Sign in to follow this  

Conservatives....The FUTURE of Ontario !

Recommended Posts

Today, our Government tabled the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act. Through this Act, we are closing two gaping holes in Ontario’s education system. One pertains to student safety. The other pertains to student success in mathematics.  

if passed:
•Mandate all new teachers to successfully complete a math content knowledge test before seeking their teaching registration.  
•Require the Discipline Committees of the Ontario College of Teachers and College of Early Childhood Educators to revoke an educator’s certificate of registration for any act of sexual abuse of a student or child.  
•Provide regulation making authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe other criminal offences of a sexual nature that would result in the mandatory revocation of an educator’s certificate of registration.

“By making these changes, we are sending out a clear message: the government has zero tolerance for sexual abuse of Ontario students and children. We are taking action now to make our schools and early years and child care centres are safe learning environments,” said Lisa Thompson, Minister of Education.

For more detail and information, visit

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God for the Ford Conservatives !!

Let’s hope the generation Wynne utterly corrupted with her morally incomprehensible LGBTQ agenda can be nurtured back to some semblance of normalcy.


The Kathleen Wynne sex-ed curriculum never mentioned the word "love" or "marriage", even once. 

It is age-inappropriate and too explicit.

From a scientific & medical perspective it is flawed, and at times, even contradicts science. 

It is tainted by ties to unsavory individuals and radical groups.

One could write volumes on the ways in which the new sex curriculum is harmful. It puts elementary-aged children at physical and emotional risk. It makes them more vulnerable to sexual predators, not less so as the Wynne government would have you believe. It also puts them at greater risk for sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) by omitting and even downplaying the risks of certain activities.  

The radical nature of the curriculum also undermines parental authority over the moral education of their own kids.

Further down in this analysis, we'll provide a grade-by-grade breakdown, complete with page numbers and excerpts, to highlight just a few of the most reckless, age-inappropriate, and at times, anti-scientific classroom lessons which the Wynne government wants our elementary school children to learn.

Parents who've read the curriculum are deeply disturbed by the fact that a curriculum purporting to prepare children for something so intimate and important as sex and sexuality never once mentions the words "love" or "marriage".  Adding to this red flag, is the observation that the lessons carry an undertone of permissiveness and tending to portray sex as a purely recreational activity, without any connection to marriage or love.

Once you learn who the radical "experts" were that the Liberals consulted to write this curriculum, you realize that this is no accident. Rather, it reveals the mindset of its writers, and the philosophical underpinnings of the curriculum itself.

The sex-ed portion of the curriculum is filled with controversial sexual identity theories that will be taught to very young children. These include the the theories of "Gender Identity", "Gender Expression", and the anti-scientific notion that there are six genders , not just male and female.

Anal intercourse is being presented in a way that students may interpret it as carrying no higher risk for STIs than vaginal intercourse, an irresponsible and misleading presentation of the former which carries a 3000% higher risk for contracting HIV.

The curriculum also downplays the seriousness of contracting HIV, potentially leaving the impression with students that it's "not really that big a deal". A section on HIV and AIDS seems to have an undertone of making it acceptable and normal for individuals who are HIV positive to continue having sex with others. Of course this is not science-based teaching. It's political and social engineering. It is irresponsible and may put lives at risk.

To save parents having to read through 244 pages of the curriculum document, below is detailed, grade-by-grade summary with excerpts from the curriculum document itself, including page numbers. This is not an exhaustive listing of lessons that many parents find inappropriate, but only some of the more controversial lessons.  



Grade 1 (age 6): Genitalia & consent

  • Graphic lesson on sexual body parts including "penis", "testicles", "vagina" and "vulva"


  • Teaching sexual consent:  Kathleen Wynne and her former Education Minister Liz Sandals promised that teaching of "enthusiastic" sexual consent will be weaved throughout the sex-ed curriculum, beginning at Grade 1. It appears that it will become progressively more explicit in each grade so that children can "see what (sexual) consent looks like". 


