Dr. Nicolas Cummings, Ph.D, a former president of the APA, said pro-homosexual social activist influence has undermined the scientific legitimacy of psychological research within the organization.

Dr. Cummings charged that research by the APA is now limited to projects where “they know what the outcome is going to be…only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible.” (reported by Linda Ames Nicolosi for the NARTH website).

Cummings expressed his concern over the APA’s backing for legalized gay marriage, which was recommended by the APA in 2004 because it would “promote mental health,” among members of the gay community. That decision, said Cummings, was based upon vague research which indicated “loving relationships are healthy’’ in a general sense.

“That was one of the worst resolutions, ” Cummings said. “ When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise.” Otherwise “very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization—just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting.”

Dr. Rogers Wright, Ph.D, co-author with Cummings of their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, criticized the APA for failing to live up to the organization’s long-held ideal of openness to diversity. The organization deliberately avoided issuing a response to the book and, at first, forbade its member-publications from reviewing it.

“So much for diversity and open-mindedness,” said Wright.

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., spoke at length on the ethical misuse of scientific literature in recent legal cases that have laid the foundation for major changes in family-law policy.

Satinover accused mental-health associations of allowing gay activists to distort research in order to support their own social and political agendas, on a scale he finds “appalling beyond imagination.”

 Among the methods used to falsely support the gay agenda, he identified researchers who used their own work as references, who used active members of pro-paedophilia groups as sources, and who ignored current conflicting research in favor of obsolete, discredited work.

Dr. Dean Byrd, Ph. D, Chairman of NARTH’s Scientific Advisory Committee, read from a letter he sent to the APA, criticizing the organization for exercising a double standard toward individuals who express a desire to return to heterosexuality:
”Though not all of the patients that NARTH members treat are religious, many are. Is it not a blatant disregard for their religious values and an affront to real diversity to marginalize these individuals by failing to acknowledge their right to choose how they will adapt sexually?

APA’s continuous message of respect for diversity rings hollow if it does not represent different worldviews…either you support client autonomy or you do not; either you support client self-determination or you do not; either your actions reflect diversity, or they do not.”

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, and is the world’s largest association of psychologists.

See related articles:

APA Endorses Homosexual “Marriage”

APA Ignored Evidence that Homosexual Behavior is Part of Psychiatric Disorder Says Noted Psychiatrist

For the full article on NARTH go to:

For the APA’s full statement in support of legal civil unions between gays, see:

Corren case moves forward
[excerpt from an article in Xtra West, a homosexual periodical]

EDUCATION / July hearing next step in battle against education ministry

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has taken the next step in a long-running battle between a queer married couple and the BC Ministry of Education.

Murray Corren, a Coquitlam elementary school teacher, and his husband Peter Corren filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Commission seven years ago this month.

In it, they allege the ministry "discriminates against non-heterosexual students, and their parents, regarding a service that is customarily available to the public because of their sexual orientation."

The complaint specifically refers to a social studies curriculum for students in Grades 8 to 10 that dealt with inclusion and diversity of minorities, but made no mention of queer issues.

The case went before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in on Jul 11, 2005.

"[We] shall bring evidence to prove that the ministry has not only been guilty of discrimination by omission, but by commission," wrote Peter Corren in a letter to Egale Canada in April. "We shall prove ministry officials have endeavoured to suppress anything to do with queer issues being included in curriculum."

But the hearing was abruptly adjourned on the opening day, before any testimony could be heard, because the tribunal hadn't received a complete copy of the complaint and because the ministry wanted to redefine the scope of the complaint.

As the hearing was adjourned, tribunal member Judy Parrack promised to rule on the scope issue by the end of 2005 to ensure the hearing could proceed as quickly as possible, but the Correns are unavailable until July of 2006.

In her Nov 2 ruling on the scope Parrack wrote: "Although I understand that both parties recently retained new counsel, and they should be commended for having spent considerable time and effort preparing for a difficult hearing, it does not explain why, six years after [the initial complaint] was filed, the scope of it was still in question. It has resulted in wasted tribunal resources and, in my view, is unfair to both parties."

