Why Say No To Ontario Sex Ed Curriculum

The Ontario Sex-Ed Curriculum is too graphic and age-inappropriate which had outraged parents in 2010, and now again in 2015! As parents, we oppose this curriculum loud and clear for the following reasons:

The parental rights are encroached. Parents have legal rights and charter rights to be the first educator in their children’s education. The curriculum says parents play an “important role”, but they are treated as secondary source of information. The suggested helpers for children are “other people” (Grade 1, c1.3, p93); “a friend or an adult” (Grade 3, c2.3, p123); “ an adult” (Grade 4, c1.2, p140); “Trusted peers or adults” (Grade 5, c2.4, p158); “Elders, family members, community agencies, churches, mosques, synagogues, public health units, phone lines, recreation facilities”( Grade 6, c1.2, p172); “Health professional, elder, teacher, a religious leader, a parent or other trusted adult, a reputable websites, gay-straight alliances...” (Grade 8, c1.5, p216).

Young children are mentally invaded and traumatized by being planted wrong seeds at wrong season! The contents of the 2015 Sex Education Curriculum are too much, too early, too explicit and too misleading. Young children will be sexualized and groomed towards sexual exploitation. Here are some shocking excerpts from the Curriculum:
Grade 1 (C1.3, P93), “identify body parts, including genitalia (e.g. penis, testicles, vagina, vulva)”.
*Too early and too graphic! The children’s innocence is being taken away. Let children be children!
Grade 3 (C3.3, P124), “gender identity, sexual orientation”. “Gender identity is different from sexual orientation, and may be different from birth-assigned sex” (P231).
*This teaching is too confusing for young children! Any discussion to cause sexual confusion about a child's psychological and biological reality is mind invading, and it may lead to anxious, insecure, or depressed and struggle with their self-esteem and social relationships.

Grade 4 (C1.5, P141), “Relationships with friends can change...Some people start ‘liking’ others. They want to be more than ‘just friends’...”.
* A 10 year old, by Law, is under supervision by parents. It’s too early and misleading by encouraging romantic dating in Grade 4!

Grade 5 (C1.3, P157), “Fertilization can occur when the penis is in the vagina, sperm is ejaculated...”
*This teaching is too much, too explicit and too graphic for Grade 5 students! It is ethically wrong and psychologically invasive to burden young children prematurely with unsolicited sexual information. According to American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Parents should respond to the needs and curiosity level of their individual child, offering no more or less information than their child is asking for and is able to understand…

Grade 6 (C2.5, P175), “Exploring one’s body by touching or masturbating is something that many people do and find pleasurable. It is common and is not harmful...”
*This teaching encourages young children towards sexual exploitation when they are not mature enough to set proper boundaries. Research & marriage counseling suggest that masturbation leads to addiction, unfulfilled relationship, marriage problems and pornography. Invitation to sexual touching for children under 16 year’s old is against Canadian Criminal Code 152.

Grade 7 (C1.5, P196), “Engaging in sexual activities like oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal intercourse means that you can be infected with an STI”.
*Long term relationship with a single faithful heterosexual partner is the most efficient way to prevent STIs, but it was not taught in the curriculum!
*Instead, this teaching provides sexual information and ideas to young children who might not be aware of. As a result, they may go to explore it because of curiosity. It did not warn that different ways of sex carry different risks; it also fails to mention that Children under 18 year’s old who engage in anal sex is against the Canadian Criminal Code 159.

Grade 7 (p 196, 197, 199): “Having sex can be an enjoyable experience”. “Being able to talk about this with a partner is an important part of sexual health” “Thinking about your sexual health is complicated…It’s also about things such as your physical readiness… what gives you pleasure.”
*Is a 12 year old child expected to have a “partner”? Should a teacher suggest to a 12 year old that “having sex can be an enjoyable experience” and “making decisions based on what gives pleasure”?

Grade 8 (p215): “How would thinking about your personal limits and making a personal plan influence decisions you may choose to make about sexual activity?”
*Is a 13 year old expected to have a sex plan? Children are manipulated by this teaching. It is too permissive, an open invitation to experiment and explore sex. It’s license to promiscuity!

Grade 8 (C1.5, P216): “Demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g. male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual, intersex), gender expression, sexual orientation ...”
*This teaching is too confusing for young children while they should focus on learning math, science, reading and writing!

