"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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf )

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: http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2580&department=CFI&categoryid=papers#fistgate ; 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 http://www.missionamerica.com ).

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 http://www.dayoftruth.org ).

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 "saanichnews.com" (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, ccrl@ccrl.ca http://ccrl.ca

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 http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4932

-30-

Western Contacts
Sean Murphy (BC & Prairies) ccrl-west@shaw.ca Tel: 604-485-9765
Ed De Vita (BC Lower Mainland) edevita@shaw.ca 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 http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4932

. . . 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.

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 http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005875.cfm ]

An Analysis of Some Aspects of the Draft Social Justice Twelve Course

From the beginning, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life has protested against the special place given by the Ministry of Education’s Settlement Agreement of April, 2006, to Murray and Peter Corren in the development of British Columbia educational curricula. The response of the Ministry of Education has been that all would have the right to respond to proposed curriculum, but the Ministry has done nothing to remedy the fact that these two pro-homosexuality propagandists have been given this special role.

The way in which the draft curriculum for the new Social Justice Twelve course has been released is yet another example of the Ministry’s lack of positive response to the concerns we and others have expressed.

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 noted the fact that this consultation with the Correns was to take place before the draft course is released to the general public.

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 in spite of the fact that the draft course was to be used as a pilot course the next month. The late release this summer will mean that already in September of 2007 students will be exposed to this course before those who might be critical of the course have a proper chance to review it and ask for changes.

An examination of the draft of Social Justice 12 now posted on the Ministry of Education’s website² unfortunately only adds to our misgivings about this course that is being instituted as a result of the Corren Settlement Agreement. What follows in this essay is an analysis of some aspects of the draft Social Justice 12 Course. We would encourage others to make their own analyses and to communicate their concerns to the Ministry of Education, possibly along with those concerns which they agree with which are expressed in this essay.

The first startling fact about the draft course is that it fails to include information on recommended learning resources for the course. In fact, we are told that these will not be available until the final publication of the IRP. In other words, the general public will have 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 cano a to a large extent, determine the nature of the course, this means that the general public, including organizations like our own, will have been excluded from providing input regarding a very important aspect of the course.

Under “Considerations for Program Delivery,” on Page 15 of the draft IRP, 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 draft 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, 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?

The subsection on “Defining Social Justice” raises some very important questions. We are told on Page 24 that it is expected that students will “demonstrate understanding of concepts and terminology of social justice, including . . .” --and there follows a fairly comprehensive list of terms. But no definitions of those terms are given. We may conclude, then, that the individual teacher will have the responsibility of providing the definitions and the statements of concepts which students will be expected to demonstrate understanding of. One can easily imagine the varying concepts that might be provided under the headings of “anthropocentrism” and “diversity,” to mention just two of the terms listed. Will a negative connotation be given to “anthropocentrism” where human beings are described as a cancerous species infesting the earth or will they be described as having rightful dominion and the responsibility of stewardship over other living things? Will students be taught that all diversity must be accepted? Will the attitude of those who favour free availability of “recreational” drugs be deemed equally as valid as the attitude of those who favour control and suppression of drugs regarded as harmful?

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. 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 25) that students will be expected to analyze specific examples of injustice in Canada related to characteristics such as . . . (and the same list

including marital or family status and sexual orientation is given). Will students be expected to regard any description of heterosexual inclinations as the norm as being an example of injustice? What about the limitation of the legal

definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples: a definition only recently jettisoned? What about the belief of many religious bodies that legitimate marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples? Will students be expected to condemn such religious teachings in the process of giving specific examples of injustice in Canada?

The same questions regarding the scope given to students and the attitudes they are expected to adopt arise 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

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? And how much diversity of view will the students be allowed? 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.

When we come to the section of this draft IRP on “Classroom and Evaluation,” we read (on Page 30) that assessment of learning may be either criterion-referenced (based on prescribed learning outcomes) or norm-referenced (comparing student achievement to that of others). 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? Using either form of evaluation, 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.

In the section entitled “Student Achievement: Recognizing and Analyzing Injustice,” a prescribed learning outcome is listed as applying “principles of social justice to analyze specific historical and contemporary injustice in Canada related to--among other things--marital and family status and sexual orientation.” A suggested achievement indicator for this learning outcome is that students “apply principles of social justice to analyze specific historical and contemporary examples of injustice in Canada related to . . . people who are LGBT” ( an acronym for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered”). Among the examples given in the context of injustice are marriage, adoption, and spousal right. Since marriage is listed in the context of injustice to LGBT people, clearly it is suggested that students should regard as an injustice the previous legal definition of marriage as opposite-sex.

Although the Social Justice 12 course as outlined in the draft 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. As well, the addition of learning resources not open to criticism from the public could result in a course that distorts the whole consideration of social justice in the services of a radical agenda.

If Social Justice 12 as represented by the draft curriculum is a foretaste of the results of the Corren Agreement, which also covers future revisions to the curricula of other subjects³, then those who have a concern that education should be free of propaganda would do well to make their voices heard now.

E.S.H.

Endnotes:

(URLs for website pages were as of August 27, 2007)

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 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/drafts/sj12_draft.pdf

³See “An Assessment of the Settlement Agreement between the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and Murray and Peter Corren “ on SocialConservatives.ca” at
http://www.socialconservatives.ca/2006/02/essays-1-assessment-of-settlement.html and
“The Corren Settlement Agreement: How Did We Arrive at This Point and What Should Parents of Traditional Morality and Their Supporters Do About It?” on the website of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
(at http://www.bcptl.org/gay.htm#talk_5-6-2007 ) .

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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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 http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html ).

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: roxton@cooptel.qc.ca )

Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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 365Gay.com 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
constraints]
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

Opposing the Pro-Homosexuality Agenda

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.]

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.]