So taxpayers pay for gov’t lawyers, and unions have massive donations and membership fees to pay for hundreds of their lawyers on staff…what financial support do parents have to help them in court?

How is this called a democratic state?  Especially when both monoliths decide to gang up on him/her when advocating for their child?

So much for maintaining that parents are valuable stakeholders in our education system.  We have been reduced to being nothing more than fundraisers, bake sale operators, and providing gifts for staff appreciation day at our kids’ school.  As long as we don’t speak out about what happens in the classroom, the establishment won’t turn on us.

Democracy be damned.

Surely it is prudent for all teachers to let all parents know when sensitive topics are being taught. Mr. T.‘s lawyer claims there is a document telling teachers how to reject his request. Really? What document? This article seems to have some important omissions.

PARENT DUTY IN EDUCATION UNDER INCREASING ATTACK

Upon reflection on my half-century in the cause of parent involvement in education I see that perhaps half of that time was spent in blithe trust in the good intentions of “the system”.  At some stage, and I’m trying to locate when and how this happened, I came to see much of these so called well-meaning services as self-serving.  In other words — a child-grab, deskilling of parents and a shifting of centuries of parenting practices and responsibilities toward surrender to the state.

This Ontario case illustrates a central issue in public schooling — who has the primary responsibility for education of the young?  It’s interesting in this story that “the system” tells the parent if he doesn’t like the public school and doesn’t abide by its rules then he can go elsewhere — Catholic or private school or homeschooling.  In other words, “the system” does acknowledge that it is the parents, ultimately, who are responsible.  But, OH, how sweetly the public system is laid out.  Just take it as is and lump it. Or, go elsewhere.

No wonder the judge in this matter has reserved judgment on this issue.  It’s a daunting task he’s been handed.

Below is the first response I made to this story, published in both the article comments and FB:

PARENT VETO IS A POWERFUL TOOL AGAINST STATE RULE OVER FAMILY

The story goes that when Alison Redford ran as candidate for the PC leadership in Alberta, 2011, she gained the post via teachers’ hastily assembled memberships.  The story goes that promises were made to restore (within 10 days) $107million to Ed budget (done) and abolish standardized testing (done) and removal of parent veto (not done).  Strong protests from parent and faith groups stopped that.

It’s true, as is understood by the parent in this Ontario case, that this feature — whether called parent veto or not — has been in place a very long time in Canadian public schools.  It’s an extraordinary move to have it abolished by government, as was promised in the Alberta case.

What’s happened is that controversial items have been generalized and embedded cross-curricular-wise as the teacher union states (“unfeasible” to give notice).  The parent provision to object is eliminated by stealth and practice.  See this Ontario story where the teacher union and government intervene in this court case between parent and school board — bizarre !

Parents must always be able to guard their right and duty to challenge the state regarding the education of their children — whether violating faith questions or indoctrination and spreading untruths.  Please see about the British case where a parent sued for misteaching regarding Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.  In England (at least) the film cannot be shown in schools without also bringing forward the 9 errors.

http://www.parentsteachingparents.net/2013/12/anti-indoctrination-laws-for-schools/

The Globe and Mail article on this case indicates Mr. T. Is asking for considerably more than a heads-up for lessons on sensitive topics like abortion and homosexuality. According to the Board, that is the most common request, and those requests are accommodated. This court case may sort out questions such as whether or not a teacher is responsible for shuffling his children out the door when another child says he/she has two moms or two dads. Different kettle of fish, I’d say.

The real question here is how powerfully can an individual impose his/her agenda on a public school system. I think this is a case of a man who holds pretty extreme and narrow religious beliefs and who wants his children’s teachers to be held accountable for the mention of topics he considers sensitive, even outside planned lessons. What next? Teachers have to remove the children of strict vegans if the word “meat” arises, or remove the children of creationists the minute some child starts speaking knowledgeably about dinosaurs? If Mr. T. wants his children to be TOTALLY ‘protected’ from outside views, I’m with the principal. With the thousand of dollars he’s spent on this case, he could have arranged for his children to be educated outside the system.
But no. Why? Because he is more interested in grinding his axe, than educating his children according to his beliefs. I hope the taxpayers lawyers are good because we need to win this one.

Who is “we,” Christina?

