A letter from a parent, recieved privately;
Sometimes it is stunning what passes off in our schools as “education”. I recently became aware that Timothy Findley’s, “The Wars”, was being read in a grade 12 class in Saskatoon.
I was appalled that “The Wars” was being offered to children in grade school because it contains scenes and imagery that are homo-erotic and pornographic.
Let’s keep in mind that the average grade 12 student is below the age of 18, or has just recently turned 18. She comes from a variety of socio/religious backgrounds. She is Baptist, atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Mennonite, secular progressive, socialist, conservative, and many shades of other belief systems. Sexuality, and above all, explicit sexual description (pornography), could be an affront to her, not to mention that she is likely not even an adult.
In this case, the novel was offered without any thematic input on the part of the teacher … no discussion, no balance, no exchange of ideas … nothing. No letter was sent home requesting parental permission in the reading of the novel. I don’t even think that the novel is approved by Saskatchewan Learning.
As far as the “teacher” goes, he is a Che Guevara wearing, Bush-bashing, Conservative-bashing, “progressive”. His walls are festooned with leftist posters and his choices, whether from approved materials or not, are always leftwing. He’s one of those slick leftist “academics” who can turn a grammar lesson into a subtle hit on Stephen Harper.
Here then, is what this self-proclaimed evangelist for the “progressive” cause gave children under the age of 18 to read:
The Wars
By Timothy Findley
Pearson Penguin Canada Incorporated 2005
Page 36 to 41 (Robert and the Prostitute)
“Isn’t there nothing special you’d like?” she (the prostitute) said, “I mean – here we are and everything.” She turned around and leaned against the washstand, playing with her sash, threatening to reveal herself.
(…)
“Don’t ya wanta touch me?” said Ella.
(…)
“You’re a nice hot lookin’ boy,” she said; “an’ we shouldn’t just be sittin’ here. Why don’t you let me …?” And she put her hands inside his pants. Right inside – past his drawers. No one else had ever touched him there before.
(…)
“Oh,” said Ella. But she was kind about it. She went on smiling – and kissed him at the corner of his lips. When she withdrew her hand, she kept it in a fist and crossed to the washstand. Then she picked up the towel and told him to stand.
“You take them off,” she said, nodding at his trousers; “an’ I’ll clean you up.”
Robert had ejaculated (in his pants while) coming up the stairs.
Robert and the Prostitute Look Through a Peep Hole
There were certainly two naked people (in the next room) – but all he could see at first was backs and arms and legs. Whoever it was who was there was standing in the middle of the floor hitting whoever else was there – striking out with all their force.
(…)
The pummeling had stopped and, at first, he could not locate the people in the room. Then he heard them. Breathing. They were Breathing in tandem – just like two people running side by side.
(…)
One was lying on his back with his back arched off the mattress while the other sat astride his groin exactly like a rider. The one who played the horse was bucking – lifting his torso high off the bed, lifting the weight of the rider with his shoulders and his knees – and bucking … the rider was using a long silk scarf as reins and the horse was biting into the other end with his teeth. The only sound was the sound of breathing and of bedsprings. The rider held the reins in one hand and, using a soldier’s stiff-peaked cap, beat the horse on the thighs – one side and then the other. And the two – both horse and rider – were staring into one another’s eyes with an intensity unlike any other Robert had ever seen in a human face.
Page 174 ~ Robert is Raped by other soldiers:
He struggled with such impressive violence that all his assailants fell upon him at once – still without a sound – and holding his legs and arms out wide, they jerked him off his feet.
(…)
then he was lowered onto his back and held there by someone who was lying beneath him. His legs were forced apart so far he thought they were going to be broken. Mouths began to suck at his privates. Hand and fingers probed and poked at every part of his body. Someone struck him in the face.
Robert began to pass out. He could feel himself being lifted into the air again and turned around and made to lie on his face with one man still underneath him and now with another on top. All he could feel was the shape of the man who entered him and the terrible strength of the force with which it was done.
What you have just read is pornography; it may be considered “soft” by some, but in any context it is simply porn. What it adds to the story is at best dubious. It’s accuracy in depicting the experiences of soldiers is beyond dubious. And, what it could possibly add to the education of children is simply nothing.
What is relevant though, is that a teacher in a Saskatoon school saw fit to feed this garbage to children; a teacher who uses a public school classroom as his personal “progressive” soapbox to indoctrinate and propagandize children in “progressive” truth.
He should be “progressive” fired.
“No, an 18 yr. old who commits any crime is considered an adult under the eyes of the law.”
I didn’t say “in the eyes of the law”. I’m talking about how the culture describes them – I heard the term “kid” used repeatedly to describe Kimveer Gill, for example.
