New Living Translation
“The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light.
….. Luke 16:8…..
There can be little doubt that one of the objectives of some who embrace the secular / atheist world view is to make adult sex with children “normal” under the law.
This is identical to the concept that LGBTTTIQ …. etc and gender fluidity are to be considered normal under the law.
The strategy being used to achieve this is identical to the LGBTTTIQ strategy i.e using a “rights-based ” approached.
A part of this strategy is to claim that children are sexual beings essentially from birth (this based on the so-called scientific work of Alfred Kinsey) and as such have a “right to sex as they choose”.
It would appear that one of the approaches being used to sexualise children to facilitate this “rights-based” approach is by using sex education curricula.
Ontario’s Radical Sex Ed Curriculum
UPDATE FEBRUARY 25, 2015: On February 23rd the Liberal government finally posted the new sex-ed curriculum online. The sudden change in plans by the Wynne government, which had previously said the curriculum would not be made availabe online for several more weeks, unveiled it the day before a planned protest at Queen’s Park. Getting ahead of the story that a parental protest could generate was a likely motivation by the Wynne government. But an even more important reason for Kathleen Wynne to finally allow the public to see it, is that it allowed her to government to change the channel on allegations of criminal conduct by her and the Liberal Party in which it was determined that the Liberals broke the law by allegedly “bribing” a candidate to stay out of the by-election in exchange for a plumb position in government. Now the media is talking about sex-ed and not the Kathleen Wynne government’s alleged criminal activity.
CLC has studied the 2015 proposed curriculum and we have found that the controversial elements of the program that angered parents in 2010 have remained unchanged, almost word for word, at the same age-inappropriate grade levels as before, when it was written under the direction of confessed child pornographer Benjamin Levin, then Deputy Education Minister. The only difference now is that Kathleen Wynne has made the curriculum even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before, dramatically increasing the mentions of “Gender Identity” theory, sexual “identities” and “orientations”. Anal intercourse is still being presented in a way that students will interpret as carrying no higher risk than vaginal intercourse, an irresponsible and misleading presentation of the former which carries a 3000% higher risk for contracting HIV. The curriculum also downplays the seriousness of contracting HIV, potentially leaving the impression with students that it’s not really that big a deal. It seems to have a political undertone of making it acceptable and normal for HIV positive people to continue being sexually active. That’s not science. It’s political and social engineering.
The curriculum has added a new controversial theory to be taught to elementary school children “gender expression”. The new curriculum document also has a much stronger undertone of sex as a purely recreational activity whose purpose is pleasure, apart from love or marriage. In fact, the words “love” and “marriage” never appear once in the sex-education strands of the curriculum. Not a single mention.
The curriculum document also encourages the use of condoms and artificial birth control to prevent pregnancy and STDs. There is also a reference to “reproductive health”, which is a known euphemism that public health authorities and Planned Parenthood use for abortion. The Minister of Education and Premier Wynne have made it clear that the Catholic school system must also implement this curriculum without exception. It is unclear how Catholic schools can implement teaching on birth control and abortion, even if retrofitted with a “Catholic lens”. Catholic moral teaching forbids abortion and the use of artificial contraception as grave evils.
The new Sex-Ed document is clearly a much more radical document than it’s original 2010 incarnation. Over the next few days, CLC will post a detailed summary of the new curriculum to save parents having to read through 200+ pages. In the meantime, you can read excerpts from the original 2010 version below.
**************ANALYSIS OF THE 2010 SEX-ED CURRICULUM***************
Now that the Ontario Liberal Party has a majority in government and no election is in sight, Premier Kathleen Wynne has “coincidentally” announced that in the fall of 2015, she will reintroduce the graphic Sex Ed Curriculum that had outraged parents in 2010.
Back then, parents and religious leaders came out angrily against Liberal plans to teach early grades about age-inappropriate topics like masturbation, anal sex, vaginal lubrication, and the idea that being male or female is merely a “social construct”.
So strong was the backlash that McGuinty “shelved” the curriculum after only 3 days of public outcry.