Lets look at the demographics of a couple of the tails wagging the dog.
Starting with sex education which is now becoming sex orientation education, not particularly about procreation anymore, it is about the politics of gender, along with the viewpoint that everyone should subscribe to an inclusive viewpoint, as long as the focal point group(s) are being included.
On this front:
Wikipedia On LGBT Demographics (USA)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
Muslims in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada

One has most recently seen what happens when the more conservative morality of a law school encounters the professional cudgels of the mainstream law profession.

This would be the Trinity College in BC winning its case in BC Supreme court to uphold its stand on the sexual activities of their students.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-society-bc-supreme-court-1.3359942  ;
and then being taken to court by the Ontario Law society to block accreditation of its students in Ontario and the very recent result of this legal skirmish.  https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/02/court-upholds-law-societys-decision-not-to-accredit-trinity-western-university.html  and then the appeals court decision:
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/3327/ontario-appeal-court-upholds-law-society-rejection-of-twu-law-school.html

Which of course, will be going onto the Supreme Court of Canada….which may or may not take the case.  Given that the Jesuits are very strongly behind this issue, I would be surprised if the Supreme court did not hear the case.

In my humble opinion, it is time to take the bedroom and sexual, or religious politics out of the context of public education completely. Next, open up the funding channels so that those who have legitimate other views can go about their education without wasting time and money on challenging a status quo system which is rigged to reject almost any position that isn’t the status quo’s. 

Education unions will play whatever card they can see to stay on top of the golden goose.  Democracy is exiting stage left.  The same principles which related to sexual practices and politics are applicable to a broad number of minority groups. Inevitably, funding one or two at the expense of the others will just set the stage for an endless battery of me-too ism at the public trough.  All the time, enabling more and more dilution of the core educational elements to pay off some required political debt and add yet more cohorts of “problem solving consultants” to further blunt the pencil so that it is virtually unusable.

Let us bring an end to this madness !

“Should we cede governments the power to crush any parents who dissent?”

___________________________

Clearly, as many recent cases demonstrate, governments already have this bone-crushing power. Six lawyers and an indefensible “reason”. Did they present a written brief outline their argument, and as lawyers did they base such brief on the Education Act. regulations thereunder, legal precedent or indeed any aspect whatsoever of our Common Law tradition and civil codes? What is our plaintiff paying 60K for if the Star Chamber opposing him has nothing more that this? What kind of inept “judge” would be facing a “quandry” in this situation with a clearly inept legal defense.  It sounds like they are presenting as “fact” some made-up, ad-hoc “policy” on the authority of an overweening school administrator.

Here are the facts. This case is illustrative of a Marxist milieu in which dissenting parents are counterrevolutionary “socially unfriendly elements” in need of re-education. Such trumped up legal hearings with six government lawyers aligned against a parent who finds he needs to spend 60k merely to get a “hearing”, is nothing more that a “struggle session” with the goal of making them confess to be “wreckers” of the school system. How long will it be before parents asking awkward questions are locked out of their children’s schools, their names posted as denunciations on bulletin boards, their calls ignored and denied ANY information about their children’s activities while at school, their children picked up and dropped off at school by the Children’s Aid Society.

Their brainwashing is complete with regard to abortion and homosexuality. But you suggest NOW it’s time to reign in the abuse of state power to induce the children to boycott Walmart? Certainly there has already been plenty of politicking of this petty sort in the classroom.

Karin Litzcke :  Good question to Christina - Who is “we”?
When a small minority, with a BIG agenda, is given precedence over the large majority of parents whose only desire is to get a good academic education, devoid of various types of “sexual orientation”, unsafe sexual behavior, then something is definitely wrong with the system - the politically correct tail is wagging the dog.
Parents are the primary educators of their children and no one - neither the government, the unions, nor liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, should be given sole right to the education of young children. Teaching young kids deviant behavior as their “right”, and keeping such practices secret from the parents is unconscionable, even if Alfred Kinsey the pervert, thought so.

This is nothing but bullying of parents under the guise of tolerance, safety, diversity, etc.

From east (Ontario) to west (B.C.), as well as in between (Alberta and Manitoba), parents are rising up to protect their children.  Kudos to them for their perseverance and courage.

Thousands Gather at the May 14, 2016 PCE Sponsored Rallies! - http://parentchoice.ca/2016/05/thousands-gather-at-the-may-14-2016-pce-sponsored-rallies/

Ontario Schools, Sex-Education curriculum exposed by Dr. Miriam Grossman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YvYPD56-U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKJaKA0wLw

The sexualization of young children is unconscionable.  The cause is Alfred Kinsey of Table 34

Frank, I totally agree. Well said.