Grade 3 (age 8):  Gender as a changeable social construct

  • Will teach the disputed theory of "gender identity" as if it were fact. This is the notion that whether you're a boy or a girl does not necessarily relate to your physical anatomy. It is merely a "social construct". Gender is "fluid" according to this theory, and any little boy can decide that he is actually a girl, if that's the way he feels in his mind, or vice-versa.  
  • The potential to produce serious sexual confusion in the minds of the young is very real with this teaching. See excerpts from the actual 2015 curriculum document below.



  •  Gender Identity theory is not science-based teaching, but rather a dangerous socio-political philosophy that seeks to normalize a mental disorder. Gender identity confusion is still recognized by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic & Statistics Manual as a "gender dysphoria" disorder. This ideology being foisted on school children by the Wynne government aims to indoctrinate the next generation into believing that transgenderism/transsexualism is an innate, genetic characteristic just like skin colour or race.
  • In fact, encouraging the belief that one can choose to be a gender opposite to that which their bodily reality dictates, is psychologically harmful to children who experience sexual confusion. It may also be physically harmful. Many children who might be experiencing temporary gender confusion that would otherwise naturally resolve itself over time, may now instead be "pushed" by the school system toward sex-reassignment surgery.  
  • The most authoritative study on the effects of sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) was done in Sweden, over a 30 year period. Its methodology involved following up with transsexuals who underwent SRS, and observing the resultant mortality rates.  The results of this study found that 10 to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers. This proves that pushing gender identity theory on 8-year olds has nothing to do with science, health or the wellbeing of children, but rather, everything to do with a political agenda by adults whose goal is sexual revolution.


Grade 3:  Homosexuality

  • Will normalize homosexual family structures and homosexual "marriage" in the minds of 8-year-olds, without regard for the religious/moral beliefs of families. See excerpt from the actual 2015 curriculum below.
  • The rough outline below will no doubt be supplemented with additional teacher resources and Ministry training that will more aggressively undermine the beliefs of traditionally-principled families. For example, here is a children's story book approved by the Ministry of Education, which pushes a world view that is clearly on one-side of this divisive moral issue.
  • It would be one thing to teach the fact that such alternative family structures exist, if the plan were to teach it at older ages, and if it were done in a way that respected the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of traditionally-principled families. However, the Kathleen Wynne government will certainly take an activist approach to these lessons and show no respect nor tolerance for traditionally-principled families.



Grade 4 (age 9):  Romantic dating

  • Will introduce children to the idea of being “more than just friends” and “going out” with classmates whom they may “like”. See excerpt below from the actual 2015 curriculum.


  • Many parents would find that introducing this idea of dating at age 9 is not age-appropriate. On its own this content might not seem too serious, but in the context of the other controversial lessons, plus the curriculum’s connections to a confessed child pornographer and to unsavoury groups who promote anal play, group sex, sadism/masochism, and bondage, parents are prudent to see a red flag here. The child pornographer connection and the influence of sexually radical "expert consultants" on this curriculum will be discussed further down.


Grade 6  (age 11): Masturbation

  • Encourages masturbation as a "pleasurable" way for children to learn about their bodies. See excerpt from the actual 2015 curriculum document below.
  • Regardless of what any person's moral stance is on the practice of masturbation, all fair-minded people should agree that the government has no business actively promoting/encouraging 12 year olds to masturbate. 


  •  In addition to promoting the practice of masturbation, the curriculum will teach about "vaginal lubrication".
  • It is unclear how this teaching can possibly be retrofitted with a "Catholic lens" in order to make it suitable for Catholic religious schools. Catholic doctrine teaches that masturbation is an immoral practice that violates the purpose of human sexuality, which is ordered towards marriage, procreation and the mutual fulfillment of husband and wife.