When the hearing recommences this summer, most of the social studies materials initially referred to in the Correns' complaint will be on the table, Parrack ruled. . . . .

[For background to the article immediately above, see the article below, published by BCPTL earlier on this site.] 


"B.C. Gay Couple  Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum without Parental Opt-Out"
VANCOUVER, B.C. July 11, 2005 ( – A British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is preparing to hear what pro-family and religious groups are calling a truly frightening case. Murray and Peter Corren, a B.C. gay couple, filed a complaint against the B.C. Ministry of education in 1999 alleging that the Ministry’s curriculum didn’t adequately “address issues of sexual orientation.” That case is slated to be heard beginning today.

“Basically, there is systemic discrimination through omission and suppression of queer issues in the whole of the curriculum,” alleges Murray Corren, who is an elementary school teacher in Port Coquitlam.

What many are finding deeply disturbing, however, is that the Corren’s are not only seeking inclusion of explicitly homosexual material in the curriculum, promoting homosexuality as a normative and safe lifestyle option, but also that they wish to ensure that the material is mandatory.

If successful, the case will ensure that parents do not retain the right to choose to pull their children from the offensive portion of the curriculum and provide yet another extraordinary exception from normal rules because it has been insisted upon by gay activists. Homosexual activists have won exceptions from laws regarding public nudity, sexual solicitation, public sex acts, group sex in their so-called "bath houses", normal medical safeguards to contain the transmission of dangerous communicable diseases, the posting of sexually explicit billboards and much more.

The gay couple’s legal council, Tim Timberg, said, “The second issue is there’s an opting-out provision in the curriculum that where a subject is deemed to be sensitive, the school teachers are under an obligation to in advance advise parents that they’ll be raising a sensitive issue in the classroom.” The Human Rights Complaint seeks to remove sexual orientation from the list of ‘sensitive’ issues.

“If we are going to be providing and promoting curriculum that treats homosexuality as just a normal thing that’s really no different than heterosexuality, we will be trampling on the religious freedoms of thousands of British Columbia families,” said Derek Rogusky, vice-president of family policy at Focus on the Family.

“Already what the schools are teaching and what’s going on in the schools are often in opposition to what parents are teaching at home and what they hold up as the ideal,” he said, “and this will just further that.”

Although the complaint was filed in 1999, the recent passing of Bill C-38 in the Canadian Parliament greatly increases the likelihood that the disturbing case will receive the ear of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

See also "Gays Want 'Queer Issues'  in Schools" (on site)

What Do These Societal Symptoms Tell Us?

Do they indicate that the pro-homosexuality movement is causing  children to choose dangerous behaviour?  And what has been the effect of that movement on young adults' attitudes to so-called "gay marriage"?

The following is an excerpt from the article "The Battle Over Gay Teens" (TIME Magazine, Oct. 2, 2005):

"Kids are disclosing their homosexuality with unprecedented regularity--and they are doing so much younger. The average gay person now comes out just before or after graduating high school, according to The New Gay Teenager, a book Harvard University Press published this summer. The book quotes a Penn State study of 350 young people from 59 gay groups that found that the mean age at which lesbians first have sexual contact with other girls is 16; it's just 14 for gay boys. In 1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs)--clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids--on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs--nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one--according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN, say "glisten"), which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day.

"The appearance of so many gay adolescents has, predictably, worried social conservatives, but it has also surprised gay activists, who for years did little to help the few teenagers who were coming out. Both sides sense high stakes. 'Same-sex marriage--that's out there. But something going on in a more fierce and insidious way, under the radar, is what's happening in our schools,' says Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, an influential conservative litigation group that earlier this year won a court order blocking a Montgomery County, Md., teachers' guide that disparaged Evangelicals for their views on gays. 'They'--gay activists--'know if they make enough inroads into [schools], the same-sex-marriage battle will be moot.'

