December 18, 2006
Dedicated to Preserving Family Values
P.O. Box 66714, 38 King Street East,
Stoney Creek, ON CANADA L8G 5E6
| Muzzling Free Speech - Editorial Response to Gwen Landolt |
|
December 18, 2006 To: Editor Spectator Subject: Muzzling Free Speech The Spectator's decision to print Gwen Landolt's article is impressive. Gwen's article is accurate regarding the muzzling of free speech at many levels. The name-calling responses of those who do not support evidence-based logic is the lowest level of debate which results when one has no basis from which to argue. This effort to set aside evidence regarding homosexual and bi-sexual conduct is evident within the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board as our Council has witnessed on several occasions while serving on the Sexual Orientation Committee formulating policy for this strand of the Board's Equity Policy. While there is strong evidence regarding homosexual and bi-sexual conduct risk physically, emotionally and spiritually, it is the medical evidence which should concern people from all backgrounds if they were able to remove their politically tinted glasses and consider it. One only has to look at the Canadian Blood Services questionnaire which asks 2 very pointed questions: 18) Male donors: Have you had sex with a man even one time since 1977? 21) Female donors: In the last 12 months, have you had sex with a man who had sex, even one time since 1977 with another man. If the potential donor answers yes to either question they are rejected as a blood donor. This question is not posed out of bigotry which stems from hatred but quite the opposite; it is asked to screen out those who participate in high-risk sexual conduct having incidence rates of sexually transmitted diseases far above the norm. In screening out these potential donors they are seeking to protect the general population from deadly viruses and this is a logical and loving act. As the Globe & Mail editorial put it a few years back, " This question must be asked discreetly, but in the end what is more important, the feelings of the donor or the health of the recipient?" Our Council has attempted on several occasions to communicate this point to the Sexual Orientation Committee only to be compared to the Ku Klux Klan. In the fall of this year the Committee moved to remove the terms 'critical thinking' and 'evidence-based teaching' from policy dealing with sexual orientation in the classrooms. The reason cited was, "The medical community has evidence which we would not want presented or discussed in the classroom." At our most recent meeting, some members said that children may hold their own faith and\or medical based view but they are not to express it on public school property, respectfully or otherwise. Schools which will not permit critical thinking or evidence-based teaching are not places of learning, rather they are institutes of 'unlearning' which attempt to unlearn sensible good living behaviours instilled in the homes. These 'unlearning' classrooms are driven solely by slanted ideology and are becoming an increasingly harmful place to send our children. Jim Enos, Vice-president Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council |
Top of Page
Back to Newsletter Articles Main Page
Back to HWFAC's Home Page