A’dam:
The book we are referring to by Timothy Findley is “The Wars”
What is the context of these soft porn scenes? Please describe?
If this is approved by Sask Learning please provide link and/or proof.
Thanks.
jo,
Huh? Do I need to explain more thoroughly for your singular benefit? Perhaps you should try comprehending before posting. It usually works better that way.
As posted here, I have to agree with ‘ET’ and others who argue that the central issue is not so much the use of Findlay’s novel in class but the degree to which the ‘education’ system has become a vehicle for leftist indoctrination.
This reminds me of an interview with Brazilian political thinker Olavo de Carvalho concerning the influence of (not dead enough) socialist guru Antonio Gramsci:
Conspiracy or not, it sounds like Gramsci’s philosophy is being fairly successfully applied.
Are you kidding Kate, this is a good thing.
Let the public school system rot to the ground. That is what is necessary for the general population to realize that the system has become ineffective.
If you want your kids to lose their innocence at a young age, stick them in public school.
If you want something better for your kids, stick them in some sort of private school where at least parents are welcome, parents are always informed of the class subject matter, etc.
My daughter is in a private school, grade 2, and just today my wife was helping in the class. It’s good, it’s healthy, the school and the families have a close bond.
Public schools keep parents as far away as possible, too much to hide, and the left always hates having to be accountable.
Years ago, i had the chance to talk to mr. Findlay at a party about this very book…i explained to him it was my opinion that he was just another gay man who has the illusion (fantasy?) that more incidents of homo-erotic behaviour exist in mainstream life than actually existed.
I said his views of how sexuality (or lack thereof) exist outside of bathhouses are extremely biased by the fact that many gay men are the most promiscuous creatures on the face of the earth.To many gay men, being gay is all about the sex, the lifestyle revolves around sex and it influences them in their everyday life.
Sexual fantasy becomes the norm, and even projected into situations where it would not normally be (i.e… deviant officer rapists in the Wars..)any and all situations can be politicised sexually and with Mr.Findlays writing it is no different.
I was immediately beset by homosexual apologists who felt that because i was not gay, i could not have an informed opinion on the subject..i’m not a fireman either, but i know if i hold my hand over a flame i will get burned!
It is amusing to say the least, but it always reminds me of a childhood girlfriend who kept asking me (whilst i was in the army..) if there were lurid tales of hot man action circle j***ks,or orgies of any description.
How she hoped!
And like Mr. Findlay, who saw into what he could only wish was there, i had to disappoint her..
I, too, “agree with Sex-Ed in schools.”
Depending, of course, what kind of sex-ed it is. If it’s factual, fine. But if it’s pushing contraceptives without telling students the full story about them (for instance, spermicidal foam kills off sperm but also breaks down the intrauterine lining of the female, making her more vulnerable to contracting an STD) then no thanks. (And, grab bags of contraceptives being handed out to grade-seven students?)
Pharmaceutical companies are getting mega-rich selling contraceptives to younger and younger people and from the medications they’re subsequently prescribed when they contract an STD (there are over 50 STDs now, and they’re mutating all the time).
I agree with the two issues ET points out: “the socialist agenda of unscientific garbage that the predominately leftist educational system is embedding in our children” and “the paucity of value of the literature offered – our educational and cultural systems insist that Canadian literature, overall, has great merit.”
I can’t stand most CanLit!
But, I think she misses one other very important point that I mentioned, as did cjunk: the importance of the teacher ‘in loco parentis.’ We’re not talking university students here. I was talking in my post about legal minors in the elementary system, where there was no parental consent to the handing out of grab bags of contraceptives (like 12-year-olds can handle the idea of diaphragms and IUDs and then are given bananas on which to practise with lime- and cherry-flavoured condoms? Please give me a break, and give me, as a parent, the choice to ask that my child be exempt from this particular class…)
If more Canadians would vocalize their disgust at the socialist agenda of our public education system, whether it’s pushing sex on younger and younger kids or demanding that they read and agree with CanLit and socialist leaning history/geography lessons and DVDs, we might get somewhere.
Which brings me to the fourth important issue: Canadians’ apathy in making damn sure these things don’t happen again. Most wait for someone else to do the dirty work, thank them when they figure no one’s looking, and, themselves, continue to cultivate their “I’m a nice person” persona.
I’m sick to death of the lie about the “nice Canadian.” Canadians need to grow up, face the music, name the demons for what they are, and do something about them ourselves. Our apathy is killing us, and is literally killing our children. Canada has the highest suicide rate in its teen population of any developed country.
