BC Hands Over Education Curriculum to Private Interest
June 16, 2006 · By Tom Cerber
BC has handed over part of its school curriculum to a gay couple as part of a human rights agreement. Provisions include:
curriculum to ensure respectful teachings about sexual orientation from kindergarten to Grade 12
Apparently, parents will have little power to dissent to the new sexual dogma:
This week, Murray Corren said the anticipated changes to the curriculum, along with tougher limits on parental rights to remove their children from classes teaching “sensitive content,” are far more important than the new elective course.
So “public” education now means having private parties impose the new sexual dogma that was enshrined by the legalization of SSM. Its supporters said that it wouldn’t affect the civil rights of dissenters. But as predicted, that has not been the case.
Since gay activists have a habit of going after religious people for their beliefs, I wonder how long it will take for the BC government to settle a human rights complaint from a Roman Catholic bishop as a way of compensating the state’s harrassment of religious viewpoints. Perhaps the provincial government could sign a contract with the bishop of Vancouver to ensure pro-Catholic teachings are indoctrinated upon K-12 students (with no opt-out provisions, to be fair), with an elective course in Grade 12 on Catholic Moral Theology.
In short, what is the difference between the state imposing the new sexual orthodoxy and it imposing a particular religious orthodoxy?
The difference is quite simple, actually. The state has an obligation to teach students about the laws of the land in public schools in order to help them better participate in the democratic process.
Religious orthodoxy belongs in the home, as Canada does not have a state religion. Canadians have adpoted this policy democratically. However, if this still doesn’t suit your fancy, then Canada offers a large range of choice vis-a-vis K-12 education. (It is worth noting that most provincial govenrnments offer tax credits for those who choose not to send their children to publicly funded schools.)
For example, there are Catholic schools that provide great education, and include their own brand of relgious orthodoxy. And, as you well know, there are multiple other religious groups who also provide quality education. It would also be irresponsible not to mention the many non-secular private schools that are found in every major city in the country.
Parents who do not like the idea of religious education, but cannot stomach the public school system, and may not be able to afford private non-secular schools, have the option of home schooling. There are ample resources for those who choose to educate their children at home, and a very strong network of home schoolers in Canada.
So please remember that no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you where you have to send your kids to school. If you don’t like the choices that are being offered in the city or town you live, then move (just like the lazy Inuit, remember?) or keep your kids at home.
I thought conservatives liked choice. Sheesh.
Lyndon, for saying the difference is quite simple, you never really engaged the difference between state-imposed sexual orthodoxy and state-imposed religious orthodoxy. Please, explain. Why is one more justified than the other?
State imposed religious orthodoxies are just that, state imposed. Many European, Middle Eastern, and African countries have state religions. For example, the Church of England in Great Britain. As you well know, George, Canada does not have such a state church, and therefore, it is unconstitutional to have state impose religious orthodoxy in Canada.
On the other hand, Canada does have cultural orthodoxies, such as the policy on official languages, the Charter, etc. These orthodoxies are sanctioned democratically by the state, and therefore are different from those that are not democratically endorsed by the state (i.e. religious orthodoxy).
I guess the reason why one is more justified than another in the public school system is because Canada does not have an official state religion. It does, as you know, have a constitution and a Charter.
What makes Canada great is that it offers its citizens choice. As mentioned above, you can send your kids to school wherever you want, and the government does not penalize you for it.
And even though you choose to call it “sexual orthodoxy” the courts and legislators would disagree with your termonology. They would call it human rights or Charter freedoms.
George: Mr. Simmons is an ardent follower of the religion of equality, as Tocqueville termed it, and views the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as canonical. This is why he doesn’t want to see any parallel between a so-called religious imposition with the sexual dogma - because sexual dogma is in fact “the Truth” for him. This is why he has consistently advocated curtailing the rights of those who disagree with him.
The Charter is quickly becoming Canada’s state religion as interpreted by secular liberal judges.
The sexual orthodoxy is simply the dogmatic belief that all human beings have sexual orientations, that these orientations should be thought excused from free will; the capacity of human beings to choose how to act, irrespective of what they desire. It is an orthodoxy right out of psychology, which in its proper application is used to describe sexual hang-ups, the pathological fixations some people have when it comes to their sexual desires (I’m trying to explain this point to CJ over on the paedophilia commentary.).
