Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government has a minority of seats. Re-visiting the Catholic school system isn't something that will likely be contemplated right now with the government's fate hanging in the balance.
But nevertheless this issue screams for action!
This is perhaps Dalton McGuinty's last term as our 'Education Premier' (unless his government falls in the near future and an unexpected election is called.) Who but a Roman Catholic premier could have credibility re-visiting the whole separate school issue? No one could accuse McGuinty of attacking Catholicism or Christianity because he himself is Roman Catholic and his own wife has earned a living teaching in the Catholic system.
But I think something needs to give. It's got to happen eventually. We can't go on publicly funding one religion's schools and not others. Either we spend the additional monies to finance more separate, religious school systems (like John Tory proposed to great disaster in 2007), or we shut down the Catholic and integrate all into one public school system.
Of course, the government can't admit that the status quo (of one public system and one Catholic system) is unacceptable. Catholic school rights were guaranteed at Confederation in 1867. Other provinces have decided to update their outdated laws with regard to religious school systems (Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador). It's time Ontario joined that club.
The province of Ontario has three legit options: 1) keep the current system of one public, secular system and one separate Catholic system to the exclusion of all others, 2) one public system, one Catholic system and other religious school boards in areas where numbers warrant, or 3) one publicly funded secular school system for all students, with no religious schools of any kind.
Which system to move to? How to decide?
I propose a non-binding plebiscite be held on this matter in the near future. Perhaps a provincial plebiscite corresponding with the 2014 municipal vote would be appropriate? Voters should be given a lot of time to think about the issues and there should be publicly-funded campaigns supporting all three sides equally. I would add if the two sides fighting for religious options (#1 or #2) wanted to work together in one campaign, they could together share 50% of the public funds available, while the side supporting one public system for all could receive the other 50% of public funds. No other monies could be spent by third parties in advance of the vote, only these three or two campaigns would have the power to organize and spend money on the plebiscite campaign. Any vote would have to seem fair in order for the result to be seen as legitimate, and splitting funding in this way would be.
How do you vote on a question with three possible answers and achieve a majority result? Do you hold a run-off at a later date between the top two options, or do you hold an instant run-off so voters only have to head to the polls once.
I would create a ballot in which voters would rank their preferred school system options in order of one to three, with one being their top choice, followed by their second choice and then their third choice.
Say for example, you wanted one publicly funded, non-religious school system for all Ontario students, and no public funding for religious schools of any kind, you'd vote with a '1' next to that option. If you couldn't fathom to support religious schools of any kind and didn't want to assign a '2' or '3' on your ballot, you could omit doing so and your '1' vote would count in favour of your preferred option.
If one system didn't receive majority support from voters, the option with the least votes would be dropped, and its voters' second preferences factored in. If for example the first vote was the following:
- 47% in favour of one public system,
- 32% in favour of religious schools for all in addition to the public system,
- 21% for the status quo.
The counters would take the 21% ballots and count their second choices. If you're in favour of keeping just the Catholic board, then you'd likely vote with your second choice for religious schools for all, considering that would allow Catholic schools to remain running. That could lead to a 47% vote for one public board, and 53% in favour of one public board plus religious schools for all, not just Catholic.
Who knows what the result would be? Personally I suspect a big majority would favour one system for all, but Ontarians have surprised me before.
Ontario citizens have never had a chance to express their opinions on the make-up of the publicly funded school system. We inherited our status quo system of one public board and one Catholic board, we never chose it. It's time for Ontarians to be given the chance to express an opinion on this, especially at a time of government restructuring a la Don Drummond.
A preferential, instant runoff ballot would allow for a majority result that is clear.
Why make it unbinding?
Because a binding referendum on the issue would, in truth, be putting minority religious rights up for a vote. So it would keep passions tempered a bit to keep it non-binding. The vote would merely express public will on the make-up of our publicly funded education system.
And as the ballot is designed to get voters to select first, second and third options, they're not really voting rights up or down, they're just ranking preferences.
If a majority of voters picked one system for all, it would give the government a political mandate to re-visit the status quo it currently doesn't have. The McGuinty-ites did not campaign on re-opening the separate school issue in the last election campaign. If this issue is even to be contemplated, the government would need some kind of a mandate to do so. The plebiscite could provide that.
If it's non-binding, and a majority vote to extend public funding to all religions, but current finances show that's impossible with our current deficits, we can hold off. But it can be a long-term goal as Ontarians have clearly voiced a preference.
