Mackson wrote:Shrunk wrote:Mackson wrote:Shrunk's title is misleading. While the comment can raise the question, 'What do you mean by that?', there's nothing that gives Shrunk the license to attribute to him a comment he did not state and also seems to deny. It's just more mumbo-jumbo from Shrunk.
Just how is it misleading? Is Kathleen Wynne the premier of Ontario? She is. Is she gay? She is. Did Monte McNaughton say that she does not have the right, that it is "not the job of the premier", to implement a sex ed program? He did.
So every single point of my title is factually accurate. Are you perhaps reading more into it than is explicitly stated in the words of the title? It seems you are. But isn't just what you are accusing me of doing?
Oh, stop. You
added the 'gay' onto what he said.
She's gay, isn't she? So why can I not describe her as the "gay" premier? You'll notice there are no quotation marks in my thread title, so I am not implying a direct quotation of what McNaughton had said. If I had said "Liberal premier" and McNaughton had not mentioned her party affiliation, would that also be bugging you? You really are making a big deal of trivialities.
There's a difference between someone saying 'a primer has no right to implement a sex ed program' and 'a gay primer has no right to implement a sex ed program'. If you were adding mere incidental facts to his statement, you could have just as well have added 'brown-haired' or 'old', but you didn't. You added the word that makes him appear as if he were saying that because of her homosexuality.
Everyone knows exactly what he was saying. Including him.
Ah, so government leaders who have gone to "leftist" schools should not be allowed to implement state policies, even when elected by a convincing majority. I must have missed that principle of democracy in my civics classes.
That's actually not what I stated.
If there is a rule against premiers telling parents what is age-appropriate, because, well, it is paternalistic, then it is especially inappropriate for premiers who went to schools leftist schools with deviant ideas and advocacy on sexual morality. The left here in Canada is not known for its non-paternalistic behaviours, Shrunk, and we can even expect more of that from someone who was educated in a leftist university aimed towards that sort of thought, and that the thought is deviant is also worrisome because public schools are supposed to be for everyone.
Actually, what is "deviant" compared to the values of average Ontarians is the Catholic School systems policy of labelling homosexual behavior "sinful" and "objectively disordered". Hopefully a stop can soon be put to that.
Now, on the election. The Liberals tabled their first attempt to implement this sex ed curriculum. It was rejected by voters.
Really? When? As I recall, it was dropped because McGuinty last his nerve in the face of determined and loud opposition from what was, nonetheless, a minority of religious fanatics. Wynne seems to be made of sterner stuff, and has the advantage of a majority gov't.
She didn't run on this issue, and so I am thinking voters thought that the issue was a done deal. When she won a majority (which you and I know was only due to Hudak's ideas concerning the firing of 100,000 workers), she brought the issue back, and Ontario is now faced with it. On your narrative, you might it seem like voters wanted her proposed sex curriculum, but it was rejected. She won the majority because of the scariness of Hudak, not some voter appreciation for her ideas on sex ed. That was not even on the platform.
See, this how a parliamentary democracy works: The government tables bills and, if it can get the support of a majority of MLA's, the bill becomes a law. Whether the bill was part of the election campaign is not a requirement.
Sex ed was not an election issue, but my impression is that there is broad support for renewal of the sex-ed program. Parents realize it is useless to teach a course that is 15 years out of date, and there is widespread support for addressing issues like consent, and the implications of social media. A large part of the new curriculum was added actually
added at the request of a a group of students, so the idea that this is something that is being imposed without any consultation with stakeholders just seems like another right wing lie.
We'll see how things play out, but my expectation is that this will arouse little controversy, other than from the already marginalized religious right. That the Catholic authorities are falling into line rather than squealing like stuck pigs about this, I think, gives an indication of how the political winds are blowing.
by 
Canadians and their weird contradictory political parties.