The curriculum misleads children that sex is safe as long as they use condom. Grade 7 (C1.5, P196), “People who think they will be having sex sometime soon should keep a condom with them... because condoms help to protect you against STIs, including HIV, and pregnancy”.
Only half truth is told! Condom does not 100% protect them from all STI, HIV and pregnancy!
*World Health Organization report: Evidence shows that condoms have an 85% protective effect against HIV and other STI. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs360/en/).
*Public Health Agency of Canada reports that “low levels of, or inconsistent, condom use among youth, as well as high levels of casual sex and/or multiple sex partners leaving them vulnerable to pregnancy and STIs (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/4-eng.php).
The curriculum significantly minimizes the reality of HIV/AIDS. It does not mention that anal sex increases the risks of HIV infection by more than 30 times and people could die of HIV/AIDS!

Grade 7 (C1.5, P197), “HIV treatment can reduce the amount of HIV in someone’s body to the point where it is much less likely that HIV will be transmitted”.

* This teaching could cause potential HIV spreads among young children! According to eMedicineHealth, “Drugs used to treat HIV and AIDS do not eliminate the infection. It is important to remember that he or she is still contagious even when receiving effective treatment” (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hivaids/page9_em.htm#hiv/aids_prognosis).

Grade 7 (C1.5, P197), “When people get tested for HIV early and access to HIV treatment, they have the opportunity to live a near-to-normal lifespan”.

*World Health Organization: More than 39 million people globally die of HIV/AIDS so far, and 1.5 million people die of HIV/AIDS in 2013 ( http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs360/en/).

*Health Canada: The median time from HIV to AIDS is now exceeding 10 years which means not everyone lives up to a normal lifespan ( http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/dc-ma/aids-sida-eng.php).

*Public Health Agency of Canada (HIV and AIDS Surveillance, 2013): In Canada, 2090 new cases of HIV and 177 new cases of AIDS were reported in 2013. 49% of all HIV cases in adults (≥ 15 years old) were due to the “men sex with men” (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/2013/dec/ind...).

Grade 7 (C1.5, P197), “one of the best things you can do to stop HIV is to stop the stigma that is associated with having the infection”.

*There is no scientific evidence to support that “HIV can be stopped by stopping any stigma”.

Ontario teens have the right to know that cervical cancer, anal cancer and throat cancer are related to HPV infection. Risk factors for HPV infection include earlier age of being sexual active, more number of sexual partners and high risks of sexual behavious. Condoms use can help to reduce the risk of HPV infection, but does not protect 100% against it. People can still contract HPV even with condom use or having had HPV vaccines.

All public school teachers are forced to teach age-inappropriate, explicit sexual curriculum against many teachers’ belief, culture and values. On the other hand, teachers are powered to teach and left with a lot of rooms to impose own sexual ideology onto children. How to prevent sexual offenses from teachers? You will be shocked to read the report of “Emerging Trends in Teacher Sexual Misconduct in Ontario 2007-2012 (http://www.learningtoendabuse.ca/about/news-events/emerging-trends-teach...).

This curriculum creates an unhealthy classroom dynamic and potential sexual violence. Discussing details of graphic sexual behaviors with group of young children is similar to actually watching in real life! Adult Website alert asks for 18 year’s old above! Openly and explicitly talking about sex at workplaces is sexual harassment! Why is allowed at schools!

The democracy was tarnished in our democratic country. A controversial curriculum was forcefully decreed as a DONE DEAL. Only 4000 parents were “consulted” with “concealed” contents. One size does not fit all! Multi-culture is cornerstone of Ontario society; 48.6% population of Ontario are foreign-born. The government did not show respect with the difference of culture, background, faith, social and family values. Thousands and thousands of parents’ crying and protesting were ignored. On Jun 1, 2015, 185,000 petition signatures were handed in to the government; On Jun 5, 2015, the government launched a $1.8 million ad campaign to whitewash the sex-ed curriculum (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wynne-liberals-spend-1.8-million-on-de...).

This teaching primes young children to be available to sex predators and misguides them to give “consent”. Consensual sex does not make sex safe! It’s illegal to consent underage children for sex!

The government claims to teach children safety with sex education, also denies Ben Levin’s involvement with the development of the Sex-Ed Curriculum. However, the potential risks of “rape, paedophilia, child pornography & incest” are not brought up in the entire Sex Education Curriculum and they are not warned as criminals to young children. It forces parents to ask the question whether this omission is not actually intentional, and to what extent this omission was influenced by people similar to Ben Levin?

This curriculum teaches sex as behavior that is detached from any moral component. Love, commitment and responsibility associated with sexual activities are never mentioned at all in the entire sex-ed curriculum! Young children are being turned into sexual beings!

With this kind of “sexual education”, other than creating more opportunities for sexual exploitation, promiscuity, STDs, HIV, AIDS, pregnancies, cancer and self-destruction, what can Ontarians expect to reap down the road?