The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
What is Billy learning in school?
News from British Columbia that a Human Rights Tribunal case, given new life by the passage of Bill C-38, is trying to make "queer issues" a part of the normal school curriculum. The case is being pursued by a gay elementary school teacher.
Moreover, the complaint would make sure "queer issues" is not on the list of "sensitive" subjects, meaning parents would not be informed that it was being taught, how it was being taught, nor would they have the right to remove their children from that class.
The evolution of the classroom from a means to efficiently impart the basic mental toolset needed by all functional members of society into the conduit for mass social engineering by the secular progressive humanists is almost complete, at least in British Columbia.
I wonder, should this case go through, what would happen to home schooled children, who must be taught from a provincially mandated curriculum. Would parents be required to become conversant in queer issues? What if they don't want to? Would children who fail that portion of the test be taken out of the home and taken to
queer indoctrination centres schools where they can have their thinking corrected their education on queerness completed?
[Extended entry at Angry in the Great White North]
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What is Billy learning in school?:
» Something cookin' up north in terms of educatin'... from InfoCommons
Education is an important thing. While away on leave in Virginia I am serving as a church camp's education director. What can I say about scary education trends? This sets things up nicely: News from British Columbia that a Human Rights Tribunal... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-07-12 11:09:00 AM
Angry, why are you so obsessed with gay sex?
You post about it all the time and it seems that it must be on your mind quite a bit.
Anyway your post is so full of fear-mongering it's not worth commenting on other than to point out your unhealthy obsession. Here's the part you missed:
"The couple's complaint to the Tribunal focuses on the Social Studies curriculum for Grades eight to 10 as an example. The curriculum is set by the provincial government and includes specific reference to aboriginals, women, and multiculturalism, but there is no mention of gays, lesbians, or transsexuals."
Angry and his ilk will only be happy when the government brings in gay-specific Nuremberg laws.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-12 9:57:09 AM
ebt - you're a homophobe pure and simple. You'd have us put in camps and burned in ovens if you could so please don't comment since being a nazi isn't cool dude.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-12 10:25:19 AM
Here is the priority of AdScam Martin, aka Mr. Fiddler/Dithers & Annie got-your-guns McLellan:
Senate returns for gay bill vote
Senators have been ordered back to Ottawa next week in a bid to pass into law the controversial bill legalizing same-sex marriage and a $4.6-billion amendment to the budget.
The enemy within, indeed.
Vote out the Librano$$$$$$$$$$
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-07-12 10:28:54 AM
"Angry, why are you so obsessed with gay sex?"
I'm not obsessed about gay sex. I'm obsessed with freedoms and liberties and the role of the State in limiting them. As it is, much of what has been happening lately on that front is happening because of the alliance between gay advocacy groups and the government.
But not everything. The Kelo decision in the US had nothing to do with homosexuals, and I wrote quite a bit about that when it was a hot topic.
News comes in waves, and I will pick a wave and ride it for a while, checking out different facets of the same issue. Hardly an obsession, just the way I work.
Sorry if it bothers you.
[And by the way, even I wrote on homosexual issues 24/7, it wouldn't have anything to do with the quality of my posts or validity of my point of view, so my "obsession" is really irrelevant, isn't it?]
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-07-12 10:32:17 AM
Angry, a lawyer frind of mine in the US was contacted by the ministry of education regarding this case. The ministry is concerned that parents will haul their kids out of public school and into private religious institutions in order to keep them from being forced to learn this kind of stuff. It isn't really relevent (the same could be said for most "social studies" subjects) to getting an education, especially when math and literacy scores are falling.
For anyone who might say you have a ridiculous obsession with the subject, I'm almost positive (without having spoken to you personally) that it isn't something you would have given two minutes thought about, say, 10 years ago. I know I didn't. My friends were my friends, gay or straight and I didnt treat them any differently from one another. Two of them turned into activists. Good for them, I'm sure, but shuddup already, if you still want me to treat you like everyone else. Can't have it both ways (so to speak). If we weren't suddenly ALL obsessed with gay sex, thanks to our government and the media, they'd be complaining that they weren't getting any attention.
Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-12 10:37:04 AM
Justin, name calling, especially of the tired old nazi variety "isn't cool dude." If you disagree please offer arguements and not insults. Diagreement is not fear, tolerance does not imply either acceptance or celebration, be happy you live here where you really don't have to worry about being "put in camps and burned in ovens" or being stone on Friday for fun, to suggest otherwise (as you do) is "fear-mongering".
Posted by: Leonidas | 2005-07-12 10:37:15 AM
"The curriculum is set by the provincial government and includes specific reference to aboriginals, women, and multiculturalism, but there is no mention of gays, lesbians, or transsexuals."
You don't get it. No one believes being a woman or an aboriginal is a moral decision, or has a moral component. It is simply what you are. But homosexuality is not just about what you are (assuming it is determined at birth), but it is also what you do. For a lot of people, that is a problem, rooted in deeply held religious doctrine. Few of these people want to hurt homosexuals or deny them jobs or housing (I certainly don't), but that's about as far as acceptance will go. The notion that the school system will take our kids and teach them, well, who knows really what they're going to be taught, angers a lot of people.
But then Christians are stupid, Catholics in particular are bigots, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-07-12 10:38:22 AM
In my opinion, homosexuality is a deviation of normal sexuality. And this is confirmed by the Bible. So we must be careful not to teach homosexuality to children. That does not mean I have anything against the individuals with this deviation. I advise them that there is a possibility to come back to normal sexuality.
And I don't see any obsession from angry.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-07-12 10:48:49 AM
I apologize to Angry. I was wrong to suggest he wants gay -specific Nuremberg laws but here's why:
a. Angry's views while wrong are FAR from the hatred and intolerance of ebt. ebt actually is a nazi. "Stupid Faggot"? Please ebt, unless you're willing to actually say that to my face than you're hiding behind the internet. It's pathetic.
b. Angry's views, while wrong, suggest that he is simply misled and frankly illogical but not driven by a deep intolerance.
I shouldn't have been so quick with the Nuremberg thing but I stand by calling ebt a nazi.
Anyway "No one believes being a woman or an aboriginal is a moral decision, or has a moral component."
You're wrong. There are many that believe a women has a moral duty to reproduce and a moral duty to be subservient to her husband not to mention a moral duty to cover her body from the view of men. Many also believe that women have a moral duty to remain a virgin until they're pregnant.
There are plently of schools that do not teach this to students but it is in direct conflict with the moral teaching of many.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-12 11:03:41 AM
Thanks, RG, and by the way, you are exactly correct.
Thanks Remi -- nice to know not everyone thinks I'm obsessive.
Lady calls the phone company: "I have a complaint. All week I've been getting heavy-breathing obsene phone calls. The last one lasted for over an hour!"
Now that's obsessive...
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-07-12 11:03:46 AM
Justin, since when do your opinions represent those of all gays? I,m gay and here's my opinion: You've got rainbows up yer arse..... dumplin'!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-07-12 12:44:06 PM
Justin is the gay version of Gamblog. It falls under the same category as "Don't taunt animals at the zoo. Some of them can fling poo." After a couple of half-assed attempts at discourse, it deteriorates to "i'm rubber, you're glue" and name-calling. Justin just jumps straight to the name-calling.
I'm waiting for the gay equity policies forced on corporations next. "Gentlemen, we are sorely under-gayed!! We need to gay up...and fast!"
P.S. I have gay friends and, after the oh-so-stereotypical gasp of horror, they chuckle a bit too.
Posted by: Ham | 2005-07-12 1:48:23 PM
John, there are quite a few Log Cabin Republicans down here who would be in agreement with you.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-07-12 1:49:42 PM
I find this tension in the public schools to be an interesting issue. From the beginning, public schools have dealt with issues of tolerance by promoting acceptance of minorities that were generally not well accepted by society. Catholics, Poles, Ukrainian, black and natives have all benefited from this. The decision to teach tolerance of these groups did not come society at large but from the political and social elites that ran the country.