Grade 7  (age 12):  Anal intercourse & Oral Sex

Under the pretext of encouraging abstinence from behaviours associated with high risk for STDs, the curriculum uses a sleight of hand to sneakily introduce to children the concepts of "anal intercourse" and "oral-genital contact".   Those are ideas that many of these 12-13 year old kids might not be aware of, or at least, have never seriously considered as an act they could be taking part in now. 

In another sleight of hand, "anal intercourse" is lumped in as a sexual act of the same kind as vaginal intercourse, with no differentiation between the two types of sexual acts, either morally or with respect to risk for sexually transmitted disease, for which the former carries dramatically higher risk.

Was the goal in this sneaky introduction of graphic sex acts to avoid the accusation that the Premier was promoting a gay agenda, seeking to normalize gay sex in the minds of kids? By claiming that this curriculum is about encouraging kids to "delay" these high risk sexual activities, many casual readers won't notice that what has actually occurred is that the teacher has planted ideas in the minds of children that might not otherwise be present, regarding "anal intercourse", "oral-genital contact", etc.  


Anal intercourse is not an activity to which the government should be giving any semblance of approval whatsoever. It is the most efficient method of transmitting the AIDS virus, so much so, that despite all the "safe sex" and condom education over the past 30 years, epidemiologists still predict that 50% of men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) will eventually contract HIV.

In fact, the Ontario government's chief epidemiologist publishes a report on the spread of HIV every 4 years. In the most recent study, collecting data between 2005 to 2008, it found that almost 1 in 4 MSM who live in Toronto (21.9%), are currently infected with HIV. See chart below.



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, deicer said:

sn't that a page from the Harper book?

Would you have been happier with a “Winn win”? And, if “Winn won” would it have been a “Winn fall” for the province? As the largest non sovereign debtor, I suspect the province might have been left with “Winn some” financial prospects. Your new government might just be just the "Winn owing" effect needed to blow away the chaff of economic despair.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

if Winn Won it would have been a Winn Fall for her cronies nothing would change for ontario.  oh wait....nothing has.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you could give Ford a couple more days in office before you start judging his governments performance.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?  Seems everyone else fails to give anyone a chance before condemning them.  Besides he has already shown his stripes.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick Brown was turfed immediately and with full disclosure.

Why the subterfuge and delay this time?  Is the pc party still full of pervs and closing ranks?

Or is it that the core old school pc are starting to push back against Dougy?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure our groper  pm would love some details, but now the cons can say “the matter is before the courts, and I can’t comment” like the Libs did 50 times in the Mark Norman QP.

More to the story than meets the eye, though.


who I believed was a consenting female recipient. The recipient was, in fact, an individual or party who targeted me for the purpose of financial extortion,” the long-time MP said in the statement.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing more.

Just shows superior decision making skills of a married senior government minister sending pics of his junk to some hotsky totsky over the internet.  

The kind of leadership that Ontario voted for!

(Don't forget, he's now the 4th high ranker in the pc's that this has happened to just this year 🙃)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you live with yourself Deicer?

When Wynn and her gang of deviants introduced their demented sex education curriculum to the schools, you had nothing to say, but you now find fault and pretend to be insulted by an adult's personal legal choices?

Maybe you ought to be reconsidering your own moral persuasions?



  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deicer said:

sending pics of his junk to some hotsky totsky over the internet.  


Women do this too and they get upset when the pictures get into the public's beyond my comprehension.  These pictures live forever in an electronic cesspool just waiting for the appropriate time to be dusted off and used against you. Most of the people who get caught up in this are reasonably intelligent, how is it that they don't get this? And why to they blame someone else? Like really, what did you think was going to happen?

Look at the steps you had to go through. Select camera, take your pants off, snap a picture, go to contacts, select a contact, attach the photo etc.... lots of chances to think twice. If you are soooooooo lacking in discretion you have no business representing the public... at least I don't want you deciding anything on my behalf. BTW, that's not a moral pronouncement, it's simply positive target identification of the terminally foolish.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this