At the time, CLC warned that the curriculum was only “temporarily” shelved and would return. Kathleen Wynne proved us right by putting this at the top of her agenda at a time when this won’t hurt her at the voting booth.
Below are some shocking excerpts from the 2010 curriculum that the Education Ministry had posted online, before the onslaught by parents and religious leaders forced Premier McGuinty to retract it. It is widely believed that the new curriculum will be very similar to the original version. In fact, Liz Sandals, the current Education Minister has stated several times the original “expert consultations” conducted for the 2010 version will still form a basis for what Liberals are planning to impose on classrooms in 2015.
Grade 1 (age 6)
– Graphic lesson on sexual body parts including “penis”, “testicles”, “vagina”, “vulva” and more
Grade 3 (age 8): Homosexuality
-Will normalize homosexual family structures and homosexual “marriage” in the minds of 8-year-olds, without regard for the religious/moral beliefs of families
Grade 3: Gender as a changeable social construct
-Will teach the disputed theory of “gender identity” as if it were fact. This is the notion that whether you’re a boy or a girl does not necessarily relate to your physical anatomy. It is merely a “social construct”. Gender is “fluid” according to this theory, and any little boy can decide that he is actually a girl, if that’s the way he feels in his mind, or vice-versa.
Note: The potential for causing serious sexual confusion in the minds of children is very real with this teaching
-This is not science-based teaching, but rather a dangerous socio-political ideology that seeks to normalize a mental disorder recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistics Manual. This ideology being foisted on school children by the Wynne government aims to intdoctrinate the next generation into believing that transgenderism/transsexualism is an innate, genetic characteristic just like skin colour or race.
Grade 4: Romantic dating
-Will introduce children to the idea of being “more than just friends” and “going out” with classmates whom they may “like”. See excerpt below from the actual 2010 curriculum.
-Many parents would find that introducing this idea of dating at age 9 is not age-appropriate. On its own this content might not seem too serious, but in the context of the other controversial lessons, plus the curriculum’s connections to an alleged child pornographer (jump to link) and to unsavoury groups who promote anal play, group sex, S&M, and bondage (jump to link), parents are prudent to see a red flag here.
Grade 6 (age 12): Masturbation
-Encourages masturbation as a “pleasurable” way for children to learn about their bodies, that is “not harmful”
-In addition to promoting the practice of masturbation, the curriculum will teach about “vaginal lubrication”.
Grade 7 (age 13): Anal & Oral Sex
Under the pretext of encouraging abstinence from behaviours associated with high risk for STDs, the curriculum uses a sleight of hand to sneakily introduce to children the concepts of “anal intercourse” and “oral-genital contact”. Those are ideas that many of these 12-13 year old kids might not be aware of, or at least, have never seriously considered as an act they could be taking part in now. In another sleight of hand, “anal intercourse” is lumped in as a sexual act of the same kind as vaginal intercourse, with no differentiation between the two types of sexual acts, either morally or with respect to risk for sexually transmitted disease, for which the former carries dramatically higher risk.
Was the goal in this sneaky introduction of graphic sex acts to avoid the accusation that the Minister was promoting a gay agenda, seeking to normalize gay sex in the minds of kids? By claiming that this curriculum is about encouraging kids to “delay” these high risk sexual activities, many casual readers won’t notice that what has actually occurred is that the teacher has planted ideas in the minds of children that might not otherwise be present, regarding “anal intercourse”, “oral-genital contact”, etc.
Anal intercourse is not an activity to which the government should be giving any semblance of approval whatsoever. It is the most efficient method of transmitting the AIDS virus, so much so, that despite all the “safe sex” and condom education over the past 20 years, epidemiologists still predict that 50% of men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) will eventually contract HIV.
In fact, the Ontario government’s chief epidemiologist publishes a report on the spread of HIV every 4 years. In the most recent study, collecting data between 2005 to 2008, it found that almost 1 in 4 MSM who live in Toronto (21.9%), are currently infected with HIV. See chart below. Extrapolating the current growth rate for infection tells us that by the time 2012 public health data becomes available, almost 1 out of every 3 actively gay men in Toronto will be infected with HIV. So, why exactly does Premier Kathleen Wynne want to get 12 and 13 year olds thinking about ‘anal intercourse’?