This leads me to a couple of questions, if it was correct to promote this tolerance before, for these other groups, why is it not appropriate to promote it for this group? Is it not in some way the job of the government and the elites to use the schools for this purpose? Should all education be socially neutral? How exactly would that work? Should the schools be socially neutral only on issues where there is a consensus about what groups should be tolerated? And if that's the case, how would change ever come?
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-12 1:59:06 PM
How about we just teach 'em math?
Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-12 2:07:48 PM
"Angry's views, while wrong, suggest that he is simply misled and frankly illogical but not driven by a deep intolerance."
Hmmm. Idiot simpleton or evil genius. I'm not sure which I'd rather be.
[By the way, I was smiling as I typed this -- I appreciated the tone in which that statement was delivered. I'm just having a bit o' fun.]
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-07-12 2:22:20 PM
I like the idea of home schooling more and more and more. If the government tries to take my kids (I don't have any yet) they better be prepared for a fight to the death. In fact, I think that this is THE reason why this national daycare program scares the crap out of me. Thankfully I'm heading to the US in a month's time, likely to never return ... unless there's a Republic of Alberta to come home to.
Posted by: Leonidas | 2005-07-12 2:27:58 PM
'How about we just teach 'em math?'
Would the 3-r's really be enough? No history, geography, no opinions on slavery, communism, the FLQ or John A.?
Don't get me wrong, I have a 16 year old in public school so I am more aware than most of the problems with the system. A curriculum supporting tolerance and acceptance of gay people would be very low on my list things to change.
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-12 2:42:50 PM
This is just another Tragedy of the Commons. Public schools are a shared resource which are owned by no one and responsible to no one. Because the parents do not own the schools and they are not customers in any meaningful sense, and the door is wide open for all kinds of special interest groups to try to force their own agenda into the curriculum. Whether it's gays promoting their lifestyle and religious fundamentalists pushing creationism - it's the same old, same old.
Why would a gay activist be enthused about public education? The power that they wield this year to force "tolerance" into the curriculum will be siezed next year by their enemies in order to change the curriculum again.
Gays, religious groups, ethnic groups, and plain old vanilla WASPs would be a lot better off in a purely private educational system. In such a system you would find the various schools' curricula surprisingly similar, and free of moonbat teaching. Why? Here's a few reasons:
(a) Parents and their tuition would be the rulers of this system - and every parent most of all wants to get a solid, academic education for their kids.
(b) Without having a huge, monolithic school system to fight over, and therefore without having to worry about one group or another pushing a political agenda on all of society, the various special interest groups can relax, quit worrying about other peoples' agendas, and get down to the business of teaching kids to read and write.
(c) Private schools mean no parasitic education bureaucrats and union "leaders", which means lower costs, which means more money in peoples' pockets. More money in peoples' pockets means more investment and consumer spending, which means more opportunities for business. More business, more jobs. More *private* business jobs means more meritocracy and less coasting into a job on one's ethnic or language credentials. More meritocracy means that education in actual useful skills is a lot more important, which means there will be very little time in specialized private schools to waste on the more frivolous subjects, such as gay lifestyles, the Book of Genesis, or whatever.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-07-12 2:48:15 PM
** Public education is for learning to comprehend and critical thinking not promoting homosexuality.Homosexuals already been given special hate law protection,pride days,Gay Games even the heterosexual marriage institution concept.For a minority-homosexual activists often want much.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-07-12 3:10:17 PM
"I find this tension in the public schools to be an interesting issue. From the beginning, public schools have dealt with issues of tolerance by promoting acceptance of minorities that were generally not well accepted by society. Catholics, Poles, Ukrainian, black and natives have all benefited from this. The decision to teach tolerance of these groups did not come society at large but from the political and social elites that ran the country."