"Most gay activists would rather swallow glass than say Mat Staver was right about something, but they know that last year's big UCLA survey of college freshmen found that 57% favor same-sex marriage (only about 36% of all adults do). Even as adult activists bicker in court, young Americans--including many young conservatives--are becoming thoroughly, even nonchalantly, gay- positive. From young ages, straight kids are growing up with more openly bisexual, gay and sexually uncertain classmates. In the 1960s, gay men recalled first desiring other males at an average age of 14; it was 17 for lesbians. By the '90s, the average had dropped to 10 for gays and 12 for lesbians, according to more than a dozen studies reviewed by the author of The New Gay Teenager, Ritch Savin-Williams, who chairs Cornell's human-development department."

Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son's kindergarten class.

"Because of the same-sex marriage law people are treating this as a mandate to teach the youngest of children." 
        - David Parker, parent of 6-year-old, arrested Apr. 27

What you are about to read and see below is shocking and frightening, something that no one would have believed possible in America. But now in Massachusetts, propelled by the same-sex "marriage" ruling, this could become commonplace. Each month this reign of madness becomes more aggressive.

(Last December in a neighboring city, police ordered two parents to immediately leave their kids' high school under threat of arrest when one of them began to videotape a schoolwide assembly promoting homosexuality and gay marriage. Claimed session must be private for kids' "safety".  Click here for report.)

On April 27, a Lexington, MA, parent, David Parker, was arrested by the Lexington police and charged with "trespassing" at his son’s elementary school during a scheduled meeting with the principal and the town’s Director of Education over his objections to homosexual curriculum materials. Parker had asked for notification and possible opt-out for his son for homosexual curriculum or ad-hoc discussions by adults in his son’s kindergarten class. After several months of communication, he was repeatedly told that his requests are "not possible." He finally said he would not leave the meeting until this was resolved.

After being arrested and spending the night in jail, Parker was arraigned on Thursday, April 28, in Concord District Court. When he informed Judge Robert McKenna that he had not been allowed to call his lawyer, the judge scolded him for not being respectful. Parker was released on $1,000 surety bond. A hearing is scheduled for June 1. He was officially informed that he may not set foot on any school property in Lexington, or he will be arrested again for trespassing.


Statement by David Parker (April 27, 2005):

“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously”.

“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”

Click here to see email exchange between parents and principal.
You will also see the timeline of events starting in January and leading up to the final meeting, and the arrest. Quite enlightening.

[Click here to visit the "Article 8 website the article immediately above is taken from.]

  BC Appeals Court says Schools Must Create “Homophobia-Free” Environment

VANCOUVER [British Colkumbia], April 11, 2005 ( - In 1996, Azmi Jubran, a grade ten student at Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver filed a complaint against his school and the North Vancouver School Board for failing to act decisively to stop what he called ‘homophobic’ harassment. He said that, although he was not homosexual himself, he underwent years of teasing and bullying by fellow students who called him ‘gay,’ ‘faggot,’ and ‘queer,’ and assaulted him. 

Jubran described his experiences: “Having a group of kids come after me, during school, after school, and punching me, kicking me, spitting at me. I had my shirt lit on fire in the classroom.” Instead of charging the students or the school under existing statutes prohibiting harassment and assault, however, Jubran made the issue one of ‘discrimination,’ and brought in the homosexual ideologues for support. 

The BC Human rights tribunal found in his favour, ruling that the North Vancouver School Board must deal with the problem of ‘homophobia’ in the schools in a systemic manner and not on a case-by-case basis. The School Board appealed and in 2003,  although agreeing that the behavior of the students made Jubran’s life a “living hell,” the Court ruled that Jubran had no case because Jubran himself is not a homosexual and his teenage tormentors knew it and admitted as much in court.

On April 7, 2005, the BC Court of Appeal agreed with the original Human Rights Tribunal decision and ruled that the School Board is “responsible for the discrimination as it had failed to provide an educational environment free from discriminatory harassment.” 

Jubran’s lawyer, Frances Kelly, said the ruling confirms that schools will be required to institute programmes endorsing homosexuality as a normal ‘lifestyle,’ under the auspices of creating a ‘discrimination-free’ environment. “The court confirms that the tribunal was correct in saying that the school must share responsibility for the environment that is created.”

