Comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 Curriculum
by Rod Taylor [CHP Skeena-Bulkley Valley]
Background: the BC Ministry of Education, in cooperation with Attorney General Wally Oppal, made a deal with two homosexual teachers (Corren and Corren), which gave the two men unprecedented influence over the development of new curricula for use in BC schools. The following commentary points out several obvious problem passages for family-values advocates.
The following comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 “Integrated Resource Package” (Curriculum) are merely specific points in regard to this blatant attempt by the BC government to introduce significant philosophical changes to current public school curricula.
These changes lack the warrant of proper public dialogue, and do not conform to the specific wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and fail the dictates of common sense.
These changes, initiated by the Corren Settlement Agreement, whereby two citizens have been given disproportionate influence over the curricula of the BC Education system, seem designed primarily to foster change in the sexual attitudes and lifestyle choices of young people.
P. 37 contains an attack on “religion” as a negative influence on public policies and practice; then encourages thinking based on this premise and lays a groundwork for the dismissal of policies “originating” from these beliefs.
P. 38 throws “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a list of other personal identification characteristics, and suggests that these newly-contrived aspects of personhood might lead to marginalization or oppression, thus eliciting from sincere students a desire to become “agents of change”.
P. 39 injects further “moral impetus” for students to work to create new protected categories, insinuated by the authors, such as “addictions, secular worldviews (merely another form of religion that denies a personal God) and the environment (clearly a call for students to jump on Al Gore’s bandwagon).”
P. 41 clearly places all gender-orientation issues (personal lifestyle choices) in the same category as race and gender in terms of potential discrimination. This is contrary to logic.
The endless appeal to victimhood is not justified by history.
P.42 is full of heavily propagandized language designed to move students towards a worldview different than that of their parents and the historical and cultural roots of our nation. Prostitution (“sex-trade”) and animals are loosely thrown into a discussion purported to be about human rights as protected under Canada’s Charter. The assumption that all lifestyle choices—such as prostitution—are of equal value, and that animals should be protected by the Charter, are imaginative positions inconsistent with logic and history.
The authors go far beyond any legitimate effort to encourage students’ thinking, and here show that their true intent is to tell students HOW and WHAT they should think.
Finally, the invitation for students to write a positive commentary on how the Civil Marriage Act (the 2005 endorsement of same-sex marriage forced upon Canadians by a partially ‘whipped’ vote [Cabinet ministers were not allowed to vote their conscience]) “promotes social justice.” This is clearly not meant to lead to an open-ended discussion of the Act, its pros and cons, but an endorsement of same-sex “marriage”. Note that the invitation is only for positive comments; the possibility that students might be aware of negative social consequences flowing from this Act is excluded. That exclusion typifies the one-sidedness of this IRP.
All the above, which barely scrapes the surface of this terrible piece of work, should be sufficient to send this draft curriculum AND the companion curriculum “Making Space, Giving Voice” the overbroad and under-thought K-12 equivalent, back to the drawing board.
Family-values advocates, who actually represent a large segment of BC’s population, should be involved in the draft FROM the BEGINNING (real input) not merely be given a token opportunity to respond after the damage is done.
Parents Research Group Exposes Details of Corren Agreement
1. A contract was given by the B.C. government to two homosexual activists in April 2006. The contract grants special privileges to the Corren’s to review the re-writing of the B.C. school curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12.
2. The Corren’s are two homosexual activists, living together, who combined their names to one surname—Corren.
3. The intent of the contract is to cause the entire B.C. school curriculum to reflect a favourable portrayal of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle.
4. No other persons or groups were granted equal privileges.
5. The revised Social Justice Course (Grade 12) us already being taught in schools.
6. The Teachers Guide to teach the revised curriculum in all grades, (all subjects) is slated to be finalized for September 2008.
7. Parents rights are ignored. Will this teaching not contradict the religious, traditional, moral and cultural values of the parents?
8. Numerous reputable, established organizations are collaborating to protest the revising of the B.C. school curriculum..
9. To join the protest, contact PARENTS RESEARCH GROUP (Len Remple) [email protected]<!– var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy82073 = 'lenremple' + '@'; addy82073 = addy82073 + 'shaw' + '.' + 'ca'; var addy_text82073 = 'lenremple' + '@' + 'shaw' + '.' + 'ca'; document.write( '‘ ); document.write( addy_text82073 ); document.write( ” ); //–>