With sex-ed plan, father knows best
Doug Ford can’t resist the temptation of sex education. Or more precisely, sex-ed regression, repression and suppression.
With children back in class this week, the premier has placated his political base by backdating Ontario’s updated sex education to the 1990s (for elementary and middle schools). Going forward, Ontario is going backward to a time when father knows best.
That means gays are being treated as non-people again. There’s no mention of consent, forcing students to read body language instead. As for (naughty) body parts, they are out again — vulvas have vanished from the vocabulary of the classroom in the early grades by order of the Progressive Conservative government (despite pleas from police and child protection authorities to equip kids with the right words in case of abuse).
Now, Ontario’s biggest union wants to teach the premier a lesson about the perils of rousing parents, arousing partisans, and using students as pawns in an elaborate political game.
The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario launched a court challenge this week arguing that Ford’s plan violates the Charter rights of minority students and the rights of all teachers. The lawsuit comes on top of a test case filed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association last month citing human rights violations. Class, please discuss: Is it right for the Progressive Conservatives — no matter how much they claim an electoral mandate — to override and overwrite the human rights and Charter rights of minority LGBTQ students?
Should not the school curriculum that dictates what goes on the blackboard be congruent with the constitution hanging on classroom walls?
If parents who oppose the sex-ed update can simply keep their children out of class, why would they instead try to veto the curriculum for the entire province, thwarting those who want their children to learn the latest information? Bonus question: Is it wise to wag your fingers at teachers, and is it prudent to invite disgruntled parents to file anonymous online complaints through a so-called snitch line, fortheparents.ca (And shouldn’t it be called forthestudents.ca)?
Ford believes public opinion is on his side, because wedges work wonders with the base. But tell that to the judge. How did we get here? Why are we reliving another puerile, sterile debate about a twodecade-old curriculum drafted in an era before #metoo, texting, sexting, and omnipresent porn?
History keeps repeating itself for a reason. Among today’s Tories, sex-ed is the price of admission to the party and the path to power.
The former PC leader, Patrick Brown, played the “social conservative” card to win victory in 2015, but then publicly atoned for the gender discrimination he detected along the way: “Consultation doesn’t mean opening the door to intolerance. I will never support removing LGBT sensitivity or combating homophobia from schools.”
But Brown’s departure last January triggered a new leadership race, and Ford used the same playbook to win the allegiance of social conservatives. Once again, the price of their support was scrapping sex-ed for all students.
Only rival candidate Caroline Mulroney had the backbone to speak truth in pursuit of power: “I am not going to re-open the curriculum,” she insisted. “My position on sex-ed is what I believe.”
Now, as Ford’s attorney general, Mulroney will preside over the government’s defence of the indefensible in court. It will be interesting to hear her updated arguments for undoing the curriculum.
Unlike the politicians, the teachers have done their homework. The ETFO legal brief makes a compelling case that the government has transgressed Charter rights on transgender and other issues.
By muzzling teachers who were trained to teach the latest, evidence-based sex-ed curriculum (prepared by pedagogical experts, endorsed by parental representatives, and widely embraced by Catholic educators), the government is “preventing them from communicating accurate information that is critical to students’ health … in a modern, diverse and pluralistic society,” the union argues.
The government is also violating the Charter by “increasing the risk of physical and sexual violence, transmission of sexually transmitted infections, cyberbullying, and online child exploitation.” And it is perpetuating “discrimination against LGBTQ+ students ... by excluding topics related to sexuality, gender identity and same-sex marriage” in a way that casts them as “abnormal.” By “restricting and coercing teachers” from providing up to date information, the government is undermining their professionalism.
The legal brief is a powerful appeal for sanity from the judiciary. It should cause all parents across the province — not just those with a political or religious agenda — to think hard about how curriculum development has been hijacked by the loudest voices.
While the Tories place ideology over biology, reality intrudes: syphilis rates have tripled across the province over the last decade, chlamydia rates jumped 17 per cent over the previous five years and gonorrhea increased 65 per cent nationally, as condom use falls out of fashion with young people.
Think about that next time a politician insists that father knows best about sex-ed.