First, I don't know if the claim at the end is true or not. But let's suppose it is. Coming from Alberta, the tolerance towards Ukrainians was done by teaching Ukrainian history, particularly the immigration of Ukraines to Canada (and particularly in Alberta). I knew several people who could trace their ancestry to Ukraine (and they told some really good Ukrainian jokes as well). I don't think the objective was to teach tolerance towards Ukrainians as much as it was to teach a bit of history about a notable ethnic group. We also learned a bit about Ukrainian culture, like the easter eggs, clothing, food, etc.
I'd bet the same for Indians as well (sorry, that's what they called them when I was in school). Indian legends, folklore, the history of European contact, etc. I also knew people who could trace their ancestry to Indians (many considered themselves Indians).
What's the difference between this and gays? Gays are not an ethnicity. They don't have a homeland. There isn't a gay ancestry. There is no 'gay history' or 'gay culture'. Being gay isn't dependent on your geneology, it is dependent on your actions. With Indians and Ukrainians, you have a recognizable population that inhabited a geographical location, had identibiable customs, history, language, government, etc. They were a people just as much as the English, Russians, French and Scandanavians. Not so with gays.
There is a valid argument about teaching the history of various ethnic groups. Their experiences have contributed to the culture of the nation. Yes, gay people have built Canada, but they are not an ethnic group and their efforts were not a part of an aggregatable gay population (as you would find with Ukrainians, Indians, French, British, etc.).
Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-12 3:14:06 PM
** Second post: Same sex-sex act is not natural because a society of homosexuals would naturally self-destruck. The great Spiritual leaders and Holy Book inform same sex-sex is unGodly. But people of faith love homosexual people but not the homosexual sex act.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-07-12 3:21:04 PM
Sorry John and Ham but I have yet to find a gaydar I can set off. And I've only met one other gay guy who is as 'not-gay' seeming as me and he's my boyfriend (btw he's a cop).
Also John I never said I was speaking for all gays cause I would never project my opinions onto another group (which is what SO many people here do ALL THE TIME - they all seem to speak for God herself).
Besides I would never speak for a community that doesn't speak up for itself anyway (if I had a nicket for every homophobe I had to beat the s*** out of cause other gay guys were too wimpy to do it I'd have 35 cents).
But anyway I'm not going to stick up for the education system but the fact is that many of the things taught in schools already offend SOME Christian sensibilities (like usings a pigskin to play football at gym - Leviticus is against it).
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-12 3:21:42 PM
"** Second post: Same sex-sex act is not natural because a society of homosexuals would naturally self-destruct."
But Larry, a society composed of all doctors would naturally self-destruct. That doesn't make being a doctor unnatural.
Besides, it doesn't follow because people might artificially inseminate, make use of science, or have heterosexual sex for the purposes of pro-creation only.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-07-12 3:31:27 PM
I went to a Ukrainian school Half Canadian and I can tell you the history of Ukrainian Canadians but I'm also gay and I can tell you that gays do have a 'gay history' and a 'gay culture'.
If you think they don't then you need to read a book about it and educate yourself and lift yourself from your state of ignorance on the subject. There are many of these books at your local library. Don't be afraid - get a membership there.
As for gays and the concern by Larry that we will 'naturally self-destruck' I'm pretty sure that it's heterosexual people that are to blame for making homos. I blame my mother and father's heterosexuality for creating me so therefore if your looking for someone to blame it's the heteros. LET'S GET 'EM!!!
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-12 3:34:44 PM
'How about we just teach 'em math?'
Oh yeah, the teacher's union would love that. You would need a lot less teachers, obviously. And a focus on courses with right and wrong answers would also make life difficult for the incompetent ones.
From the Simpsons:
Hoover: Lisa, what nineteenth-century figure was named 'Old Hickory'?
Lisa: I don't know. You?
Ms.H: Lisa, if you'd bothered to do the assignment, you'd know the answer is... *flips to answers section* The Battle of New Orleans. I mean, Andrew Jackson.
