No skipping homosexual classes, Canadian schools tell parents

Not every parent wants her child to learn about gays and transgender sexuality in school. However, the Vancouver board of education plans to enforce a ministry policy that prevents parents from pulling students out of classes that deal with alternative sexuality, the Vancouver Sun reports.

A staff recommendation released Friday from the board says parents can pull their children out of sensitive lessons in health classes because of religious or family beliefs, but can't opt their children out of gay-friendly lessons in any other classes:

According to ministry guidelines, students can only opt out of the health portions of Health and Career Education K to 7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10.

They aren't exempt from the lessons completely and must learn the material outside the classroom setting, by home instruction or self-directed studies. They also have to prove they've learned the material.

The recommendation has the Catholic Civil Rights League, for one, to balk. The league has long fought the policies, claiming parents have the right to remove children from any classes they find objectionable:

Edward Da Vita, a spokesman for the Catholic Civil Rights League, said he would prefer parents be able to pull their children out of any class containing controversial material.

"The problem now is that controversial subject matter can be brought up any time, anywhere, and there is no reasonable alternative delivery available for that," he said.

Source



Socialists made eugenics fashionable

An exhibition of the history of those scientific ideas that gave a grimy intellectual veneer to the Nazi genocide opened recently at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The collection centres on eugenics, the notion that humanity can be improved and perfected by selective breeding and the elimination of individuals and groups considered to be undesirable. Entitled Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race, it reveals how it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.

The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.

It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left.

The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. He argued in best-selling books such as Anticipations and A Modern Utopia that the world would collapse and from this collapse a new order should and would emerge.

"People throughout the world whose minds were adapted to the big-scale conditions of the new time. A naturally and informally organised educated class, an unprecedented sort of people." A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were "people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition", including "the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow." Christians would also "have to go" as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of "preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence" of the mentally and physically handicapped. "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved."

The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot. "I take it they will have to go" he said of them. Marriage as it is known would have to end but couples could form mutually agreed unions. They would list their "desires, diseases, needs" on little cards and a central authority would decide who was fitted for whom.

Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race. Religion would be banned, children would be raised in communes and all would be well. The old and the ill would, naturally, have to be done away with and doctors would be given the authority to decide who had a right to live, who had a duty to die.

In the United States socialist writer Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the mother of the abortion movement, called for a radical eugenics approach as early as the first years of the 20th century. She wrote of the need for "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."

The key of civilization. Unlocking the doors of a hell once unimaginable but now, after the Holocaust, the Ukrainian genocide, Pol Pot and Mao's mass slaughter, entirely within the grasp of contemporary sensibilities. History is often clouded by fashion and the whims of the victorious. Because some of the most pernicious intellectual criminals of the past century wore red they have escaped condemnation. It is time for the clouds to clear and the fashions to change.

Source



Subsidizing folly

A Massachusetts high school is facing a pregnancy boom with 17 girls entering summer vacation expecting babies in what some have called a pregnancy pact. Officials at Gloucester High School in Gloucester, Mass., are investigating whether half of the teens made a pact to get pregnant during the school year, Time.com reported.

Officials said that beginning last fall a large group of girls started asking the school clinic for pregnancy tests, the site said. "Some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," principal Joseph Sullivan told Time.com.

The pregnancy rate at the 1,200-student school is four times higher than the previous year, and officials were shocked to learn that men in their 20s had fathered some of the babies, Time.com said. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," Sullivan told Time.com.

The Gloucester baby boom is forcing this city of 30,000 to grapple with the question of providing easier access to birth control, something this largely Catholic enclave is slow to embrace, the site said.

It is obvious even to a disabled monkey that easier access to birth control would have no impact on a situation like this. These stupid children were trying to get pregnant. TRYING! Oh and by the way, other articles about this point out that most of these girls are 16 and younger. I can't possibly fathom why this situation is a mystery to anyone who is paying attention to popular culture. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often and on a grander scale.

We've allowed the rampant sexualization of girls all the way down to toddlers. Britney Spears' little sister, star of a Nickelodeon show, had a baby this week at the age of 17. Read the article I linked to for that and notice how they act like this is good news and she'll be such a great mom! OMG, like, she's so fun!

The stigma of being a slut is gone, thanks to Paris Hilton and the like. You can be publicly KNOWN to be a drunken, STD-carrying, wildly promiscuous shit-for-brains and what will happen? You'll get acting jobs, endorsement work, a fashion line, and hundreds of magazine covers.

If you have kids and you ever let them watch MTV - I mean ever - or half the other entertainment channels out there, you're making a serious mistake. Have you seen what's on there? I can't even begin to describe it. I flip by sometimes and stop to see what kind of garbage they're broadcasting to children, and I'm telling you as someone who doesn't even have kids, it freaks me OUT.

More:

The girls who made the pregnancy pact-some of whom, according to Sullivan, reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers-declined to be interviewed. So did their parents. But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

Jesus H. Christ. Strollers in a high school? Here's an idea: if there are so many of them that they need their own on-site daycare, create a separate school for them. I think everyone has completely lost touch with some of the positive effects of ostracizing people who do stupid, dangerous things. It's not always bad to impose some shameful consequences, and if that's one way to make these little psychos stop what they're doing, then good.

This is one of the results of the fact that we've decided as a society that being "judgmental" is a horrible thing. Seems to me that people need to start being MORE judgmental. I'm doing it right now and it feels pretty good.