In the past the schools were allowed  to deal with such problems by the judicious use of moderate corporal punishment or other forms of decisive discipline for bullies. Now, the abolition of effective punishment in schools and a culture of permissiveness and disciplinary timidity – developed out of anything-goes parenting philosophies of the 1970’s – have emasculated school authorities forcing the intervention of outside authorities in cases of serious bullying. This often leaves perpetrators to continue their attacks with impunity. 

The Appeals Court decision cited the ineffectual manner in which Jubran’s harassers were dealt with by the school. “These (disciplinary actions) included discussing with the offending students the inappropriateness of their behavior and warning them of escalating consequences including detentions, notification of parents or police, suspensions and possibly expulsions if they repeated their behavior.” School officials admitted that they did not change their strategy although they knew the actions were ineffective.

The court, however, instead of addressing the issue as one of criminal acts of the students, agreed with the Human Rights Tribunal decision that the School Board failed to “fulfill its duty to provide Mr. Jubran with an educational environment free from discriminatory harassment.” This decision creates an onus on School Boards to begin what amounts to indoctrination curriculums on the acceptability of homosexuality.

The ruling reads, “Although the School Board took a number of steps to deal with specific incidents involving Mr. Jubran, the Tribunal found that it did not address homophobia or homophobic harassment among students on a more general basis.”  

Homosexual activist organizations are already dictating to schools in Ontario the ‘proper’ way to address anti-gay harassment in schools. The Court’s decision mentions that the Toronto Board of Education issued a ‘resource guide’ for schools from a group called, “GALE,” the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia.


The Closing Down of Free Speech?
School Board “Guilty” of Democratic Behaviour

               A local school board is ordered to implement a policy that a great many parents and other citizens object to.  The board, at the request of many citizens, decides to hold public meetings to air the issue.  Isn’t that a course of action which a democratically elected body might be expected to follow?   But Surrey School Board in British Columbia has been hauled before a Human Rights Tribunal for doing just that.  

               The Supreme Court of Canada had ordered the School Board to reconsider its refusal to approve as  teaching materials three books promoted by the pro-homosexuality lobby.  One might have thought that public input was appropriate to such a reconsideration.  But, according to the press, the lawyer for the complainants said   “that  . . . central to his case was the issue of why the meetings even took place since the Supreme Court justices ordered the board to review its decision and made no mention of any necessity for public input.”  Since when, one might ask, must a local government wait for a Supreme Court order before it provides for public input on a public issue?

               In any public meeting there is an element of unpredictability, and those who hold one position are liable to be sometimes offended by the views of those on the other side.  This should not give those so offended the right to shut down debate, particularly on the spurious grounds that disagreement with their views or life-style is necessarily evidence of hatred.   As the lawyer for the school board is quoted as saying, “. . . the free expression of opinion  within a democratic system contemplates debate which may offend others.”   The only society where a group is completely protected against offence would be an extremely repressive one.  Yet the complainants appear to think that the possibility of their having hurt feelings is sufficient grounds to shut down public discussion of a controversial issue.

               At the school-board meeting where BC Parents and Teachers for Life presented their brief (entitled 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”  [to be found on the "Essays" page of this website]) there were a great many substantive points made by people who opposed a school board’s being forced to propagandize for a favourable view of homosexual behaviour.  Apparently the complainants to the Human Rights Tribunal wish that no such views should be heard.   What we are seeing, without a doubt, is an attempt by a small lobby group to shut down public debate on a public issue.   The totalitarian nature of their thinking should be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of concern for freedom of speech. 

Background to the essay immediately above:
The closing down of free speech?  
The story immediately below seems to us to have sinister significance.  It would appear that the activists who are taking a local school board before the Human Rights Tribunal object to parents and their allies even being given a chance to publicly discuss certain decisions which would affect children's education.  If it was unclear to some why Bill C-250 was so vigorously opposed, this article should indicate the reason:  the totalitarian bent that underlies efforts to shut down opposition to the pro-homosexuality agenda.

From The Now [a newspaper serving Surrey and Delta in British Columbia], online edition, as updated Nov., 17, 2004:

Lesbians, school board in battle
By Marisa Babic

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing testimony from witnesses this week in a highly controversial case involving two lesbians and the Surrey school board.