If the government’s going to talk about anal sex at all, it should be at older ages and the message should be “That’s a risky, potentially fatal activity. Don’t do it”. The curriculum makes no mention that anal intercourse, in the context of male-on-male sex, leads directly to the death of a large percentage of those who practice it, and is generally unhealthy for all practicioners. People have a right to know about serious health risks before they choose to engage in it. Withholding such vital information is an inexcusable moral failure. In fact, Kathleen Wynne’s Sex Ed curriculum leaves 12 and 13 year olds with a distinct impression that “communicating clearly with each other when making decisions” is all that’s required for this activity to be “responsible and safe”.
Benjamin Levin: Pedophilic influence?
It’s important to consider the fact that this curriculum was also written under the direction of an alleged child pornographer, Mr. Benjamin Levin. He was the Deputy Education Minister at the time, serving under then Education Minister Kathleen Wynne. Levin was charged by police with 7 counts of making and distributing child pornography.
Levin was charged by police with 7 counts of making and distributing child pornography. Although the man has not yet been proven guilty in a court of law, many people are questioning whether “grooming” could have been a reason for introducing these explicit subjects at such delicate ages. If the allegations are true, could it be that the curriculum was designed to “prime” children, so as to make them sexually available?
When it is found that an alleged pedophile was in charge of writing what many parents perceive to be graphic, age-inappropriate Sex Ed curriculum, parents cannot be blamed for wanting no part of the curriculum. Should warning bells be going off when we learn that an alleged pedophile oversaw the writing of curriculum which gets 6 year olds talking about their genitals, encourages kids to masturbate, and wants to get 13 year olds thinking about oral sex and anal sex?
The safety of children is too important to ignore Levin’s hand in this curriculum.
Can we know a curriculum by the company that it keeps?
It’s not average moms and dads who are asking for this curriculum to return. In fact 28,000 Ontario parents have signed a petition against it. So who is actually pressuring the Liberals to bring back the controversial curriculum?
Several radical organizations, or those with ties to radical groups have been publicly lobbying the Liberals to bring back the 2010 curriculum since it was first retracted by Premier McGuinty. These include:
OPHEA (The Ontario Physical & Health Education Association): partners with a “sex education expert” called Sexpressions which offers explicit, classroom teaching aids like “The Guide To Getting It On Book”
Planned Parenthood Toronto: promotes abortion, anal play (e.g. fisting), sex toys, and the viewing of pornography. See excerpts below from Planned Parenthood’s educational resources for 13-year-olds.
Queer Ontario: promotes bondage, sadism/masochism, casual sex and group sex (see below from their website)
Communist Party of Canada (Ontario): like all communists, it seeks to throw off “the shackles” of God’s moral laws in society and bring about an atheist utopia where virtually all areas of public and private life are dominated by an all-powerful state.
When groups who advocate for the normalization of sadism, group sex, anal play and viewing pornography are demanding the return of the 2010 Sex Ed curriculum, parents cannot be blamed for believing that these classroom lessons will have the effect of sexualizing young children.
Help us warn parents
Due to biased and poor media coverage of this controversial Sex Ed curriculum, most Ontario families are unaware that this dangerous curriculum update will be imposed on their children and grandchildren starting in the fall 2015 school year. Although Campaign Life Coalition and other pro-family groups have been trying to educate the public about the harmful nature of this curriculum, our reach is limited. What’s missing education by clergy from the pulpit. To help make it easy for clergy to inform their congregation members about the looming Sex Ed changes, we have provided a sample bulletin announcement and sample pulpit announcement for pastors. Click here to download it in PDF format, then give it to your pastor or church secretary and respectfully ask if they would include it over the coming weeks and months. Handouts for small group discussion are available as well as a Powerpoint presentation from Campaign Life Coalition.
Related ‘Sex Ed Curriculum’ Pages