If you're a 16-year-old girl and you have sex with a homeless man with the express PURPOSE of becoming pregnant, I am judging your ass off. Judge, judge, judging. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and that you should be embarrassed. Maybe feeling that way will help you learn a lesson that you so obviously need to learn.

I'm judging the parents, too, though not so much. Even the most well-intentioned parents can't control everything their kid does, particularly in this day and age, but still, it would have been nice of them to teach their daughters some damn sense. I'm judging the school officials for making it so damn easy and convenient for girls to have babies before they graduate.

I'm judging the hell out of all the morons in that city who think the answer is easier access to birth control. Are they not paying any attention AT ALL? Are they missing the part about how this was a pact and these girls set out deliberately to get preggers?

They don't want birth control, you fools! They want to have babies because they think that makes them cool and "lucky". They're stupid, stupid, stupid little children who have no moral compass and have come of age watching Paris and Britney whoring all over the front pages of magazines and getting wealthier by the day.

They have no concept of shame or of negative consequences. Society has failed them and now they're going to pay the price, but not alone. Their babies will pay a portion and so will the taxpayers. (Note that the town they all live in is an economic disaster with no jobs, so you know most of these kids and their babies will end up on welfare.)

But that's just me, and I'm judgmental. I sit here on my high horse and judge these poor naive children for being marauding narcissistic sluts, but what do I know? I was never "lucky" enough to give birth at age 16. I guess I'm just bitter and jealous because I had those burdensome ideas about "decency" and "having a future" and "not whoring myself out in order to be loved."

Source



Middle Eastern anti-Americanism is superficial

I grew up in the Arab world in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and anti-Americanism was the standard political language - even for those pining for American visas and green cards. Precious few took this seriously. The attraction to the glamorous, distant society was too strong in the Beirut of my boyhood.

It is no different today in Egypt or Pakistan. And what people tell pollsters who turn up in their midst with their clipboards? In Hosni Mubarak's tyranny, anti-Americanism is the permissible safety valve for Egyptians unable to speak of their despot. We stand between Pharaoh and his frustrated people, and the Egyptians railing against America are giving voice to the disappointment that runs through their life and culture. Scapegoating and anti-Americanism are a substitute for a sober assessment of what ails that old, burdened country.

Nor should we listen too closely to the anti-American hysteria that now grips Turkey. That country was once a serious, earnest land. It knew its place in the world as a bridge between Europe and Islam. But of late it has become the "torn country" that the celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington said it was, its very identity fought over between the old Kemalist elites and the new Islamists.

No Turkish malady is caused by America, and no cure can come courtesy of the Americans. The Turks giving vent to anti-Americanism are doing a parody of Europe: They were led to believe that the Europe spurning them, and turning down their membership in its club, is given to anti-Americanism, so they took to the same fad. Turkish anti-Americanism is no doubt fueled by the resentment within Turkey of the American war in Iraq that gave protection and liberty to the Kurds. No apology is owed the Turks; indeed, it is they who must reconsider their intolerance of minorities. If the Turks were comfortable with the abnormality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it is they who have a problem.

And if there is enthusiasm for Barack Obama on foreign shores, his rise to fame and power must be a tribute to the land that has made this possible. Where else would a boy of marginality and relative poverty find his way to the peak of political life? Certainly not in his father's Kenya, where the tribal origins of the Obamas would have determined young Barack's life-chances. In an Arab world hemmed in by pedigree, where rulers bequeath power to their sons and the lot of the sons is invariably that of the fathers, the tale of Obama is fantasy.

There are lines, and barriers, of race which bedevil Arab lands, and they will be there awaiting a President Obama should he prevail in November. Consider a recent speech by Libya's erratic ruler, Moammar Gadhafi, to his countrymen.

He said he feared that Mr. Obama, as a "black man," might succumb to an "inferiority complex" if he were to come to power. "This is a great menace because Obama might turn out to be more white than the whites, exaggerating his persecution and disdain of blacks. The statements of our Kenyan brother with an American nationality about Jerusalem, and his support for Israelis, and his slighting of the Palestinian people is either a measure of his ignorance of international politics or a lie perpetrated on the Jews in the course of an election campaign."

There is no need to roam distant lands in search of indictments of America's ways. Tales of our demise appear every day in our media. Yes, it is not perfect, this republic of ours. But the possibilities for emancipation and self-improvement it affords are unmatched in other lands.

Meanwhile, a maligned American president now returns from a Europe at peace with American leadership. In France, Germany and Italy, center-right governments are eager to proclaim their identification with American power. Jacques Chirac is gone. Now there is Nicolas Sarkozy, who offered a poetic tribute last November to the American soldiers who fell on French soil, before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. "The children of my generation," he said, "understood that those young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children."

The great battle over the Iraq war has subsided, and Europeans who ponder the burning grounds of the Islamic world know the distinction between fashionable anti-Americanism and the international order underpinned by American power. George W. Bush may have been indifferent to political protocol, but he held the line when it truly mattered, and the Europeans have come to understand that appeasement of dictators and brigands begets its own troubles.

It is one thing to rail against the Pax Americana. But after the pollsters are gone, the truth of our contemporary order of states endures. We live in a world held by American power - and benevolence. Nothing prettier, or more just, looms over the horizon.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************