At issue are two meetings hosted last June by the school board to hear public views on three books about same-sex parents, after the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the board to take another look at its decision to ban the books from kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms.

Kim Forster and Carol Pegura claim that trustee Mary Polak, who was chair of the school board at the time and host of the meetings, failed to maintain a tone of respect and tolerance at the meetings. As a result, they were subjected to discrimination and sometimes vile homophobic statements by members of the public based on their sexual orientation.

Lawyer Timothy Timberg told the Vancouver hearing that central to his case was the issue of why the meetings even took place since
the Supreme Court justices ordered the board to review its decision 
and made no mention of any necessity for public input. 
[The foregoing paragraph bold-faced by editor of BCPTL website.]

Timberg said the board was aware of "open homophobia" in the community and suggested the board held the meetings to bolster its decision to disallow the books, Belinda's Bouquet, Asha's Mums, and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads.

"Why did the school board hold special open public meetings?"

Later, Timberg told reporters that his clients were shocked and dismayed by some of the com-
ments made about homosexuality.

"Their evidence will be that it was not about the books. It was about the homosexual lifestyle and it was equating homosexuality with quite deplorable statements of bestiality - this presumption that homosexuals are pedophiles and criminally ill," 
he said, adding that the women were aghast that the comments were made at a school board meeting.

Timberg told the hearing Forster contacted school district officials after the June 3 meeting, to express her concerns over "a lack of control" at the tension-filled meeting but received no reply.

At Forster's request, however, stronger rules were in place for the June 9 meeting, measures which included security guards and intervention by Polak in response to anti-gay statements. 
[Notes by editor of the BCPTL website: 1. There was no indication for a particular need for security guards.  2.  Any opposition to the pro-homosexual agenda tends to be characterized as "anti-gay" by homosexual activists.]

Wendy Harris, lawyer for the school board, said her case will rest on the contention that restricting speech at public meetings is contrary to the freedom of expression and religion guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  

[Click here to read the whole article in The Now online.]
[To see the brief presented by BC Parents and Teachers for Life at one of the school-board meetings in question, click here.   We believe that a perusal of this brief will provide evidence of why it was a necessity that the school board put on the meetings. ]


What the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia 
Have Planned for Your Children

Parents of British Columbia should be aware of the plans GALE BC has for their children.  The website of GALE BC has a revealing list of objectives.  Here is a list of those objectives listed under "Projects":
[The listing is prefaced on the GALE BC by the following:
"A couple of years ago, members of organizations concerned with lgbt issues and involved with youth and education, to discuss what the "Ideal School" would look like. There were many great ideas and discussions . . . ."

[An asterisk in front of an item denotes an item that was considered high priority.]



* Representation of queers throughout curriculum. Queer issues should be considered a cross-curricular issue (P);


Provincially required and approved queer-friendly resources. (P);


* Queer fiction and non-fiction in libraries, classrooms (P, SB, S);


* Insert queers into history, literature, art, film; represent queer families in family studies, home ec, CAPP; queer-sensitive sex ed that is incorporated and not optional; comprehensive view of queer issues in religion discussions; culturally inclusive history of queer issues. Including same-sex couples (P, SB);


* Early sex-ed discusses transgenderism/intersexuality in 'puberty' classes and biology. Break down myth that there are only two sexes;


* Required courses on different forms of oppression, including sexism, racism, homophobia (P);


Trans people represented throughout curriculum materials;


Talk about cultures that have more diverse representation of gender;


Blackboard depicting queer-friendly/multicultural novels for novel studies;


Famous queers in history;


Discussions on Media/Stereotypes, advertising which influences culture negatively;


No corporate influence which influences culture negatively;


Gender inclusive/neutral language for individuals/families.