We can either deal with the leftist propaganda assaults on our kids or hide our heads in the sand and pretend that we’re too “nice” to create a fuss. If parents won’t go to battle for their kids–and in my experience precious few do–then the socialist exploiters will continue to do their dirty work, and those of us who can do something but decide not to because we’re “nice Canadians” had better shut up.
“Public schools keep parents as far away as possible, too much to hide, and the left always hates having to be accountable.”
That depends on the teacher.
When I taught school, I always had parents in the classroom. Some were great, some were not so great, but everyone was there to help out. Of course this was in elementary school, and things worked out well.
Even in science, I taught the children that we would experiment and challenge the theories, etc…because I didn’t want to tell them what they were going to learn, but rather wanted them to discover the possibilities, and of course different outcomes.
It’s difficult for some of us teachers too (former) who had to teach parts of the curriculum that we didn’t agree with. The least I thought that I could do was open the floor for discussion of other viewpoints.
kursk – you may or may not know that Timothy Findley was, although gay, most certainly not promiscuous. He was with his partner, Bill, for at least 30 plus years.
I knew them both when they were actors – and they had already been together for some time. They were a cultured, sedate and generous pair.
I think the issue is, as so many have pointed out, the agenda-driven leftism of so many of the teaching staff in our schools. Such an approach rejects questions, dissent, debate; it’s pure propaganda – and that’s the big problem.
ET, you said that in your opinion, the cited passages — “his legs were forced apart so far he thought they were going to be broken. Mouths began to suck at his privates. Hands and fingers probed and poked at every part of his body…(he was) made to lie on his face with one man still underneath him and now with another on top. All he could feel was the shape of the man who entered him and the terrible strength of the force with which it was done” — are not pornographic.
Some might agree with you, some might not, and everybody is absolutely entitled to their own personal evaluations. But nobody here has suggested, or even hinted at, banning this book on the grounds that it is pornographic. So this isn’t a question of censorship, of literature or the arts, or and it’s not about personal evaluations about what is or isn’t pornography, the issue is, rather, should a grade-school student — for whom attendance is compulsory, and who, as Kate’s e-mail correspondent noted, may be Catholic, Mormon, Mennonite, Hindu, etc — be required to read such material?
That this question is even debatable, or especially, that the terms of it are adjustable, is one more sign that we in the west continue to erase the distinction between the private and the commons. One has only to look at the atrocious public behaviour of westerners who go to, say, Bali — well, historically — or Cancun, and now Bulgaria, Estonia, etc. to see that a large swath of westerners harbour a belief that the commons, even in other more conservative countries, is their personal playground, and that they have a right to express their happy selves in public.
But is there some right to sexual behaviour in the commons that somehow trumps the right of a society to a commons where people with wide-ranging views can comfortably go about their public lives? Is it reasonable for those who wish to bring their sexual choices into the commons to call out, as being less enlightened, those who, say, don’t wish for their children to be subject to the sexual behaviour/expression of self-pleasuring libertines?
We live in a country where adults are free and (legally) safe to privately engage in any consensual sexual activity they wish; probably not more than one in a thousand Christians would wish for the police to break down doors in order to arrest consenting adults, and yet a Christian who happens to live on Pacific Avenue in Vancouver, for example, is faced with the spectre of having their children witness once a year the sight of almost completely naked men mock-humping each other on a slow-moving flatbed while local dignitaries stand and smile and wave little flags.
When duffman wrote, “You mean, people who are 17/18 shouldn’t be reading ‘grown up’ books yet?” he is missing the point — they shouldn’t be forced to. It is commonly assumed that people who wish to have a choice as to whether or not they or their children will view/read certain things are oppressing others, and/or attempting to impose their personal opinion on what is or isn’t pornography. This is ridiculous, of course; the real oppressors, who we are culturally unable to see as such, are those who refuse to respect the right of others to lead a decent existence, and to raise their children as they see fit.
Does the commons belong to everyone, or is it the exclusive purview of those who wish, for private reasons, to “break down sexual barriers” in public?
As long as people are free to do whatever the hell they want in private, any claim that their freedom is under threat by simple virtue of the fact that others who don’t wish to publicly share in their predilections is without merit.
I’m outraged. I had to read Lord of the Flies and Shakespeare when I was in high school. If they’d let me read smut instead I may not have dropped out.
EBD: Good point.
Choice plays a large part in this discussion. It seems that in this instance neither students or parents had any choice in the reading material forced upon the students. This teacher expects all to simply accept his dogma in whatever form he promotes it.
For this reason it should be mandatory that every parent receive a copy of the curriculum their child will be taught that year. Also, for material not on the curriculum, a permission slip must be signed by parents. This will not be a cure but at least parents will be more informed and teachers will be held to a higher level of accountability.