Sexual orientation should never have been read into s. 15 of the Charter for this reason. It is the language of psychology, not the law. And as an equality right it is certainly not applicable to all human beings, only the irresponsible bottom feaders of society who can’t justify why they do what they do without saying “nature made me do it.”
Well said Tom.
[...] The National Post picks up on some of my comments here. [...]
“The Charter is quickly becoming Canada’s state religion as interpreted by secular liberal judges.”
Do you say that because there is a strong belief in the Charter? Is that a good or a bad thing in your view?
“The sexual orthodoxy is simply the dogmatic belief that all human beings have sexual orientations, that these orientations should be thought excused from free will; the capacity of human beings to choose how to act, irrespective of what they desire.”
No one is saying people don’t have control over how they act, because of sexual orientation or indeed due to their desires. That’s a strawman. However, sexual orientation does indicate what one’s desires are. Now, perhaps the term is used as a way of socially accepting desires, such as gay or lesbian, bi, or straight.
“It is an orthodoxy right out of psychology, which in its proper application is used to describe sexual hang-ups, the pathological fixations some people have when it comes to their sexual desires (I’m trying to explain this point to CJ over on the paedophilia commentary.).”
Well, if you are looking at how it is used socially, as some sort of religion for the masses, it is not used that way to describe pathologies. Is that your point of concern? Is your concern within psychology itself, or is it the way people use terms from psychology? I guess you can try to get people to change the way they speak. Perhaps we can just use the terms, gay, lesbian, bi, straight, homosexual, heterosexaul, bisexual and use other terms where they specifically apply.
“Sexual orientation should never have been read into s. 15 of the Charter for this reason. It is the language of psychology, not the law.”
It is an easy accessible way to protect a group of people, a term which most people can easily understand. Would you be happier with another term to protect the minority who identify as gay or lesbian, or even those who are perceived as gay or lesbian? I think the term sexual orientation was used more for social reasons, to protect a social group.
“And as an equality right it is certainly not applicable to all human beings, only the irresponsible bottom feaders of society who can’t justify why they do what they do without saying “nature made me do it.â€?
Couldn’t we say that about any label, for any form os social identity though? One could say the love and desire for religion or God, compels people with the desire to pray. One’s love of art, leads one to create art, etc., etc.
There is homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation. These can be called sexual orientations. There are other things which an argument could be made for calling sexual orientations. However, if acting on such things is unlawful, the law will not recognize equality rights for those who do act.
Tom, during this discussion, which rights have I advocated to be curtailed? Religious right? No, I have not. Educational rights? No, I have not. The right to free-expression? No, I have not. In fact, I have argued that Canada’s greatest strength is its ability to compromise in order to ensure that people have the broadest range of freedoms and choice possible. How does this imply the curtailing of rights for those who disagree with me? Please explain.
Lyndon:
Read your own posts:
“Canada does have cultural orthodoxies, such as the policy on official languages, the Charter, etc. These orthodoxies are sanctioned democratically by the state, and therefore are different from those that are not democratically endorsed by the state (i.e. religious orthodoxy).”
This is a recipe of totalitarianism either by judicial fiat or by parliamentary fiat. Either way, your distinction between “orthodoxy” as “sanctioned democratically by the state”, and a genuine pluralism answers your own question. You just want everyone to think like you and you’re willing to use whatever state apparatus to silence dissent. And you do it by making arbitrary distinctions between culture (which is “sanctioned democratically by the state”) and other beliefs you misleadingly claim get protected by the state (and are not themselves “sanctioned democratically by the state”).
You want the state to have total control of thought and opinion. You want the state to enforce views you happen to agree with.
If the courts decisions were the other way around on same-sex marriage, I imagine you would be holding up the court’s decision in your esteem the same way I hold it up in mine.
What you keep forgetting to mention is that the state made its decision democratically. And if democracy = totalitarianism, then I am afraid that no government anywhere will do any good for anyone ever.
Lyndon:
If the Supreme Court decided that ONLY arguments against homosexual conduct were permitted in schools, then I would certainly object to that. But as the original post reported, the BC provincial curriculum is restricting the rights of people who disagree with the gay rights agenda.
Democracy is not the same as totalitarianism, but democracies can and have enacted laws and usages that undermine freedoms, and to an extent that “democratic totalitarianism,” to borrow the phrase from Jewish historian Jacob Talmon, is appropriate.
I didn’t think I would have to make such an elementary distinction for you.
