[The article immediately following is taken from the homosexual online publication Xtra.ca . 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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:
http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

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.

Sincerely,
Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region

Liberty Counsel -

April 16, 2009

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

www.LC.org

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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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: http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/).

Capitol Hill switchboard:
202-224-3121

To find your U.S. representative:
http://www.congress.org

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

[ From CitizenLink, April 28, 2009 at http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009904.cfm ]

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.

Sexuality

"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 http://bctf.ca/SocialJustice.aspx?id=10394 .

“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 Radio.com 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.”

-end-

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 www.roadkillradio.com

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]

NEWS RELEASE

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.

Contact:

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 effec