I would also like to know where the Principal of this school was. Doesn’t seem like he has control of his teachers.
At least, this teacher should be fired and the Principal placed on notice.
Anonymous you are right, not all teachers are the same.
My nephew had an excellent female teacher in primary school here in BC, she worked hard to raise the standards, and her reward? She was ostracised by the other teachers.
I sometimes wonder why the better teachers don’t lose their minds.
Truth is there are few good teachers left these days. Education isn’t taken seriously any more in Canada.
We go through the motions of putting our kids through school, but they don’t get much in the way of knowledge after all those years of “learning”.
Too much time is wasted on soft subjects, learning about homosexuals and sex, revisionist history tailored to suit the left’s agenda, teaching kids how it’s evil to excel above your peers, everyone is equal, and so on.
And even when important subjects such as reading are taught, the methods used are all based on stupid concepts such as whole word reading.
This is the public school system I am referring to, but even in private schools things are not perfect (although private schools are generally a 100 times better in most cases).
So you have to play the system at its own game. Example my daughter gets a choice of doing assignment A, B or C for homework. Each assignment on its own is not much of a challenge for her.
So I tell her to do all three, which she loves.
And being in a private school the teacher has no problem with it. In the public school system she would probably be sent home for over-excelling and making her classmates feel inferior.
Huh. I’m surprised people are surprised.
My class was assigned “The Wars” in Grade 9 History/English almost 20 years ago.
It led me to compose the following stanza of a poem entitled “Canadian Talent”:
Timothy Findley, boring us since World War Two
Come here a moment, I want to talk to you
I hear you think that writers get the short end of the stick
Well here’s a plan for you, old man, give up the job real quick.
Gypsy,
The principal was probably somewhere reading his/her copy of the Communist Manifesto.
FFS. We want to encourage our kids to read. So what does this bunghole of a teacher do? Offer the kids a novel with graphic descriptions of butt-blasting faggotry! No wonder kids don’t want to read and fail english lit classes.
My heart goes out to parents with kids in public schools. Our public school teachers are pooch screwing unionized clock watchers. If you want your kid to actually learn anything, they have to be sent to private schools or you have to teach them yourself.
It is getting so that our public school teachers are comprised of homosexuals, atheists, communists and other flakes. Such people make terrible role models.
EBD: Perfect!
ET: Good points about Findley. This is not about Findley; it is about the fact that children in grade school are minors. It doesn’t even matter what kind of a sexual life Findley led in his private life … it was his private life. And, if he wanted to write about it … it doesn’t matter as long as it remained outside the school setting.
Were a teacher, for instance, to share these materials with under 18 kids outside the classroom in a private setting, say an internet forum, they could be charged. If a film version of “The Wars”, with accurate visual depictions of these passages, to be shown in school, people could be charged.
The law is very clear on the relationship between teachers (position of trust, power, and authority) and children (all those under 18). I’d love to see an educator rationalize how the statutes governing education, and Canada’s Sex Laws, are not being breached in this case … unless there are very compelling educational reasons for a reading of “The Wars” in grade school.
And there is the crux of the matter … what are the compelling educational reasons and the methodology by which a book like “The Wars” can be justified as reading in grade school to children who are minors and come from a vast variety of backgrounds? I’d love someone to explain that to me, in full educational terms, how this is justified.
ET says, “I think the issue is, as so many have pointed out, the agenda-driven leftism of so many of the teaching staff in our schools. Such an approach rejects questions, dissent, debate; it’s pure propaganda – and that’s the big problem.”
So, how’s it to be combated? Is it the job of our teenagers to tell their teachers they’re wrong and to tell them to take a flying leap?
Or is it the job of their parents?
This is the crux of the matter, actually. We’ve KNOWN that the “agenda-driven leftism” of the education system has been a problem for a very long time.
What we don’t seem to have figured out is how to deal with it. There has to be parental involvement in what their kids are being taught for the educational system to sit up and take notice.
Sadly, there aren’t anywhere near enough parents willing to step up to the plate to point out that the Ump has no clothes. The School Boards sure as H*ll aren’t going to listen to what people on blogs have to say.
Trust me.
ebd – I’m confused by your analysis.
On the one hand, you point out that the issue is not about banning the book on the grounds that it is pornographic; on the other hand, you state that a grade school student, with compulsory attendance, should not be ‘required’ to read ‘such material’.
The phrase ‘such material’ obviously defines that material as unacceptable for a grade school student. Therefore, aren’t you effectively banning the book because of ‘its material content’?