* Policy protection/support for all queer members of school communities (P, SB);


* Intensive anti-homophobia (and social issues) training for all adults in school--new, etc (BC College of Teachers);


* Students need an avenue for complaints, need advocates and an appeal system that is separate from school administration--an ombudsperson to collect stats about homophobic incidents, report line through safe schools centre, etc (P, Independent Body);


* Admin should deal with students who harass, not force queer kids in the closet. Admin should take public stand against homophobic acts (SB, Principal's Association);


*Queer issues must be taught in teacher ed programs (BCCT/Univ);


* Min of Ed writes clear policy that names homophobia and outlines strategies for school districts to eliminate it and IMPLEMENTS IT (P);


Teachers feel safe to come out, talk about partners, wear queer cultural symbols (SB);


Increased number of councillors in school who are knowledgeable about GLBT/Social Issues. (University programs, BCTF sensitivity training);


Teachers comfortable addressing issues other than usual curriculum in classroom (BCTF sensitivity training);


Teachers should use inclusive language: eg 'partner' instead of 'husband' or 'wife' (S);


Schools change forms so that 'co-parent', 'care-giver' or 'mother or father' signs, rather than 'legal guardian';


Remove 'male or female' boxes from forms--challenge binary;


Teachers and admin need to take parents' complaints of bullying seriously;


More democratic system with increased student input (S);


Administration and teachers more accessible (S).





* GLBT cultural/arts groups/speakers invited to give presentations/performance and workshops (SB, S);


* Visiting groups should be encouraged, such as guest speakers. Also, student field trips to queer community events and neighbourhood improvement projects (S);


Youth-centred community groups welcome (S);


Representation of all social issues in community involvement--ie poverty, violence, various abuses, etc (S, P);


Annual peer-run youth conferences(P, BCTF);


Parent involvement in workshops, info sessions. Workshops to increase the number of supportive parents. (PFLAG, PAC, DPAC, BCCPAC, BCTF);


On-line forums--more interactive for all voices (PFLAG, PAC, DPAC, BCCPAC, BCTF);


Needed: a vehicle to better utilize allies (PFLAG, PAC, DPAC, BCCPAC, BCTF);


Community funding, scholarship funds (Queer community GLBA, PFLAG, YQ, GAB, GALE, ASIA);


Info about human rights commission and its jurisdiction over schools available to students (P, School-to-school);


Same-sex parents active on PAC (S).





* GSA in every high school with same funding allotment as other clubs (P, SB);


* Student rep on PAC and GSA rep on student council (S);


* Peer mediators trained in sexual orientation issues to help students mediate incidences of homophobia. Confidential peer support programs. (S);


Clubs that focus on other issues queer people face--ie drugs, alcohol, violence;


Ensure that clubs don't become exclusive to one gender or race;


Different clubs do joint events;


Clubs should help each other address each other's issues;


GSA does sensitivity training for staff & students;





* Students take responsibility for monitoring abuse and name homophobia when they see it (S);


* Prevention, not just intervention (P, SB, S);


* Diversity Week and visibility of queer students (S, SB);


Same-sex couples at dances without having to ask permission or fear of violence;


Sensitivity training for students and discussion of LGTBQ culture and gender roles and cultural differences (PrideSpeaks);


Schools work on cooperation model instead of competition;


No pressure to come out until you're ready;


Same-sex couples holding hands in hallways;


Cross-dressing and gender-bending a common occurrence;


Free to talk about queer issues in school newspaper.





* Equitable visual and text representations and presence of queer cultural paraphernalia including rainbow stickers within reason (P, SB, S);


* An atmosphere that promotes open and safe discussions and a willingness to value all opinions and demonstrate mutual respect. Agree to disagree on some issues (SB, S);


* In all curriculum and in theatre/drama/choir material/choreography, do not presume heterosexuality or gender roles. Also, represent same-sex attraction (P, SB);


Queer-friendly posters with multicultural representations and diverse 'family' configuration in the pictures in class;


Varied gender expression is validated;


Expressions of homophobia and bullying are challenged;


Multi-age classrooms, in the hope that older students are positive role models and protectors for victims of bullying;


Students in non-traditional courses--ie girls in shop, boys in home ec--without negative repercussions;


Physical layout of classroom more flexible;


Guidelines rather than rules--allow for self-policing;


No gender segregation in classes--ie no separate lineups;


No presumptions about gender roles--ie if a girl takes shop it doesn't mean she's queer.


