Bigots upset about new Ontario health curriculum
COMMENT / Parents, which is more important: your child or your religious beliefs?
Chris Dupuis / National / Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Share |

In September 2010, Ontario children from grades one to eight will have a new physical and health education curriculum (PDF). The provincially mandated program includes comprehensive information on healthy eating habits, maintaining a physically active lifestyle and reducing the spread of common illness through personal hygiene.

The curriculum also contains detailed anti-bullying information. Children learn that bodies come in different shapes and sizes, that people come from different cultural and religious backgrounds, and that not all families look the same. They also learn that not everyone grows up to be heterosexual or sticks to their birth gender, and that none of these aforementioned characteristics give them the right to hurt or discriminate against anyone.

Children in older grades learn about sexual health, contraception and issues of consent around sexual activity. While the curriculum stresses abstinence as the best option, students are given information about what to do if they decide to have sex, as well as the potential consequences of choosing not to follow those practices.

A number of parents, particularly those in the Catholic school system (which is also mandated to teach the curriculum) are upset. The predictably bigoted Life Site News (a Catholic website) states that "the curriculum's revision is the attempt to instill a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly normal." It is unclear whether parents in Ontario will be able to withdraw their children from classes where information that violates their religious teachings is presented, as is the case in Alberta after Bill 44 was passed last year. The underlying fear in all this, if I understand the bigots correctly, is that if kids learn that queers exist then they'll turn out to be queer.

I've always been a strong defender of religious freedom, which is what this whole situation ultimately boils down to. Parents have the right to impart their religious beliefs to their children and those children, when they grow up, have the right to continue to practice those religious beliefs should they decide to. We all know that most kids don't end up sharing all if any of their parents' mores and values as adults, but I'll leave that aside.

Assuming these kids grow up to espouse their parents' homophobia, they need to understand what religious freedom means; specifically that there are two components to it. Religious freedom means that you have the right to practice your religion. But it also means that I have the right to not practice your religion. I have no problem with kids learning that homosexuality goes against their religious teachings, as long as they understand that not everyone practices their religion and they do not have the right to hurt or discriminate against those who don't.

There has been considerable debate in the last few decades within both the religious and scientific communities about whether sexual orientation and gender identity have a genetic origin, are the result of how a person is raised, or are purely a choice. There has never been a conclusive answer on this, but the one thing we know with absolute certainty is that being raised in a conservative religious household does not preclude someone from being queer. Based on my own experience in the queer community, I'd even be inclined to say that a conservative religious upbringing actually fosters queerness, based on the number of queers I know who came from these kinds of homes.

For parents who are thinking of pulling their children out of school because they will learn that some people have two mommies or that masturbation won't condemn you to the fiery pits of Hell, I have this to say: your child could turn out to be queer and all of your religious dogma will not eliminate that possibility. It will make the process more difficult and painful for them. It may mean that you never see them again, that they become addicted to drugs or commit suicide. But your hatred won't make them straight. You don't get to choose your child's sexual orientation or gender identity, but the choices you make will mean the difference between them growing up to be happy, healthy adults or living a life of pain. Which is more important to you: your child or your religious beliefs? Given the choice, I'm pretty sure which one I would pick.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
quit funding separate schools
The state should quit funding separate schools. One public school system would go a long way towards promoting secular values. Parents who feel vehemently about religious instruction could find alternatives.
recovering catholic, Toronto Ontario
03/31/10 10:39 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Breaking the cycle of abuse.
It kills me how "not normal" is still holds currency in some strange quarters as some wrongdoing deserved of disrespect. It's true, statistically homosexuality is not the norm and is therefore not normal; but neither is Catholocism. People with red hair are seriously not normal. Neither are artists named "Leif". At least nobody can accuse me of being a plague.
Leif Harmsen, Toronto Ontario
03/31/10 8:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No can do...
@ recovering catholic: Unfortunately, provisions for Catholic schools are in the frigging constitution in Ontario, I think (I'm in BC). It's not just a matter of a simple majority-vote legislative change to get rid of these leeches on society. Unfortunately.
Nathanial, Slocan Valley BC
03/31/10 11:40 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Just because it's in a document doesn't make it so
Teachers need more support regarding teaching about gays and Lesbians, transsexuals, and their respective histories. It's one thing for the Ministry of Education to publish a document. It's another to explicitly support teachers who actually follow it. The Ministry is also unclear about the hirarchy of what's needs to be taught. If teachers also have to demonstrate a respect for religious tolerance in the classroom while SIMULTANEOUSLY teaching respect for gays and Lesbians something needs to give. Personally, I hope teaching about gays and Lesbians prevails, but I'm not the only teacher out there and I'm sure what's taught will vary from community to community in Ontario - despite the new document.
Rae Vandenberg, Kitchener Ontario
04/10/10 8:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
What needs to be taught....
Rae complains the "The Ministry is also unclear about the hirarchy of what's needs to be taught." Perhaps start with justice and work from there.
Douglass St.Christian, Stratford Ontario
04/13/10 9:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Thank you
Thank you for this article. It's unfortunate that there no longer seems to be public access to the actual proposed curriculum document (the link at the beginning of your article no longer works and I can't find the documents anywhere online). However, I have read excerpts--ironically on the conservatve websites--and from the excerpts I think this is sound, fact-based health curriculu. I especially like your/the definition of religious freedom: "Religious freedom means that you have the right to practice your religion. But it also means that I have the right to not practice your religion. I have no problem with kids learning that homosexuality goes against their religious teachings, as long as they understand that not everyone practices their religion and they do not have the right to hurt or discriminate against those who don't."
Ananda Fulton, toronto ON
04/23/10 12:54 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Both docs
You can download the 1998 and 2010 curriculums from this link, in the top half. http://bit.ly/9jzsvc Cheers
Marcus McCann, Toronto ON
04/23/10 1:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Another copy?
The link at the top to the revised curriculum no longer works; presumably the government took it down when they started backpedaling on Thursday. Did anyone actually download a copy? I was super-busy all week and didn't get a chance, and now I can't look at it. I teach grade five. I've taken flak from parents about how I tell kids that the word "gay" is not to be used as an insult in my hearing, and I've had people tell me that ten-eleven is too young for sex ed. I think we need to update the health curriculum so that I have more support for this in my classroom.
Erin, Hamilton Ontario
04/24/10 7:51 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
[Editor's Note]
Download curriculum here
Click here to download the 1998 curriculum or click here to download the 2010 curriculum.
Brent Creelman, Toronto ON
04/24/10 9:58 AM EST
Whatever happens must be supported
(Sorry for typos in my past comments.) "Starting with justice" is too vague. Personally, I equate teaching about gays and Lesbians part of not ignoring their civil / human rights. I don't feel the same about respecting people's religious biases in the classroom. Both can not always be accommodated. But that's my PERSONAL opinion. What one fundamentalist calls justice is not what a queer family might call justice. Even the Charter of Rights is unclear about what the hierarchy is when it comes to respect for religion/culture vs. gay rights. Should teachers isolated in their classrooms and with a lot less legal training be any less confused? Again, even if such a curriculum exists where gays and Lesbians are included, there must be more done to actually train the teachers, support the teachers, and see it is actually implemented. From my perspective, the Ministry has done no such thing so far on any of its equity policies.
Rae, Kitchener Ontario
05/15/10 5:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.