I cannot comment on the book, because I haven’t read any of Findley’s works; indeed, I’ve never been able to read through any Canadian author – finding them, for the most part, tedious and narrow.
My concern is the authority of the left over the curriculum of our schools – such that they can insist that students view Al Gore’s infamous rant; that students are brainwashed into cultural relativism; that students never acquire any capacity for critical analysis – indeed, they are never taught how to critique, they are never taught logic, never taught fallacies of thought and expression – and are instead, filled with leftist dogma. That’s my concern.
ET, who is to do battle against your concerns?
I should have worded my last post,
Who is going to do battle FOR for your concern (about “the authority of the left over the curriculum of our schools”)?
“If you want your kid to actually learn anything, they have to be sent to private schools”
I wonder what the “assigned” reading was for these guys?
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2006/09/10/1821340.html
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/branches/curr/evergreen/index.shtml
The curriculum is online as is most provinces.
‘been round the block’ – who should battle the dominance of leftism in the educational field? We, the people. Who else?
As parents, as citizens, as the electorate, as bloggers. Constantly speak out, write in, comment.
There ARE results from speaking out. Just a few years ago, the existence of multiculturalism would never have been questioned. In Canada, in Europe. Now it is daily up for debate.
Bilingualism, the sacred cow of our Charter. It too is being, gradually, slowly, questioned.
Centralism, the welfare state, Big Government – all of these mantras, so taken for granted as inviolate truths – are being questioned.
Quebec, locked-into-a socialist welfare statism for, seemingly, an infinite future – is now questioning that welfare statism. Unreal. It voted for Dumont rather than the PQ, who are the ultra socialists.
So, the basic axioms of the Canadian structure, so cleverly established without our input, without our acceptance, by a generation of Liberals, is now being questioned. It can happen.
The question is: Who decides what your children learn? Is it the taxpayers, who pay for the system … Or is it left to the whim of the teacher. Obviously, this teacher is not being supervised; the implication is that, overall, the taxpayers money is not being managed well.
Shakespeare, Defoe, Rudyard Kipling, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Dickens, Austen. My I’ve led a sheltered life.
ET, when I said no one was talking about banning the book, I meant it in the most obvious sense, i.e. banning it’s publication and sale.
The — arguably, always, ET :>) — reasonable argument that public school students, whose attendence is non-volitional, should not be forced to read graphic homosexual rape scenes as part of some teacher’s “program” isn’t the same thing as an argument that the book should be “banned”, inasmuch as not having it in a curriculum doesn’t preclude anyone at all, including students of any age, from reading the book.
When I refered to “such material”, I didn’t mean to denigrate the whole homosexual-anal-gang-rape genre; I used the term as shorthand for “things-in-the-general-ballpark-of-anal-gang-rape”.
To me, it’s not unreasonable to do so in the interests of brevity, but I take your point, under threat of further argument. /:>)>
I appreciate — and strongly share — your concern about, as you put it, the authority of the left over the curriculum of our schools. But I would also suggest that defining this Findley book-issue as a case of conservatives or Christians looking to “ban” books is not just a little bit inapt, but also that it plays into the hands of the left, who constantly portray — culturally — that there is a constant, imminent threat by conservatives to limit the freedom of others.
(PS: BTW, FWIW, ET, if you don’t mind, my nick is EBD, capitalized. I only mention it because, on several occasions in the past, at other sites, people have confused me with “ebt”, after someone calls me “ebd”.
I understand that it really doesn’t matter, but I nonetheless feel in each case compelled to disavow ownership of utterances that are not my own, particularly when commenters I respect are confused.
I mean no offense against ebt, I’m just pointing out that we’re two different individuals. Thank-you.)
Et..He may well have been , i really don’t care,and if he was, good for him,. He is but a grain of sand amongst a desert of those who are not.
Is this not (in some way, great or small..) about his lifestyle? His projections of his fantasy life into novel form?
It would not bother me if it were not for the fact that a gay agenda and sexual deviancy is promoted as a cultural norm through the efforts of our school system.
If he just stayed at home and wrote bodice rippers for his own amusement, no one would care, nor should they.Where people take issue is when someones idealized view of sexuality is promoted through a school system as “required reading”
It is at this point,that your private life, now made public,is fair game and open to every criticism that is thrown at it…
Relevant – education: something badly written, with references to sex and full of swear-words. Always better than literature by ‘dead white people’.
Well I guess the book was relavent.
I started homeschooling as soon as we moved to a public system (from band-controlled or frontier school) eventhough my husband was the principal. I
Although some people homeschool for academic reasons,we do it for control of the environment our children spend the MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME in.