Portrait of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club in a Public School

Parents of students who attend high-school "gay-straight alliances" (GSAs) may not know what their young people are involved in. But a window on one such GSA is opened in the website it sponsors on the Internet. What is evident from that website is the fact that the GSA in this Vancouver school has been given a very free hand to propagandize the students of the school as a whole.

For example, on the "Current Events" page, where we learn about some of the GSA's activities, we read: "We kicked off our Safe Space Campaign in January. We distributed a six-coloured, gay pride rainbow sticker to every teacher, counsellor, administrator and other staff members to display in their classroom, office, or whatever space they are usually in. By displaying the sticker, they are showing their acceptance and support of the gay, lesbian, transgendered and questioning students (and staff) in our school. The responce [sic], so far, has been largely positive. . . . . Look for the stickers posted around the school!"  We can imagine the pressure on the teachers and administrators to accept the gay pride stickers. Obviously, they would have been judged lacking in their support for needy students, if they refused.

On the same page we are told:

"CHAT [The acronym for this GSA] is happy to announce we have started THEME meetings. We will be focusing [sic] on various topics of discussion and will be inviting YOU to come join us! . . . . CHAT has combined efforts with Student Council to have next years [sic] matchmaker provide a form that will be all inclusive and will give each person the option of who they would like to be matched with (same or opposite sex, or both!)"

We think many of our readers will be interested in the efforts of this Gay-Straight Alliance to re-educate students in the field of religion. To get an idea of this, we can go to the website's page entitled "Multi-Cultural Pages and Religious Aspects." On this page the web-site editor expresses his (or her) opinion as follows: "Religious guilt perpetuates self-hatred. Below are pages challenging and providing discussions and alternatives to the conventional negative approach to homosexuality that many religions have. As one gay teen stated, 'One of the worst results of their [religions'] antics is the damage to the self-worth and self-esteem of gay teenagers'.."

The web page gives links to quite a number of sites. What is obvious is the fact that what is portrayed is a contrast between churches of traditional morality and those that are accepting of homosexual behaviour. For example, the write-up on one website reads: "This is a very friendly personal website by a gay female youth. She talks about her frustration with the negative portrayal and even condemnation of homosexuality by many religions and about her search for alternatives

. She provides links to her new-found faith within the church of Unitarian Universalism and to a site challenging the traditional interpretation of the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah."

The write-up for another website reads:

"This is a website of the Church of Unitarian Universalists. It has a link to The Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns, which talks about the church's open views and welcomes non-heterosexuals to join the church. The website has 'Planning Guide for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Worship Services' available to order."

Another write-up reads:

"Gay and Christian? You are not alone! Welcome to the website of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. We are the national network of gay and lesbian evangelical Christians and friends. . . ." We would judge that “Evangelicals Concerned Inc.” is an organization similar to "Catholics for Choice" - one attempting to influence others within a particular faith family but with beliefs quite contrary to the fundamental tenets of the group they are trying to influence.

The CHAT website has a good deal more that gives an insight into the methods by which a GSA can be used to influence a whole school. The questions that we must surely ask are: "What right does a public school have to turn over its resources of publicity to a group such as the GSA whose activities we have just had an insight into?" and "What measures should be taken to reverse the trend to the use of schools for pro-homosexuality propaganda that endangers our youth?"


In the United States (but relevant for many other countries):
Has media glorification of homosexuality produced a disturbing fad among teen girls of imitating lesbian behaviour?  The material in the Washington Post article of which the following is an excerpt raises some disturbing questions:

"Partway Gay?"
 (excerpt from an article by Laura Sessions Stepp)

  "Move over, Ellen DeGeneres, and make way for the younger girls. Way younger, actually, and way different from what most people think of as lesbians.
 "You can see this new trend on Friday nights outside Union Station, sweethearts from high schools around the Washington area, some locking lips, others hanging out in their tight blue jeans and puffy winter parkas, talking on their cell phones.
 "You can see them in the hallways of high schools like South Lakes in Reston, Magruder in Rockville or Coolidge in the District. In 2002  at Coolidge, a teacher got so fed up with girls nuzzling each other in class and other public places that he threatened to send any he saw to the principal's office. He admitted to students that he wouldn't report boy-girl kisses, setting off a furor among a student body that, the year before, had chosen a lesbian pair as the school's  cutest couple. . . ."  
[To read the whole article "Partway Gay" on the Washington Post website, click here, and use "Search."]