I guess I must since you have no interest in extending the same freedoms to others that you desire for yourself.
I believe I was asked to explain why I thought one form of orthodoxy was more or less legitimate within the Canadian context. I think I did that.
So lets look at what the article actually said.
Independent schools that receive government funding insisted they wouldn’t be affected by the deal, even though they are required by law to teach the same curriculum as public schools.
“As far as we’re concerned, this agreement applies to public schools only,” said Doug Lauson, head of the Federation of Independent School Associations and associate superintendent of Catholic schools in Vancouver.
The ministry would not confirm that directly. Spokeswoman Corinna Filion said in an e-mail Thursday the ministry can’t speculate on what curriculum revisions will result, but added “it’s not anticipated that any change would impact the ability of an independent school to continue teaching courses from a faith-based perspective.”
Most independent schools in B.C. are faith-based.
Attorney-General Wally Oppal played down the changes in announcing them earlier this month, saying it was “a classic case of much ado about little or nothing.” The government’s news release at the time focused on the new social justice course, which will be an elective available for interested schools but won’t be required learning.
The part of the article that Tom focused on was this:
This week, Murray Corren said the anticipated changes to the curriculum, along with tougher limits on parental rights to remove their children from classes teaching “sensitive content,� are far more important than the new elective course.
To which I replied:
“There are Catholic schools that provide great education, and include their own brand of relgious orthodoxy. And, as you well know, there are multiple other religious groups who also provide quality education. It would also be irresponsible not to mention the many non-secular private schools that are found in every major city in the country.
Parents who do not like the idea of religious education, but cannot stomach the public school system, and may not be able to afford private non-secular schools, have the option of home schooling. There are ample resources for those who choose to educate their children at home, and a very strong network of home schoolers in Canada.
So please remember that no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you where you have to send your kids to school. If you don’t like the choices that are being offered in the city or town you live, then move (just like the lazy Inuit, remember?) or keep your kids at home.”
Again, I still do not understand which freedoms I would like to deny people who do not think the same way as myself. As I mentioned before, I like that Canada offers choices, educationally, politically, religiously, etc. So which rights am I advocating be taken away?
Once the Conservatives overturn the gun registry, I want the government of Ontario to turn any part of the curriculum dealing with property rights under Canadian law over to me so I can revise it. I plan to put a strong “property rights” stamp on all subject matter. I will insist that my revisions be legally binding, with little opportunity of “opting out” for any students whose parents might object. If they don’t like what’s being taught in public school (which after all, is only a reflection of a decision made by the democratically elected Parlaiment to repeal the gun registry), they can just home school their kids.
Lyndon:
Clearly there is something at odds between what Mr. Corren is saying of this course, limiting the extent to which it is optional, and what has been reported about the course being an elective for schools that are interested in it. But given Mr. Corren’s comments, Tom has raised legitimate concern about the neutrality of the public school system being compromised. That would be very unfortunate because people should not be unnecessarily backed into a corner where they have to choose between the public school system and private or home schooling, as you would have it. And sorry to say, but preaching sexual orthodoxy in the classroom doesn’t constitute necessary.
Furthermore, you should consider what “secular” has traditionally meant: a community of both religious and non-religious interests that maintains a neutral ground for civil society. Your idea of “state sanctioned orthodoxies” is totalitarian, and in this case would allow non-religious interests to play trump in the secular realm; that is, as is potentially the case here, the public school system.
CJ:
“Do you say that because there is a strong belief in the Charter? Is that a good or a bad thing in your view?”
No, I say it because that is how political conversation in this country speaks of the Charter. When Catholic Prime Minister’s say they have to forego their Catholic faith to blindly accept how the courts are reading Charter Rights, they are exchanging one religion for another—the Supreme Court being the high priesthood. Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin have said this when questioned about abortion and same-sex marriage. And clearly it is not a good thing when any court settles a contentious social issue by fiat and politicians acquiesce their own moral responsibility for that issue, proclaiming their new found faith in the sufficiency of the Supreme Court’s reading of the Charter. This is not a good thing!
“No one is saying people don’t have control over how they act, because of sexual orientation or indeed due to their desires. That’s a strawman. However, sexual orientation does indicate what one’s desires are. Now, perhaps the term is used as a way of socially accepting desires, such as gay or lesbian, bi, or straight.”