Its very hard work (especially with 6 different grades) but the results are worth it. I am not a parent that wonders where my child is or what they are doing. The family values are the childrens’ values also, and they have carried them into their own private lives and families. (Well, only one family, so far.)
Some of the posters seem to be missing the main point, which I believe is the point the original letter was making. The school works FOR the family not the STATE, or the social-engineers). The family trusts the school NOT to work against them. This means that the school actually has to consider the family and their values when deciding on curriculum and presentation.
The public school system in Canada might take a lesson from Poland or Croatia, on how to be culturally sensitive and not allow in schools, things the parents would not choose.
Its all very well to teach our children how to ‘be safe’ from abusers, but what if the abuse is more subtle, and state funded?
I, too, “agree with Sex-Ed in schools.”
It always amuses me that people need to be told how to reproduce.
Perhaps that explains the existence of so many leftards who otherwise wouldn’t have figured it out.
‘been around the block: “Canada has the highest suicide rate in its teen population of any developed country.”
Untrue. Among 15-24 year olds, the rates are higher in Austria, Belgium, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Japan, Switzerland, and a number of other developed nations. At the same time, they’re lower in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, US, and several other countries. All this data, from the early 2000s, is readily available on the WHO website.
When I said that I, too, agree with sex ed in the schools, it was in response to something Gypsy had said.
On second thought, I’m not clear that I do, and it’s not necessarily because students hear and see sexually explicit images.
Surely, the purpose of sex ed is to help students form a healthy and respectful attitude towards their sexuality and that of others, and to promote their safety, health, and well-being.
So why have these goals not been achieved after over 40 years of sex ed in the schools? If these purposes are first and foremost in the minds of sex ed educators, then it appears that their curricula have been abject failures.
Among our teen and young adult populations, sexually transmitted diseases are epidemic and way too many of them are becoming pregnant and either aborting or forming single-parent families. Canada’s young people are not being enocuraged to form families or have babies within the context of a mother/father family and way too many of our young women become the head of fatherless home–whose children are at much higher risk of behaviour, emotional, physical, and academic problems than children in two-parent families.
Sex ed programs in the schools have tended to promote less respect in our young people towards their sexuality and a more cavalier attitude towards practices that are both physically and psychologically damaging to their persons. The escalation of STDs in our teen and young adult populations should, alone, give us pause for thought. Many young women will not be able to bear children because of the damage done to their reproductive systems by various STDs they have contracted. Most STDs are viral (such as HPV [Human Papilloma Virus], the number one cause of cervical cancer, and the HIVirus) and there is no cure, only management of the subsequent symptoms.
When you consider the million$ of dollar$ that have been spent by groups like Planned Parenthood (sanctioned by the UN and governments) to bring sex ed programs into our public schools it’s actually a scandal how unsuccessful they have been.
Our teens and young people have never been more at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and yet the promoters of sex ed are still beating their drums and beating up on parents who dare to question them.
What a racket. And the really sad thing is that it’s our young people who are suffering the long-term consequences of ideologically driven sex ed curricula which, it is now proven, do very little to promote healthy sexuality.
Dan said: “But as far as the sexual content goes, who the hell cares? Enough with the Puritanism already; it’s just plain embarrassing.”
Again the siren call of relativist morality in leftist orthoxies.
Leftis orthodoxies win converts because of its essentially wicked glamour, which appeals to and propagates all that is weak, broken and ugly in mankind:
If you are lazy, it offers a handout.
If you are stupid, it dumbs down your competition.
If you are worthless to society, it offers (false) self-esteem.
If you are chronically confused, it says that certainty is the REAL confusion.
If you are evil, it offers a denial of guilt.
If you are a liar, it offers a denial of the existence of truth.
If you are a coward, it offers its own false security.
If you are a slave to your more base desires, it calls these shackles, FREEDOM.
Leave it to degenerative leftism to call premature exposure to deviant sex a “who cares” issue.
Obviously you are not a parent or if you are a very irresponsible one.
Most telling comment thus far has been from John Gormley who is featuring this story this morning on his radio program. In his opening comment he states he is unable to read the questionable scenes from “The Wars” on the radio because it is too graphic and against the law.
BUT YOUR CHILD CAN READ THIS IN CLASS!
BUT YOUR CHILD CAN READ THIS IN CLASS!
Rather,
Your child is forced to read this in class.
Typically, those that want to change a society to their own benefit or ideology, start with the educational system.
They all do it. Socialists, Feminist and Gay activists, Islamists, etc.
The only way to combat the current controllers of education is for more people with an opposing view to retain teaching jobs. Either that or set up an altogether separate educational system, such as home schooling or private schooling.