BC Parents and Teachers for Life Brief Against Approval of Pro-Homosexuality Books for Use as Teaching Materials
This brief, presented to Surrey School Board (in British Columbia, Canada) on June 3, 2003, is posted on our "Essays" page.  [Click here to reach it.]

Teacher "Tells How to Lure Students Into Homosexual Events"

MassNews Staff, April 1, 2003:
"In a "jam-packed" session, a religious studies teacher at Northfield Mount Hermon School, told the attendees at one of the Fistgate sessions on March 15, 2003, how to lure the students into homosexual events.
 . . . ."
"Linscott told about a GLBT dance at Northfield called the "Cross Dresser's Dance." It was the GSA kids' idea to have the dance, but almost nobody went because none of the kids wanted to be known as transsexuals.
"So Linscott said, "Let's call it a gender-bender dance and have fun with it, make fun of everything. So they did, and a lot of the faculty at the Northfield boarding school became involved. They took pictures of some of the male faculty members wearing dresses and wigs. So now, all of a sudden, it's the most popular thing in the school and all kinds of teachers and students are involved in it."
[See the whole the article at MassNews.]

LBGT Group in Langley Looking to Help Develop Mandatory Curriculum [article from the December,  2002, BCPTL E-Bulletin]

We hate to be the bearers of bad news at this season of the year, but we have just heard of the plans of a group in Langley which we think may be bad news for Langley School District and possibly for other school districts in BC as well.

Yea Yeaproclaims that it is a "Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Intersex Two-Sprited Questioning Newsletter."  It is apparently the vehicle for an organization called "Youth Education About Homo/Transphobia" which uses "Yeah" as its acronym. 
 In the Yeah newsletter under the heading "Exciting Partnership with Langley Schools," we read: 
"YEAH has been invited to assist the Langley School District in an exciting endeavour.  Our staff is part of a team writing anti-harassment curriculum for the Langley School District.   . . . the curriculum is most likely to end up in Social Studies [and] will be six to eight classes long, two of these classes being focused on homo/transphobia.
". . . . YEAH . . . will be responsible for writing the section on homophobia [and] . . .will take it to the rest of the team who will review it and suggest changes.  . . . .When we've finished working on it, Langley will be the first district in the province to have course material of this kind.  It is likely that this curriculum will spread to other districts. . . . . With this curriculum being mandatory for all students the impact on the levels of homophobia and transphobia are bound to be huge."
One can sense the breathless excitement of this group, but just what are their plans for the school district?  (An attempt to reach their website failed.)  However, their language is that of other pro-homosexuality activists.  (Perhaps it is at the cutting edge of the movement.  "Transphobia"  sounds like a newly-invented term.)   One of the projects they advertise is  called "Adopt a LGBTQ/SA."   It is explained that "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning/Straight Alliances are drop-ins within a school setting. This project hopes to establish them in over 75% of Langley schools."
Has YEAH really been invited to assist the Langley School District in developing curriculum?  Does the Langley School Board know about this?  Do Langley parents know about this?  Some investigation would seem to be in order.  Langley readers, we'd like to hear from you.  n


Reference to "the inherent normality and superiority of heterosexuality" to be prohibited

CHESLEY, ON, November 26, 2002 ( - The Bluewater District School Board which takes in the Grey Bruce area of Ontario has released a new policy proposal which bans the belief that normal male-female sexual relations are superior to homosexuality. The Board, which oversees programs in 50 elementary schools and 11 secondary schools, took 18 months to draft the policy which bans "heterosexism" which is defined in the document as "the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and the belief in the inherent normality and superiority of heterosexuality."

Some trustees were concerned that the 'heterosexism' definition was purposefully provoking but education director David Armstrong welcomed the controversy at the policy session. "Yes there will be concern and controversy and I say, bring it on. Let's get into it," he said. Mary Anne Alton, Bluewater's ele