I propose this because I believe if Ontarians are given the choice, they'll vote for one public system for all, and not to divide our kids up according to religion. I see it as a way to take the issue out of the politicians' hands and put it in the hands of the people.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Ontario's Catholic schools quandary...
This article today by Chris Selley is the latest to clearly signal the increasingly irreconcilable conflict between the public sphere in Ontario and one of its two publicly funded education systems, namely the Catholic school system.
While the provincial government has been working hard to combat the biggest threat to students in our schools - bullying (which is frequently homophobic in nature) - the Catholic system has been working at odds to conform with provincial direction while not, in its collective mind, contradicting Catholic faith. The result from Catholic educators is this weak compromise: 'Respecting Difference' clubs instead of provincially-mandated 'gay-straight alliances' in public schools.
I was a closeted, gay student in the Catholic system in Ontario. What I needed then and what similar students still obviously need today is a firm and clear strategy in our schools to combat homophobia. If left alone, hatred of the other (which frequently is the gay other) runs rampant, threatening student safety and productivity. The message must be sent - in public schools and in Catholic schools alike - that homophobia is wrong and that LGBT people are every bit deserving of acceptance and respect as straight people.
The inherent conflict here is in Catholic doctrine which states that homosexuality is against the so-called natural law. It's hard to respect somebody when you believe they, at their core, run "contrary to natural law" and are "intrinsically disordered." If Catholic educators believe such nonsense, why shouldn't a 13-year-old Catholic jock?
These new 'Respecting Difference' clubs as proposed by Catholic bishops who are overseeing the process to draft board policies simply do not go far enough. The clubs themselves, unable to use the word 'gay' in their names and unable to do anything without the condescending presence of school chaplains, seem like a pathetic, pale imitation of the real thing. The whole point of GSAs is visibility. These new Catholic school clubs sound a lot like 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'
I'm increasingly of the opinion that we can't square this issue. A modern society which accepts all people as equal, including its LGBT minority, not to mention the equality of all religions, simply can't go on publicly funding one religion's schools.
Our most vulnerable - our youth - are being subjected to systemic discrimination in one of our publicly-funded education systems.
The clear answer for me is to end funding for Catholic schools in Ontario. The province should be in the business of running one publicly funded system for all students. Additional public funding for one religion's schools at the exclusion of all others is simply outdated and unfair in post-Charter Canada.
The provincial government is using kid gloves to handle its Catholic education partners on this issue. As Selley writes, "this smells to me like yet another attempt to be seen addressing a problem without angering a powerful stakeholder. And it illustrates yet again that when push comes to shove, publicly funded Catholic education, in Ontario, in 2012, makes very little sense at all."
If this is Dalton McGuinty's last term as premier, and we are about to enter into an era of fiscal restraint and fiscal sanity a la Don Drummond in order to tame our public finances, wouldn't this be the right time to re-examine our province's commitment to two publicly-funded school systems, with all the inherent duplication of administration and extra costs, not to mention the lack of commitment to basic student safety? I say yes. Of course, embarking on this path is frightening to politicians who don't wish to cause conflict where none currently exists in the tranquil, unequal, and unjust status quo. But perhaps it is time for someone to finally exercise some needed leadership.
Stay tuned for a post from me next week on a political strategy that could be used by the McGuinty government within the next few years for creating a political mandate for changing Ontario's outdated public system of elementary and secondary education.
While the provincial government has been working hard to combat the biggest threat to students in our schools - bullying (which is frequently homophobic in nature) - the Catholic system has been working at odds to conform with provincial direction while not, in its collective mind, contradicting Catholic faith. The result from Catholic educators is this weak compromise: 'Respecting Difference' clubs instead of provincially-mandated 'gay-straight alliances' in public schools.
I was a closeted, gay student in the Catholic system in Ontario. What I needed then and what similar students still obviously need today is a firm and clear strategy in our schools to combat homophobia. If left alone, hatred of the other (which frequently is the gay other) runs rampant, threatening student safety and productivity. The message must be sent - in public schools and in Catholic schools alike - that homophobia is wrong and that LGBT people are every bit deserving of acceptance and respect as straight people.
The inherent conflict here is in Catholic doctrine which states that homosexuality is against the so-called natural law. It's hard to respect somebody when you believe they, at their core, run "contrary to natural law" and are "intrinsically disordered." If Catholic educators believe such nonsense, why shouldn't a 13-year-old Catholic jock?