It is ideological warfare for the minds of the next generation and they are winning.
Wow…who “knew” sex would get such a massive reaction – well done Kate.
Now, aside from the CanCon of the public system, I feel like there should be a defense for The Wars. First, there are scenes in The Wars that -should- disturb people. Sometimes when a society looks in the mirror it should be a little disturbed. Lets not forget that war is brutal on a whole bunch of scales (not just plain old death). There is rape, torture, agony, depression, blood and death. There is also the opportunity to magnify the smallest of human actions in something profound. Like having sex with someone you barely know because everyone else you know has been killed (not just died but killed). I think The Wars wakes up young adults (if that is the right term of phrase) to the reality they are entering. People – even Canadians – are not innocent. Lets not forget that it was Canadians who looted, raped and rioted in Arras Belgium in 1917. It was Canadians who tortured and killed young adults in Somalia in 1992/93. This is the reality of the world. To all the young adults out there who are offended by The Wars’ violence or rape – enroll in Upper Canada College and experience a version of it for yourself.
Endy, if you want your child force fed x-rated tales of rape and sodomy, that’s between you, your child and God (oh, and possibly Child Services, I suppose, depending on the context). For those who have no wish to have their children forcibly exposed to such excrement (Findley is unreadable prurience, I don’t care how many awards he’s won), it’s a concern when it pops up in the curriculum. This isn’t really about whether war is bad. We get that sick things happen and war sucks. That’s what history class is for, minus the diseased fascination with minutiae of sexual violence and dysfunction.
Perhaps there should be a high school course on how to survive federal penitentiary? Bad things happen there. We should just face it. Or maybe a one semester seminar on proper technique for beheadings. After all, that’s reality. Maybe add wife beating to the Phys. Ed. agenda? People should know this stuff. It’s the real world.
“John Gormley who is featuring this story this morning on his radio program. In his opening comment he states he is unable to read the questionable scenes from “The Wars” on the radio because it is too graphic and against the law.”
Let’s call the man John Gormless unless he can point to a statute or even a regulation which prohibits his quoting what is a rather mild literary scene on air. That claim is just pure sensationalism.
“I read Chaucer and Jean val Jean in grade 12….yes, it was a long time ago, but the choices were much better back then.
I hope that the parent complains to the Board of Education in Saskatoon.”
You’d better go back and reread your Chaucer. Start with The Pardoner’s Tale and tell us that is the kind of material you want your overly protected kids to read. It’s as graphic as anything I’ve read in my time.
If you want Chaucer censored then keep going with the Bible, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, John Donne (before he got religion), Restoration Comedy from the 18th century, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, D. H. Lawrence, Ibsen,Samuel Beckett, Bertolt Brecht, and on, and on, and on.
Forget the left / right labels posters are slinging about. Kids should be exposed to all kids of literature. It teaches them to open their minds and think for themselves.
Censorship of everything deemed offensive by anyone scares me.
. To all the young adults out there who are offended by The Wars’ violence or rape – enroll in Upper Canada College and experience a version of it for yourself.
Posted by: endy at May 15, 2007 12:42 PM
Why , will two wrongs make a right endy.
Will being raped by some loser in private school make me understand a gay novelists work?
Can we not end pedofile sexual predation in both our public, and private schools, or do we have to settle on only one?
Will turning a blind eye to sexual predation in our public schools somehow correct the past injustices served on UCC students.
I fail to see the connection.
I reject your false dichotomy.
I posit that most sexual predator pedofile teachers probably assign this kind of crap as “required”.
We should flag all required reading and move in when titles like this appear.
“Kids should be exposed to all kids of literature. It teaches them to open their minds and think for themselves.”
What feckless twerpery. Children should be taught, not “exposed”, willy nilly to every febrile expression of what passes for culture. And they are born knowing everything they need to know about the details of gang rape and sodomy, i.e nothing.
Kids read far more explicit stuff on the internet 100 times a day. And they can get the videos to boot.
The overwhelming majority of kids of that age have already had sex. Most 11 year old know about oral sex.
C’mon, who cares about that sexual stuff. Get over it.
On the other hand, the lack of content and historical balance in our educational system, which truly is dominated by ideological leftists, is much more troubling to me.
You’d better go back and reread your Chaucer. Start with The Pardoner’s Tale and tell us that is the kind of material you want your overly protected kids to read. It’s as graphic as anything I’ve read in my time.
If you want Chaucer censored then keep going with the Bible, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, John Donne (before he got religion), Restoration Comedy from the 18th century, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, D. H. Lawrence, Ibsen,Samuel Beckett, Bertolt Brecht, and on, and on, and on.
