Enlightened Alberta and Wrong-Headed Ontario

A letter to the National Post published October 26, 2012

Re Alberta affirms homeschool rights, Oct. 25:

Enlightened Alberta has got its educational priorities correct. Ontario has much to learn in this regard. The new Alberta Educational Act states that "a parent has the prior right to choose  the kind of education that shall be provided to the parent's child, and as a partner in education, has responsibility to act as primary guide and decision-maker with respect to the child's education."

Ontario is heading in the opposite direction with regard to parental rights. Teachers deem themselves as "co-parents." Toronto school boards refuse to tell parents when objectionable material will be taught. The government itself recently enacted its own agenda, against parents' vociferous complaints, and they call that transperancy.
   
It is not difficult to see the next step in Ontario's quest for complete control of our children's education. Following the lead of Sweden and Germany, it will declare homeschooling illegal. Over there, parents have gone to jail and had their children made wards of the state. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has authority to censor homeschooling teaching materials.

In forcing their version of mind control on our children, abolishing parental authority is the aim of Big Brother and Big Sister in Queen's Park.

Society versus the Child

Our secular society believes that children exist for the parents. The reverse is true.

A year or so back, the Toronto Star featured a report of a pregnant woman living in Canada and of Indian heritage. Amniocentesis indicated the mother was carrying a girl. The woman wanted the girl, but her parents wanted to send her to India for an abortion. There was not a peep from pro-choice feminists defending the prospective mother's choice. Pro-choice is secondary to pro-abortion.

Our values have become so warped that some people now speak of "gender disappointment" and "gender grief" in the birth of a child whose sex is not of the parents' choosing. They claim there's even a "stigma" about it.

The Toronto Globe and Mail (Sept 21, 2012) describes this "disappointment" as "a private feeling of shock and dejection [that] washes over some parents when they envision the life with a boy or a girl, only to give birth to a child of the opposite sex". This misguided feeling has spawned in the U.S. a business where doctors promise "family balancing", that is, abort until you get what you want.

A University of Alberta law professor, Timothy Caulfield, is quoted," If someone has three boys and they want a girl, is the harm such that the state should ban choice?"  We wonder to what other mischief the professor exposes his students.

Education Must Return to Basics

A Hamilton-area father is suing his local school board for refusing to exempt his children from classes dealing with sexually sensitive topics. The media vilified him with editorials and cartoons. Letters both for and against the father have been printed. 

I see the issue as one of social engineering by the government. My unpublished September 12,2012 email to the Toronto Star.

Families are the primary source of children's education. This editorial makes the error of giving education authority solely to bureaucrats and politicians, some of whom don't even have children. 

The editorial speaks as if any objection to an imposed curriculum challenges the entire system. Those who object are also taxpayers. They too have the right to speak out when they believe the system has gone awry. Democracy works, not by ignoring objections, as you advocate, but by listening and trying to accommodate. It is unfair to characterize objectors as wanting "to impose their agenda". Are they not entitled to challenge the imposition of another's agenda?

When the state imposes its agenda without consulting the people, dissent follows. In some European countries homeschooling is illegal. Parents have gone to jail and parents relieved of all rights to see their children again. The presumption over there, and in your editorial, is that Big Brother knows best. Does diversity extend to everyone? Or is it limited to those with whom we agree? 

Our education system went wrong when it began teaching matters beyond it authority. It must return exclusively to the basics of literature, language, history, the sciences and other core subjects. Anything beyond that is an unwarranted intrusion into family rights.

In reaction to many letters in the Toronto Star of September 15, 2012, I sent this letter, also unpublished.

Most of the disputants in this matter have missed two vital issues. The first is that parents are the primary and essential teachers of their children. To describe teachers as "co-parents" is an attack on family rights. 

Secondly, this is not a dispute about acceptance, as some writers claim and as the Star editorialized (Pulling kids from class, Sept 12). 

Underlying the original request to remove students from certain classes is a plea for a return of our educational system to the exclusive teaching of core subjects, a return to basics. That is what most parents want and expect. 

Politicians and the education bureaucracy have arrogated to themselves sole authority in such matters. That's a touch of arrogance that  must be reversed by instituting compulsory consultation with parents before such programs are introduced into the system.

Bureaucracy vs Family

Email to The National Post, May 29, 2012. Unpublished.

Re Teachers oppose parents taking kids from sex ed, May 29:

This report illustrates once again what's wrong with our school system.  The bureaucrats and teachers increasingly want to intrude in other people's business, in this case, the family's business of sex education. 

Teaching must return to the basics of reading, language, writing, arithmetic, history and other core subjects. If a teacher is no good, or the principal unable to maintain discipline, parents should be able to demand better or pull their children from that school.

