EXCERPTS FROM THE 2015 SEX-EDUCATION CURRICULUM
Grade 1 (age 6): Genitalia & consent
- Graphic lesson on sexual body parts including “penis”, “testicles”, “vagina” and “vulva”
- Kathleen Wynne and Minister Liz Sandals have also promised that teaching of “enthusiastic sexual consent” will be weaved throughout the sex-ed curriculum, beginning in grade 1. It appears that it will become progressively more explicit in each grade so that children can “see what consent looks like”, although the government has not provided details on how this will be presented to 6 year olds.
Grade 3 (age 8): 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.
- The potential for causing serious sexual confusion in the minds of children is very real with this teaching. See excerpts from the actual 2015 curriculum document below.
- Gender Identity theory is not science-based teaching, but rather a dangerous socio-political philosophy that seeks to normalize a mental disorder. Gender identity confusion is still recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistics Manual as a “gender dysphoria” disorder. This ideology being foisted on school children by the Wynne government aims to indoctrinate the next generation into believing that transgenderism/transsexualism is an innate, genetic characteristic just like skin colour or race.
- In fact, encouraging the belief that one can choose to be a gender opposite to that which their bodily reality dictates, is psychologically harmful to children who experience sexual confusion. It may also be physically harmful. Many children who might be experiencing temporary gender confusion that would otherwise naturally resolve itself over time, may now instead be “pushed” by the school system toward sex-reassignment surgery.
- The most authoritative study on the effects of sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) was done in Sweden, over a 30 year period. Its methodology involved following up with transsexuals who underwent SRS, and observing the resultant mortality rates. The results of this study found that 10 to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers. This proves that pushing gender identity theory on 8-year olds has nothing to do with science, health or the wellbeing of children, but rather, everything to do with a political agenda by adults whose goal is sexual revolution.
Grade 3: 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. See excerpt from the actual 2015 curriculum below.
- The rough outline below will no doubt be supplemented with additional teacher resources and Ministry training that will more aggressively undermine the beliefs of traditionally-principled families. For example, here is a children’s story book approved by the Ministry of Education, which pushes a world view that is clearly on one-side of this divisive moral issue.
- It would be one thing to teach the fact that such alternative family structures exist, if the plan were to teach it at older ages, and if it were done in a way that respected the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of traditionally-principled families. However, the Kathleen Wynne government will certainly take an activist approach to these lessons and show no respect nor tolerance for traditionally-principled families.
Grade 4 (age 9): 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 2015 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 a confessed child pornographer (jump to link) and to unsavoury groups who promote anal play, group sex, sadism/masochism, and bondage (jump to link), parents are prudent to see a red flag here.
Grade 6 (age 11): Masturbation
- Encourages masturbation as a “pleasurable” way for children to learn about their bodies. See excerpt from the actual 2015 curriculum document below.
- Regardless of what any person’s moral stance is on the practice of masturbation, all fair-minded people should agree that the government has no business actively promoting/encouraging 12 year olds to masturbate.
- In addition to promoting the practice of masturbation, the curriculum will teach about “vaginal lubrication”.
- It is unclear how this teaching can possibly be retrofitted with a “Catholic lens” in order to make it suitable for Catholic religious schools. Catholic doctrine teaches that masturbation is an immoral practice that violates the purpose of human sexuality, which is ordered towards marriage, procreation and the mutual fulfillment of husband and wife.
Grade 7 (age 12): Anal intercourse & 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 Premier 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 30 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 on the right.
- 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 Kathleen Wynne think its a good idea 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 that puts lives at risk.
- 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”.
Grade 7: Sexual Pleasure
- Teacher may help 12-yr-olds to appreciate an “understanding of your own body, including what gives you pleasure”.
Grade 7: Keep a condom with you
- Children will be taught to keep a condom on their person in case there’s a chance “they will be having sex sometime soon”.
- This is an overly explicit suggestion to children which once again will leave the impression with kids that we adults expect they are now having sex. For some, it might even be felt as pressure to become sexually active. For some kids, this type of lesson will only arouse curiosity to try things sooner than they would have planned to on their own. It is a recipe for launching children into a lifestyle of promiscuity.
- Again, it is unclear how such a teaching could possibly be retrofitted with a “Catholic lens” to make it fit for faith-based Catholic schools.
Grade 8 (age 13): “Make a personal plan’ about your sexual activity
- To a lot of parents, reading a curriculum suggestion for grade 8’s in which the teacher is to help students make a sexual plan for themselves sounds a little perverse. Is it age-appropriate to suggest to grade 8’s that they should make a plan in which they decide how far they’re willing to go with sexual activity, and then “stick to what I had planned”.
- Many parents feel this has an undertone that is too sexually permissive and is giving license to promiscuity. Keep in mind that at this age, children cannot legally give consent. It may actually be illegal for adults to instruct underage children to have sex.
- The next teacher prompt once again risks sending the message to grade 8 kids that “we expect you may be having sex or will very soon”.
- Is there a risk this will put pressure on kids to become sexually active? Or on others who are curious, especially boys, the encouragement to go ahead and do so? Well, a 2014 poll of UK teens conducted by the Institute of Public Policy Research suggests that the answers may be YES. Researchers found that a large majority of both boys & girs complained that sex education often presents promiscuity as normal, putting additional pressure on them to become sexually active before they might otherwise do so.
Benjamin Levin: Pedophilic influence?
It’s important to consider the fact that this curriculum was also written under the direction of a confessed child sex predator, 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 child pornography related charges, and confessed to three of them.
Graphic testimony from his trial revealed how grotesque was his perverted attraction to children. While texting on a chat site with an undercover officer he thought was a mother interested in molesting her own daughter, he instructed “on how to groom” the child for sex, including specific techniques she could use to lower the child’s natural inhibitions. Levin told undercover officers he had sexually assaulted his 3 daughters, and now that they are grown and have young children of their own, he hopes they will one day share their kids (his grandchildren) sexually with him.
Many people are questioning whether “grooming” could have been a reason for Levin introducing these overly explicit subjects at such delicate ages in the Liberal curriculum. Is it conceivable that the curriculum may have been designed by Levin to “prime” children, so as to make them sexually available?
When it is found that a child sex predator 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 it. Should warning bells be going off when we learn that a convicted 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? Like his advice to the undercover cop on techniques to lower the child’s inhibitions regarding sexual matters, might this rather graphic curriculum have been designed with an eye to lowering the inhibitions of children in Ontario elementary schools regarding sexual matters?
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 160,000+ Ontario parents have signed petitions 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. anal fisting), sex toys, and the viewing of pornography. See excerpts below from Planned Parenthood’s educational resources for 13-year-olds. Please note that these perverse resources are NOT in the Liberal curriculum. They are merely meant to show the deviant mindset of those who have influence on the Liberal government.
- Queer Ontario: promotes bondage, sadism/masochism, casual sex and group sex (see below from their website). Again, please note that these perverse ideas are NOT in the Liberal curriculum. They are merely meant to show the radical worldview of those who have influence on the Liberal government. Queer Ontario admits to having helped the Liberal government write amendments to Bill 13, the so-called Accepting Schools Act which was imposed the Wynne/McGuinty government in 2012.
- 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. Read their demand letter.
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.