…you can pick and choose “from” Chaucer, “from” Shakespeare, etc.
I don’t think there would be enough time in the year to read “all” of what you listed.
There is plenty of good literature around without pornographic scenes in order to teach the curriculum, as outlined.
“…you can pick and choose “from” Chaucer, “from” Shakespeare, etc.
I don’t think there would be enough time in the year to read “all” of what you listed.”
You don’t have to pick and choose from Chaucer for examples of lechery, deceit and raunchy sex. In fact, you can’t read Chaucer without being immersed in the stuff. Graphic depictions of human life are unavoidable in Chaucer.
My point is that it’s a work of art, vital to the study of the English language, as is many other works some people want hidden away. If someone considers something in a work to be offensive where do you stop?
Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825) chopped huge chunks out of Shakespeare because he wanted to omit “whatever is unfit to be read aloud by a gentleman to a company of ladies”. hmmm, sounds like Gormley himself.
Please don’t hide works of art from education because you don’t like some of the content.
“Please don’t hide works of art from education because you don’t like some of the content.”
That’s not the point.
In university, fine.
In public school, following the guidelines of the curriculum and knowing that you are not only teaching children, but teaching the children of “parents”…you must exercise better judgments.
Give it a go sometime and see if you can just do whatever you want to, in a classroom, and then come back and report.
I read “The Wars” in grade 12. My teacher would be what you would describe as a Christian conservative, but she still put the book up as an offering in the class.
I wouldn’t call the alleged “pornographic” content as exploitive for the readers pleasure, rather than a depiction of the denigration and horror the character experiences.
The book neither promotes prostitution or homosexual sex even though they are found within the pages.
There comes a time when overprotective parents have to understand that children (even ages 16-18) can think for themselves and evaluate art and literature on their own.
It’s part of what makes us human.
In the words of my grade 12 self, the book sucked anyway.
Matt, on what grounds do you justify this statement of yours: “There comes a time when overprotective parents have to understand that children (even ages 16-18) can think for themselves and evaluate art and literature on their own.”
What is your justification for saying that children “even ages 16-18…[can] evaluate art and literature”? I teach in the education system and see very little evidence that would back up your claim. A FEW 16 to 18 year olds, who have been exposed to real art and literature (usually by their “overprotective” parents), not what passes for art and literature in the public education system these days (usually snippets from great novels, and not-so-great novels), MAY be qualified to “evaluate” what’s good and what’s not, but the vast majority are simply disinterested and peer-pressured onlookers.
No one’s arguing about the humanity of 16 to 18 year-olds, but deference to a certain level of decency and decorum, not to mention respect for the sensibilities and values of students’ families, needs to be taken into consideration when choosing reading material (“literature”) for the grade 12 curriculum. Let parents suggest to their children books like “The Wars” if they want their children to read them, otherwise the curriculum SHOULDN’T choose books/literature with explicitly sexual and/or homoerotic passages; there are many other just as good or better books/literature to choose from.
I suspect you had quite a few fellow students who rated the book the same way you did! But why should they, or you, have to plough through racy, soft-porn material in order to rate it at all?
Dear Concerned Parent,
First off just to make sure everyone is clear, the book is approved reading material for the classroom. The big question is would the student get an A for saying this book is crap, or would he get in trouble for not following the system? That, by the way,is NOT the big question. The question is can the student take the analytical skills he/she has learned to formualate a proper justified response to his or her’s feeling of the book “sucking”. Then of course I hear the shouting from the bleachers “What of the pornographic content?” Well…What of it? Many of you have stated that students of this age have been subjected to far more explicit stuff online and in graphical format to boot! Well argue what you will, but 16-18 year olds are still having sex, and with your help with no critiquing or guidance as to what is right or wrong. The issue I would really like to comment on is this bullshit anti-socialist remarks that seem to be rooted in ignorance. Apparently any form of altruism is unacceptable unless Jesus is stamped on it somewhere. Social programs such as universal health care, education, research funding are essential assets to any country. The Saskatchewan Education System is a COMPLETE JOKE. There a few teachers scattered throughout who challenge the students to think, question, and doubt. What we need is better PARENTS! You can sit at your computer a fume about how your child of 16-18 isn’t mature enough to handle the content of this book, but you have no problem labeling them as a Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim…etc. They aren’t mature or “old enough” to deal with more adult natured books, but I bet none of you think twice about assigning them a moral belief code and an afterlife reservation. You probably are just trying to protect your kids, but forcing them into a belief system is for more questionable then giving them a book to read and letting them make their own conclusions.
York
Dear York,
What are you talking about?
Concerned Parent