In this particular report, the teachers' union of Manitoba wants the government to make it a crime for parents to take their children from classes, regardless of subject or quality of teaching. They Nazi-tinged demand is motivated, not for concern of their students, but for their personal good -- the need to maintain a certain level of attendance to protect their pay. So they demand forced attendance, regardless of how or what they are pushing down young throats.

The next step in this bureaucratization of education is to criminalize homeschooling. It's already happened in Sweden, Norway and Germany where it was introduced by the Nazis. 

Parents must have more say in the education of their children, the bureaucrats less.

Government Attacks on the Family

The first principle of society consists in the marriage bond, the next in children. So declared Cicero 2,000 years ago. As the basic unit of society, the family plays the primary role in education. So declares the Charter of the United Nations.

Historically, education began in the home, then with private tutors, eventually with teaching institutions operated by non-governmental secular and religious organizations. Government is a late-comer to this process.

A public servant of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) bearing the title "co-ordinating superintendent, equitable and inclusive schools" recently published and distributed student planners to Grade Two pupils. Among other topics, the planner referred to prostitution, female circumcision, Dyke marches and Palestinian solidarity.

On the provincial level, Ontario Transportation Minister (and former Education Minister) Kathleen Wynne, a lesbian, uses her office to promote a curriculum that teaches sexual orientation in Grade Three, masturbation in Grade Six, anal intercourse in Grade Seven.

Premier Dalton McGuinty approves of men prancing naked down our main streets, and on parade floats rubbing their genitals, and simulating anal sex. Under the guise of “equity,” the Ontario government urges schools to participate in the Pride parades.

From the TDSB text book Are You A Boy Or A Girl?

Page 44: Read some traditional folktales and fairy tales with the class. Have students write/illustrate their own "gender bending" versions.

Page 53: The class discusses the the significance of Toronto's annual Pride Week celebrations.

Pages 54-56: Search images of Pride Week ... make posters for the TDSB float and/or school bus that are in the Pride Parade. Additionally, students have their own Pride Parade in their school.

Page 56: Read Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. If this story book is not available, cut out a photo from a newspaper or magazine of the Pride Parade.

The common media tell us to take our families to Pride activities. Yet these same people censor their coverage of the event by not publishing photographs of naked participants, or blanking out their genitals. They do not want children to see these things in their media, yet affirm that viewing it in the flesh is quite acceptable.

What the Ontario government describes as consultation is merely telling parents what will happen. "We do not take public referenda on curriculum," Wynne condescendingly warns. Big Sister knows best.

Parents are not allowed to remove their children from the classroom during controversial discussions. The TDSB won't even tell parents when it happens. Study after study has revealed that students learn better when teachers and parents work closely together. This initiative alienates a large part of the population, to the detriment of our children.

Among other measures lacking transparency is the TDSB's Curriculum - JK to grade 3. It orders: "Should schools send notes of permission slips home before starting any classroom work on LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual/two spirited, queer) issues. NO."

If parents decide to homeschool their children, Ontario Human Rights Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall will examine all educational materials to ensure it includes what Commissar Hall (as she is know in the media) deems adequate promotion of homosexuality.

Ontario's future is foreshadowed in London, England. Teachers there must report any children, as young as three years old, who utter words deemed by the teachers to be politically incorrect. Accused children's names are entered into a government data base where they are permanently recorded as racist or Islamophobic etc., depending on what was said. This information remains there to be used against them as adults.

In June 2009, Swedish police and social workers seized a seven-year-old boy from his family because his parents chose to homeschool him. Authorities have permanently destroyed parental rights, and actually jailed some parents. Sweden learned this from Germany where homeschooling was first declared a crime by the Nazis. That's what purported modern governments are capable of doing.

Back in Ontario, we have bureaucrats and politicians imposing on our young people their views of sex, family life and other personal matters beyond their authority. This unwarranted intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of parents is an attack on the family.

State intervention into education must be limited to tax gathering, basic curricula standards, and uniformity of examinations. It must not use education to further a political or social agenda.

Children as Objects of Marketing

The Toronto Star recently published a report dealing with the exploitation of children. It described store operators' plans to turn children into fashionistas. This published letter opens with a quote from one such operator.

Re Luxury looks for Mommy and me, Feb. 25, 2010:

"Once kids turn 5 or 6, they start to know what they want."

As the father of four children, I can state that is nonsense. This observation is a commercial hope, not a fact of life.

The commercial world already exerts too much pressure on young people, robbing them of their childhood. Some children and unwitting parents have been lured into the abominable cosmetics market. A 10-year old child is not a young man or woman.

Mature parents are obligated to protect their children, and refuse to be intimidated by such blatant exploitation.