These new 'Respecting Difference' clubs as proposed by Catholic bishops who are overseeing the process to draft board policies simply do not go far enough. The clubs themselves, unable to use the word 'gay' in their names and unable to do anything without the condescending presence of school chaplains, seem like a pathetic, pale imitation of the real thing. The whole point of GSAs is visibility. These new Catholic school clubs sound a lot like 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'
I'm increasingly of the opinion that we can't square this issue. A modern society which accepts all people as equal, including its LGBT minority, not to mention the equality of all religions, simply can't go on publicly funding one religion's schools.
Our most vulnerable - our youth - are being subjected to systemic discrimination in one of our publicly-funded education systems.
The clear answer for me is to end funding for Catholic schools in Ontario. The province should be in the business of running one publicly funded system for all students. Additional public funding for one religion's schools at the exclusion of all others is simply outdated and unfair in post-Charter Canada.
The provincial government is using kid gloves to handle its Catholic education partners on this issue. As Selley writes, "this smells to me like yet another attempt to be seen addressing a problem without angering a powerful stakeholder. And it illustrates yet again that when push comes to shove, publicly funded Catholic education, in Ontario, in 2012, makes very little sense at all."
If this is Dalton McGuinty's last term as premier, and we are about to enter into an era of fiscal restraint and fiscal sanity a la Don Drummond in order to tame our public finances, wouldn't this be the right time to re-examine our province's commitment to two publicly-funded school systems, with all the inherent duplication of administration and extra costs, not to mention the lack of commitment to basic student safety? I say yes. Of course, embarking on this path is frightening to politicians who don't wish to cause conflict where none currently exists in the tranquil, unequal, and unjust status quo. But perhaps it is time for someone to finally exercise some needed leadership.
Stay tuned for a post from me next week on a political strategy that could be used by the McGuinty government within the next few years for creating a political mandate for changing Ontario's outdated public system of elementary and secondary education.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
POOF! Your rights are gone?
Very disturbing, but not surprising. Stephen Harper and his over-bloated PMO control every aspect of federal government policy. So Harper expects us to believe he doesn't know anything about this case or the revised government position that same sex couples from most foreign countries can't get married in Canada? I don't believe a word he says on this issue.
It seems when this government doesn't agree with a policy but doesn't have the guts to legislate (such as on environmental protection), they just take a stealth approach to undermine the law, like firing civil servants and scientists to ensure those environmental protections can never be enforced.
The Harper government clearly doesn't have the guts to revisit equal marriage in the elected House of Commons. But it clearly has no problem taking the position that the marriages of same sex couples who came to Canada from other countries are not valid if such marriages aren't allowed back home.
This is how this sneaky PM operates, in the shadows. All of us - including the thousands of foreign couples who travelled to Canada and put down money to get a Canadian marriage license in good faith - were all under the impression that same sex couples regardless of citizenship could marry in Canada. Now this new interpretation of the law?
I wonder if the government will start treating other groups this way? If your rights are denied back home, Canada must do the same here? Will Harper treat women from Saudi Arabia this way now too? If you're from Saudi Arabia and you're a woman, you can't drive a car in Canada?
This new position by the federal government means that foreign countries are dictating how Canada treats LGBT people when they visit our country, not Canadians. Everyone should be losing sleep over this.
The government needs to act now to change any laws that need to be changed to respect the marriages of all those thousands of couples who came here to marry.
********UPDATE January 13, 2012****************
The media frenzy on Thursday over this issue has pushed the Harper government to clarify its position on same sex marriages performed in Canada for couples who live in other jurisdictions where such marriages are not recognized.
“We want to make it very clear that in our government’s view, these marriages should be valid,” a senior government official said on Friday. “That’s why we will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren’t recognized in the couple’s home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada.”
I'm very glad that the large Issues Management team in the Harper PMO is effective enough to react so quickly to a public relations nightmare. From the many discussions I had on this topic yesterday, it does appear the Department of Justice lawyer in the divorce case in question was more than likely expressing a legalistic position in keeping with longstanding international comity rather than participating in a political conspiracy to undermine same sex marriage in Canada. Although now the government seems to disagree with its own lawyer on the validity of such marriages. Nevertheless, this clarity is much appreciated.