This is simply not true. Sexual orientation, once removed from the auspices of psychology, where it is the language of pathological diagnosis, and popularised, speaks to much more than sexual preference or what people “like” or desire. Because the term is meant to speak to pathologies—where for one reason or another human beings feel they have no choice to behave differently than they do—when popularised it generalises human sexual desire as being as basic as say one’s eye colour.
When you say “no one is saying people have no choice,” you are clearly not paying attention to contemporary debates. There is a terrific amount of controversy over “gay reversion therapy” that some individuals undergo so that they will stop “being gay” and “be straight”. One side says that a person born gay will always be gay, and since such therapy says otherwise, it is probably harmful. The other side says that people have choice in how they will act and therefore can change.
As far as this debate goes, both sides are right. As long as someone has the pathological self-understanding that they are “gay,” and not just a regular sexually desiring human being, they will never be able to stop being gay. Being gay is an assumption they make about themselves everytime they try to explain their sexual desires. Yet on the other hand, people who recognise the arbitrariness of labels to human beings, and have some desire to change how they think and act, can change how they think and act.
“I guess you can try to get people to change the way they speak. Perhaps we can just use the terms, gay, lesbian, bi, straight, homosexual, heterosexaul, bisexual and use other terms where they specifically apply.”
People will speak the way they choose to speak. Sometimes they say stupid things, and stupid because the words or labels they are using do not give accurate witness to the reality of common sense experience.
That said, sexual orientation makes for “stupid” jurisprudence when assumed to apply to all human beings. The only people who have a sexual orientation are those with one sexual hang-up, pathological fixation, or another. And when sexual orientation is popularised, apart from psychological diagnosis, it carries forward a “naturedness” that is misunderstood. People with pathologies don’t have choice because they don’t THINK they have choice. People without pathologies realise they always have a choice in how they will think or act, irrespective of what they desire, and due to the conviction that comes from being moral.
So people with sexual orientations are society’s irresponsible bottom feaders because they justify doing what the do sexually (and human beings always justify doing what they do once they start to speak) by saying “nature made me do it”. But nature didn’t make them do it, they always had choice!
“In short, what is the difference between the state imposing the new sexual orthodoxy and it imposing a particular religious orthodoxy?”
The State wishes a moral license for their vices. Imposing a religious orthodoxy gives them no such comfort. The reason that these problems continue to get worse is that these are vices of appetite; once unchained they grow, and grow, and grow.
If you got your way, raging ranter, then I would not home school my kids. I would allow them to sit through your property lessons, and then show them video footage of the École Polytechnique massacre and let them think about it for themselves. This is what responsible parents should do.
There are many things being taught in the public and private school system that I disagree with. That is why my children will have the opportunity to see things from an alternative point of view in my home after they have participated in discussions I disagree with at school.
This, I hope, will teach my children to think critically and will prepare them to be better participants in a democratic Canada.
Afterall, this discussion about education, our children, the future and democracy in Canada.
Lyndon Simmons says:
“There are many things being taught in the public and private school system that I disagree with. That is why my children will have the opportunity to see things from an alternative point of view in my home after they have participated in discussions I disagree with at school.”
This does not address the point of this post. The point is not whether the schools are teaching something one disagrees with. It’s whether or not it’s teaching something as sexual dogma to which disagreement is not allowed to express itself.
It’s very tiresome debating with someone incapable of following the thread of the argument. Maybe this incapacity is due to the limitations of those posting comments, or it might be due to the limitations of the blogosphere which seems to induce a disconnect between participants.
Either way, I’m not responding anymore to the comments on this post.
“It’s very tiresome debating with someone incapable of following the thread of the argument. Maybe this incapacity is due to the limitations of those posting comments, or it might be due to the limitations of the blogosphere which seems to induce a disconnect between participants.”
I believe it is the latter, Tom, as we are both quite capable of an intelligent conversation.
“This does not address the point of this post. The point is not whether the schools are teaching something one disagrees with. It’s whether or not it’s teaching something as sexual dogma to which disagreement is not allowed to express itself.”
I believe that the article addresses this point perfectly, as it says:
Independent schools that receive government funding insisted they wouldn’t be affected by the deal, even though they are required by law to teach the same curriculum as public schools.
“As far as we’re concerned, this agreement applies to public schools only,� said Doug Lauson, head of the Federation of Independent School Associations and associate superintendent of Catholic schools in Vancouver.