Lisa: Well, you're earning your eighteen grand a year.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-07-12 3:52:32 PM
Unfortunately tolerance of homosexuals is being changed to acceptance very quickly, and I won't accept that perversion. B.C. is definitely at the front of the parade, but I'm afraid Alberta won't be far behind. As if kids don't have enough to deal with today...go back in the closet...geesh !
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-07-12 5:34:51 PM
"In fact, I think that this is THE reason why this national daycare program scares the crap out of me. Thankfully I'm heading to the US in a month's time, likely to never return ..."
Beware, America is no panacea either. If your kids aren't propigated as toddlers by the Canadian state, they'll end up locked up as young adults in the U.S. in the world's largest (both per capita and absolute) prison population for for "youthful indiscretions" like pot smoking. That, or the local government will seize your home to build a Wal-Mart now that property rights in the U.S. have been severely weakened by the recent Kelo case.
The sad reality is that there's no escape from tyranny in today's world.
Posted by: Michael Cust | 2005-07-12 5:50:32 PM
"Beware, America is no panacea either. If your kids aren't propigated as toddlers by the Canadian state, they'll end up locked up as young adults in the U.S. in the world's largest (both per capita and absolute) prison population for for "youthful indiscretions" like pot smoking. That, or the local government will seize your home to build a Wal-Mart now that property rights in the U.S. have been severely weakened by the recent Kelo case."
The US may have its share of problems, but when you have money you can avoid many of them. A good lawyer will keep kids out of jail for 'youthful indiscretions' and while the Kelo case indeed is disturbing, I am hopeful that it will be reverse shortly, or that a constitutional amendment will be passed (I think it would be an easy one to pass).
"The sad reality is that there's no escape from tyranny in today's world."
Sadly, given the power that modern technology places in the hands of government, you may be right.
Posted by: Leonidas | 2005-07-12 10:17:34 PM
If anyone wants to research the BC school system, particularly why teachers seem so radical, check out the effect of the union.
Look at the code of ethics. Remember the teacher who breaks this can be kicked out of the union and thus be unemployable in BC.
The union structure of governance is arranged so that only activists select the leadership who then set the policy and, in effect, choose the college of teachers.
Posted by: Pete E | 2005-07-13 1:08:36 AM
There is no more a gay history than there is an accountant's history. Yes, there are gay people in history, and that's fine and all. But the number of gay societies (societies where homosexuality is predominant) is small, and their reach of influence was limited (most influential? Sparta, IMO).
As far as gay culture, having been told that gay people are just like everyone else, that leads me to conclude that there is no gay culture any more than there is a hair dresser culture. Certainly, there are norms within the gay community, but those communities are self-selecting. You are not born into them, you do not aquire them from your parents, uncles/aunts or grandparents. You join cliques independent of bloodline. Ethnicities are an entirely different thing, and are much more meaningful in the history of nations.
And, it would be wonderful if you could put aside the juvenile remarks. I disagree with you, and this disgreement is based on rational thought and a fair amount of research. There are other possibilities than ignorance for this disagreement.
Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-13 3:38:46 PM
" I disagree with you, and this disgreement is based on rational thought and a fair amount of research"
You Half Canadian are just dumb, Pure and simple. I don't argue with simpletons.
Fair amount of research to you is Google.com. Go away.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-13 10:56:54 PM
"You'd have us put in camps and burned in ovens if you could so please don't comment since being a nazi isn't cool dude."
Exactly how many homosexuals were actually burned in Germany anyways? Was it, say, more than zero? (This is my favourite claim, that x number of homosexuals were placed in concentration camps. In reality, x number of people were placed in concentration camps for being homosexual, which if you think about it for a moment is not the same thing.)
Posted by: Lars Ormberg | 2005-07-14 3:48:19 AM
And Justin reveals the extent of his reasoning ability. When all else fails, resort to name calling. The refuge of those with no rational response.
I was hoping for more, but you've left us all wanting.
Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-14 10:42:26 AM
And thus, Justin shows us the extent of his reasoning skills. When all else fails, resort to name calling.
That's a shame.
Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-14 10:43:42 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.