by Because your subtitle followed with something like 'says opposition leader', and this puts those words in his mouth, not yours. Of course I don't need to tell you this, because you know how and where you erred. I'm unsure who you think that you're fooling.
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.
It wouldn't bug me because you wouldn't be trying to sneak something bad into the mouth of another person. Yet, here you are. You're so desperate to source bigotry, you'll make it up. If you did this in a professional capacity or in the academia, you'd be in big shit.
Everyone knows exactly what he was saying. Including him.
Ah, so here is your admission. You put words into his mouth that you think he "really" said even though he explicitly denies it. OK, but you need to clarify that.
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.
You didn't address my point at all. We aren't talking about the Catholic school system.
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.
Fanatics? Seriously? Your language only shows a fanaticism. McGunity backtracked at the behest of socially conservative voters, whether they be religious or not, and the issue was dropped. In any case, it was rejected.
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.
No one suggested that it was. I am challenging your earlier narrative, the one that suggests as if the voters wanted her ridiculous curricula.
Sex ed was not an election issue,...
Not because it wasn't important but because it was presumed to be a dead fish. There's good reason why Wynne shut her mouth about it until after the election, and you know this.
but my impression is that there is broad support for renewal of the sex-ed program.
Even if this were true, it doesn't translate into support for what was offered by Wynne.
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.
This is irrelevant to my point.
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.
Once people know what's in it, it will raise controversy, or you'll just have a bunch of people removing their children from sex-ed instruction (which, by the way, was exactly the sort of reasoning that led to the removal of the school prayer). Contentious examples include, but not limited to, this idea that masturbation is not harmful. This is something contrary to religious teaching-it needs to be qualified to the physical realm. Similarly, the suggested curriculum speaks through the mouths of children (in a very insidious way of the government), implying that acceptance involves "all gender identities and sexual orientations portrayed positively in the media, in literature, and in materials we use at school." This is a way to sneak ideas into the classroom that the liberals couldn't pass directly, ones that are an affront to socially conservative viewpoints, whether they be religious or not. The sneak is to pass ideas on to the teacher, when he or she reads the curriculum so that he or she can suggest or prompt students to those answers. It's a way to plant ideas in classrooms without actually stating those ideas themselves. It's remarkably sneaky, actually. I had a chuckle at it.
There are also some serious concerns about what it means to develop "positive self-concepts" and "accept" their status as a homosexual person, bisexual, etc, because this will be dramatically different upon the teacher in the classroom and the school. The objection here is not that such people shouldn't "accept" this and develop "positive self-concepts", but only that we don't even what know what it means to "support" them in doing so. We, the adults, don't agree with what it means to accept, tolerate and respect differences, and yet teachers are supposed to teach this, without direction!? It's insane. What is going to happen is that kids will come to their own understanding of what we mean by it or what their teacher means by it, not what is being taught per curricula. I know that the Catholic boards will develop a very different perspective of what it means.
There's a reason why she can't offer an understanding of what this means, and that reason is because we don't agree on what it means. But then it becomes a fucking crapshoot about what it means. Let me give you an example, I'll use the concept of tolerance, something else that is poorly defined. Carol Trosset, in her article entitled 'Obstacles to open discussion and critical thinking', writes:
"Given these orientations, we need to recognize that when we recommend "tolerance" to students, they may not hear the same message we're trying to send. Many of us think of tolerance in terms of civility, of behaving in well-mannered ways toward all members of the community, whether or not we approve of their views or behavior. Many students, on the other hand, think that being tolerant means approving of all ways of being, and believing that all ways are equally valid (except, of course, any position that openly makes value judgments and does not extend equal approval to all)."
and here's what ideas concerning "safe" environments, when poorly defined, lead:
"Stressing the importance of making everyone feel "safe" often seems to result in making many people afraid to disagree with anyone, for fear of intimidating or offending them. Perhaps the teacher's solution is not ever-more safety and respect (words that can be variously interpreted), but cultivating a more careful distinction between the idea and the person."
But, if the idea concerns the conduct of homosexual activity or trans-gendered expression or some deeply held cultural belief, then we have a serious fucking issue. Creating safe-environments and being tolerant and respectful just ran in direct opposition to the freedom to think critically and free expression, which is exactly what I see time and time again with students, and it is something educators have been complaining about. It's also why I nearly begged you to stop chirping the charge of 'bigotry' rather than calmly, politely and rationally discussing issues.
what don't you understand about the soci in 
You think I was trying to fool anyone?