The ministry would not confirm that directly. Spokeswoman Corinna Filion said in an e-mail Thursday the ministry can’t speculate on what curriculum revisions will result, but added “it’s not anticipated that any change would impact the ability of an independent school to continue teaching courses from a faith-based perspective.�
“No, I say it because that is how political conversation in this country speaks of the Charter. When Catholic Prime Minister’s say they have to forego their Catholic faith to blindly accept how the courts are reading Charter Rights, they are exchanging one religion for anotherâ€???the Supreme Court being the high priesthood. Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin have said this when questioned about abortion and same-sex marriage. And clearly it is not a good thing when any court settles a contentious social issue by fiat and politicians acquiesce their own moral responsibility for that issue, proclaiming their new found faith in the sufficiency of the Supreme Court’s reading of the Charter. This is not a good thing!”
Perhaps their moral responsibility extends beyond the dictates of their faith, to accomodate the diversity of Canadians who may not share the views of their faith or church.
“This is simply not true. Sexual orientation, once removed from the auspices of psychology, where it is the language of pathological diagnosis, and popularised, speaks to much more than sexual preference or what people “likeâ€? or desire. Because the term is meant to speak to pathologiesâ€???where for one reason or another human beings feel they have no choice to behave differently than they doâ€???when popularised it generalises human sexual desire as being as basic as say one’s eye colour.”
Well, clearly there are behaviours people are expected to control, whether it is natural or not, if there is a good reason those behaviours should be controlled.
“When you say “no one is saying people have no choice,â€? you are clearly not paying attention to contemporary debates. There is a terrific amount of controversy over “gay reversion therapyâ€? that some individuals undergo so that they will stop “being gayâ€? and “be straightâ€?. One side says that a person born gay will always be gay, and since such therapy says otherwise, it is probably harmful. The other side says that people have choice in how they will act and therefore can change.”
Therefore, if it is a choice, people don’t need to be programmed “ex-gay” or straight. They can choose to be gay or straight, choose to desire same sex or to desire different sex. There is no proof such therapy is effective, even when the person taking it desperately wants to change. Such “therapy”, often, or mostly, merely teaches someone to control behaviour or to live a “straight lifestyle”.
“As far as this debate goes, both sides are right. As long as someone has the pathological self-understanding that they are “gay,â€? and not just a regular sexually desiring human being, they will never be able to stop being gay.”
Being gay isn’t pathological. What is a regular sexually desirining human being? Are you rejecting all labels, including heterosexual? Why should it be assumed as it is in so-called “conversion” or “reparative”, “therapy”, that someone should discontinue being gay?
“Being gay is an assumption they make about themselves everytime they try to explain their sexual desires. Yet on the other hand, people who recognise the arbitrariness of labels to human beings, and have some desire to change how they think and act, can change how they think and act.”
There is little evidence sexuality can be changed. It would be nice to think it could be, for example, with those who harm children. However, even in that case, when it can be clearly demonstrated to them that they are harming others and it is wrong, they are not “cured” of their desires. Controlling behaviour is a different matter. And I don’t believe the term sexual orientation will ever be used to excuse harmful, immoral behaviour, even if it comes naturally. There is some belief that alcoholism is natural or genetic for some people. That doesn’t give an excuse to drink to excess and then beat one’s wife and kids. In fact, such people should be more on guard about their desire to drink, and their actions of drinking, than others. It may give us an understanding, of why people act the way they do, but is not the whole story. It is not the end of their responsibility.
1, 2006), these are the same people that have been “vocal opponents of same-sex marriage and the inclusion of sexual orientation as a hate crime under the Criminal Code.†Whoa — do these guys see even anti-gay hate crimes as justified? Other conservative Canadian blogs go on and on about this curriculum deal. [IMG] So in this decidely liberal city in a liberal province, Chinese (and probably Korean) immigrants are the faces and vocal advocates for the conservative, anti-gay agenda? It
[...] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « YayYukon [...]
[...] not the only example of Education Ministers handing curriculum over to ideological activists. See here for our coverage of the BC Minister of Education’s decision to hand over its curriculum to [...]
curriculum. No mention of the benefits mathematics provides in teaching kids how to think. In other words, thinking bad, indoctrination good. This is not the only example of Education Ministers handing curriculum over to ideological activists. See here for our coverage of the BC Minister of Education’s decision to hand over its curriculum to gay activists. http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....tion-good/