It seems when this government doesn't agree with a policy but doesn't have the guts to legislate (such as on environmental protection), they just take a stealth approach to undermine the law, like firing civil servants and scientists to ensure those environmental protections can never be enforced.
The Harper government clearly doesn't have the guts to revisit equal marriage in the elected House of Commons. But it clearly has no problem taking the position that the marriages of same sex couples who came to Canada from other countries are not valid if such marriages aren't allowed back home.
This is how this sneaky PM operates, in the shadows. All of us - including the thousands of foreign couples who travelled to Canada and put down money to get a Canadian marriage license in good faith - were all under the impression that same sex couples regardless of citizenship could marry in Canada. Now this new interpretation of the law?
I wonder if the government will start treating other groups this way? If your rights are denied back home, Canada must do the same here? Will Harper treat women from Saudi Arabia this way now too? If you're from Saudi Arabia and you're a woman, you can't drive a car in Canada?
This new position by the federal government means that foreign countries are dictating how Canada treats LGBT people when they visit our country, not Canadians. Everyone should be losing sleep over this.
The government needs to act now to change any laws that need to be changed to respect the marriages of all those thousands of couples who came here to marry.
********UPDATE January 13, 2012****************
The media frenzy on Thursday over this issue has pushed the Harper government to clarify its position on same sex marriages performed in Canada for couples who live in other jurisdictions where such marriages are not recognized.
“We want to make it very clear that in our government’s view, these marriages should be valid,” a senior government official said on Friday. “That’s why we will change the Civil Marriage Act so that any marriages performed in Canada that aren’t recognized in the couple’s home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada.”
I'm very glad that the large Issues Management team in the Harper PMO is effective enough to react so quickly to a public relations nightmare. From the many discussions I had on this topic yesterday, it does appear the Department of Justice lawyer in the divorce case in question was more than likely expressing a legalistic position in keeping with longstanding international comity rather than participating in a political conspiracy to undermine same sex marriage in Canada. Although now the government seems to disagree with its own lawyer on the validity of such marriages. Nevertheless, this clarity is much appreciated.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Christian Bullshit Nailed by Bill Maher
"Really! It's in that book you hold up when you scream at gay people."
I came across this great commentary by Bill Maher and had to share it here for obvious reasons. Enjoy!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Lying sack of shit Rob Ford hides his whereabouts from taxpayers...
What's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander! Yet again, Rob Ford proves himself to be a liar and a hypocrite of monumental proportions. Are you a taxpayer in Toronto? Do you know with whom Rob Ford is meeting right now? Do you have a right to know as you are paying his salary? Do you feel his respect for you when he lies through his teeth like this: "With all due respect to the media, I worry about the taxpayers. The taxpayers know where I am. The taxpayers — I go to people’s houses, just like I did yesterday," he said. "People know where I am. People call me. I return all their calls....I’m very accessible, very transparent."
I called the mayor's office this year to complain about his snubbing of the entire LGBT community by boycotting all Pride Toronto events. I left a message. He didn't return my call. He's a fucking piece of shit liar!
Every word Rob Ford says can't be trusted. He's a habitual liar. Nothing he says is true.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
My advice to Blatchford: Quit writing, move to Texas and become a cowgirl!
Behold, the latest atrocity by writer Christie Blatchford. After studying for weeks the impacts of macho men who allegedly massacred their daughters and a wife to protect male honour, she's now lamenting the low number of macho male rapists and child murderers in Toronto.
Blatchford doesn't like men showing their softer, feminine sides. I find this a repulsive inclination on her part because I love (for obvious reasons) the softer, kinder, gentler sides of men. I think most gay men and women do too.
She thinks the best way to deal with bullies is to take them outside and beat the crap out of them. She may have a point, but I remember standing up to bullies in Grade 10 with threatened physical retaliation was just as effective. It's strange Blatchford thinks advocating violent, vigilante action against bullies in a newspaper is appropriate. Perhaps Blatchford's simply lost it and this column is simply a cry for help, as if she were writing, 'Stop publishing me!'
Ms. Blatchford, here's some free advice: Quit writing forever, move to Texas and take up your true calling as a cowgirl. We'll all be a lot happier.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Rob Ford's special message to Scarborough: "Suckers!"
Voters in Toronto's suburbs complained the former Miller administration ignored them and only spent money downtown, so they elected Rob Ford, who killed Miller's Transit City plan which would've built rapid transit lines throughout the suburbs.
