Ben Levin has pleaded guilty to three charges of child-pornography, including making and possessing child pornography, and counselling the sexual assault of a child (Joe Warmington, “Liberals Can’t deny Levin’s Role with Sex Ed Curriculum,” Toronto Sun, March 3, 2015). What makes this admission of criminal activity of special interest to parents in Ontario is that Levin was the deputy minister of education while he was in charge of Ontario’s new sex education curriculum. Moreover, there can be no doubt that he was at the helm of the hotly contested curriculum. In his own words: “I was the deputy minister of education. In that role I was the chief servant. I was responsible for the operation of the Ministry of Education and everything that they do; I was brought in to implement the new education policy” (ibid.).
The scandal has been met with lies and denials by members of the Liberal party. Kathleen Wynn, Ontario’s premier, who is admittedly homosexual, has responded to parental protests by accusing them of being “homophobic”. The accusation violates a number of logical rules, including argumentum ad hominem (arguing against the person and not the issue), argumentum ad populum (appealing to the people, that is, homosexuals), and argumentum ad baculum (arguing by means of using emotional force). The Premier makes herself vulnerable to the charge that she does not care about the citizens of Ontario and is not interested in what parents have to say about her sex ed program.
Apart from its dubious sponsors, the curriculum is fraught with its own internal problems. One might reason that with regard to so delicate a matter of sex education, boys and girls should be taught in separate classes. This, according to the curriculum, is not feasible, since there is no longer any “boys” or “girls”. The curriculum informs third grade children that human beings are not male or female, but can change from one sex to another. As a corollary, “two mothers or two fathers” are normative. In this way, gender becomes dissociate from anatomy. Parents who thought they were raising little girls or little boys were mistaken in thinking that they knew anything about the gender of their children. The indefiniteness of sexual identity is merely one element of a curriculum, and clearly one that advances the homosexual agenda.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, who founded the Institute of Marital Healing, in Pennsylvania, states that if a mental health professional pushed homosexuality or transgenderism on young children the way the Ontario sex ed curriculum does, without warning them about the health risks, “they would be guilty of malpractice”. Yet, the curriculum presents anal and vaginal sex as equally safe. A pertinent question may be raised: could teachers who implement the curriculum be sued for malpractice? Dr. Fitzibbons went on to say that a psychiatrist could be sued if he endorsed certain sexual activities while withholding the inherent risks involved.
Dr. Robert McDonald, a retired psychotherapist and medical doctor, attests that “any action which sexualizes a child before he or she is ready is sexual abuse”. “Therefore,” he concludes, “so-called sex ed for children before puberty is an act of sexual abuse”. Has the Ontario government found a legal way in institute systematic child abuse? The negative parental reaction to the sex ed program is considerable and growing in strength. Ironically, there are lessons in the curriculum that are too crude to be mentioned here in an article that may be read by children.
Since the family, and not the Premier of Ontario, provides the basic unit of society, the kind of education that is offered to children goes a long way in determining what kind of society will emerge. The solidarity of the family still remains the foundation of freedom.