Now Scarborough will have no rapid transit and crowded buses for four years starting from 2015 as a direct result. Ford's plan for a Sheppard subway clearly won't be built by then, if ever. Basically, this transportation fiasco is all bad planning by the dude they elected. It's like Ford was saying to Scarborough commuters: "Suckers!"
Scarborough voters, please don't vote for Rob Ford next time!
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Religious bigots come out swinging against LGBT students and anti-bullying legislation...
Yes, the provincial government has introduced tough new anti-bullying legislation. The legislation includes provisions which will ensure that LGBT students and their straight friends who wish to form Gay-Straight Alliance-type groups in all publicly-funded schools will be able to do so. Such groups help promote tolerance and acceptance for LGBT youth in environments that otherwise remain homophobic and hostile.
Today, the usual suspects of religious bigotry in Ontario came to Queen's Park to hold a press conference (sponsored and/or attended by Ontario PC MPPs Frank Klees and Lisa MacLeod) to demand that anti-bullying provisions designed to fight homophobia and violence against LGBT students and others be dropped.
Yes, so-called religious activists including Charles McVety of The Institute for Canadian 'Values', Rondo Thomas, of the Evangelical Association, and Jack Fonseca, of the Campaign Life Coalition, are fighting for more violence against LGBT youth in Ontario schools. Disgusting!
The legislation these bigots are attacking today allows Catholic boards to create gay-straight alliances without having to use the specific term. This isn't enough for these anti-gay/pro-violence religious advocates. According to them, allowing student-initiated clubs that promote acceptance and combat homophobia in high schools is somehow a violation of Catholic rights.
So trying to stop violence and promote acceptance goes against the Catholic faith? As a recovering Catholic, even I can't remember those pro-violence/anti-acceptance provisions of Catholic doctrine.
Shame on these bigots today fighting to maintain violence and harassment against LGBT youth in our public schools. Shame!
Today, the usual suspects of religious bigotry in Ontario came to Queen's Park to hold a press conference (sponsored and/or attended by Ontario PC MPPs Frank Klees and Lisa MacLeod) to demand that anti-bullying provisions designed to fight homophobia and violence against LGBT students and others be dropped.
Yes, so-called religious activists including Charles McVety of The Institute for Canadian 'Values', Rondo Thomas, of the Evangelical Association, and Jack Fonseca, of the Campaign Life Coalition, are fighting for more violence against LGBT youth in Ontario schools. Disgusting!
The legislation these bigots are attacking today allows Catholic boards to create gay-straight alliances without having to use the specific term. This isn't enough for these anti-gay/pro-violence religious advocates. According to them, allowing student-initiated clubs that promote acceptance and combat homophobia in high schools is somehow a violation of Catholic rights.
So trying to stop violence and promote acceptance goes against the Catholic faith? As a recovering Catholic, even I can't remember those pro-violence/anti-acceptance provisions of Catholic doctrine.
Shame on these bigots today fighting to maintain violence and harassment against LGBT youth in our public schools. Shame!
VIDEO: Alberta Tory MP mimicks shooting guns at the opposition when voting to kill long gun registry
Disgusting. Nothing surprises me about these neo-con dopes in the Conservative Party of Canada anymore.
Maybe this was Lethbridge MP Jim Hillyer's imitation of Marc Lepine?
Thursday, December 1, 2011
A great clip from 'Designing Women' on World AIDS Day...
This scene and this episode of 'Designing Women' meant so much to me when it first aired in the late 1980s.
I was a closeted teenager living in homophobic and AIDS-phobic times, quite used to sad depictions on television and elsewhere of effeminate, weak gay men dying like helpless victims from AIDS. I remember one particularly awful scene on 'St. Elsewhere' in which a nameless gay man dying of AIDS in hospital announced to his doctors that he's cured because he's decided he wasn't "gay anymore."
But this episode of 'Designing Women' showed a relatively masculine gay male character (played by the handsome Tony Goldwyn) who was passionately supported by his female friends.
I'm happy to share it here today on this World AIDS Day and I hope it brings a smile to your face!
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Goodbye 'Movember'! Hello 'ABSTA-VEMBER' in 2012!
I am so glad to see 'Movember' come to an end. Yes, raising awareness and funds in the fight against prostate cancer is a great cause and I'm glad they raised so much of it in Canada and elsewhere this month.
The problem with 'Movember', at least for me, is it encourages men to grow disgusting and outdated facial hair. Let me be clear about my own personal bias: I hate facial hair on men. I've been known to utter, 'Facial hair is for the Taliban,' as a means to demonize the practice and encourage progressive males to give up growing it.
As most women and gay men already know, facial hair is painful on the fair cheeks of loved ones forced to kiss or get close with men who choose to grow beards or moustaches or what have you. If facial hair isn't grating on your skin, it's getting stuck between your teeth. Gross.
Nowadays, thankfully, beards or goatees are more in style than the lone moustache. Yet this Movember campaign is a throwback to the 1970s. I noticed several attractive men this past month who reminded me of 70s gay porn stars. I was half-expecting these guys to strip down and engage in condom-free sex, but alas it didn’t happen (at least not in front of me.)
The ugliness of moustaches continues to be lost on many men. Take Justin Trudeau for example, one of the more high profile Canadians to grow a moustache this month. He told CBC News he plans to keep the moustache he grew for Movember until the New Year: "I'm quite attached to it, and more importantly, my wife doesn't mind it to a most heinous degree...So I think we're doing OK."
She doesn't mind it to a 'most heinous degree'? So you're okay with keeping it. Typical straight male response: I like it, you hate it, it stays.
I think women need to respond to this bizarre campaign with a new, equally inconsiderate campaign of their own. How about a new campaign next November to coincide with 'Movember' to raise awareness and funds for a cancer that affects only women?
I offer you my proposal for such a campaign: 'Absta-vember'. Next November, women everywhere should raise awareness and funds to help in the fight against cervical cancer by abstaining from sexual relations for the entire month. Extra points should be given to those women who have male partners who are participating in growing gross moustaches as part of Movember.
The more I think of it, the more brilliant it sounds: 'Absta-vember'. I am only half-kidding. I'm not about to launch such a campaign, but merely write about it here to (1) send the message that the main exercise of growing moustaches, even for good causes, is gross, and (2) perhaps inspire women out there to respond in kind.
Although these women already seem to have picked up on a similar idea.
Moustaches are gross. Goodbye, Movember!
The problem with 'Movember', at least for me, is it encourages men to grow disgusting and outdated facial hair. Let me be clear about my own personal bias: I hate facial hair on men. I've been known to utter, 'Facial hair is for the Taliban,' as a means to demonize the practice and encourage progressive males to give up growing it.
As most women and gay men already know, facial hair is painful on the fair cheeks of loved ones forced to kiss or get close with men who choose to grow beards or moustaches or what have you. If facial hair isn't grating on your skin, it's getting stuck between your teeth. Gross.
Nowadays, thankfully, beards or goatees are more in style than the lone moustache. Yet this Movember campaign is a throwback to the 1970s. I noticed several attractive men this past month who reminded me of 70s gay porn stars. I was half-expecting these guys to strip down and engage in condom-free sex, but alas it didn’t happen (at least not in front of me.)
The ugliness of moustaches continues to be lost on many men. Take Justin Trudeau for example, one of the more high profile Canadians to grow a moustache this month. He told CBC News he plans to keep the moustache he grew for Movember until the New Year: "I'm quite attached to it, and more importantly, my wife doesn't mind it to a most heinous degree...So I think we're doing OK."
She doesn't mind it to a 'most heinous degree'? So you're okay with keeping it. Typical straight male response: I like it, you hate it, it stays.
I think women need to respond to this bizarre campaign with a new, equally inconsiderate campaign of their own. How about a new campaign next November to coincide with 'Movember' to raise awareness and funds for a cancer that affects only women?
I offer you my proposal for such a campaign: 'Absta-vember'. Next November, women everywhere should raise awareness and funds to help in the fight against cervical cancer by abstaining from sexual relations for the entire month. Extra points should be given to those women who have male partners who are participating in growing gross moustaches as part of Movember.
The more I think of it, the more brilliant it sounds: 'Absta-vember'. I am only half-kidding. I'm not about to launch such a campaign, but merely write about it here to (1) send the message that the main exercise of growing moustaches, even for good causes, is gross, and (2) perhaps inspire women out there to respond in kind.
Although these women already seem to have picked up on a similar idea.
Moustaches are gross. Goodbye, Movember!
McGuinty Liberals to introduce bill to allow schools to expel bullies...
This is a great 'It Gets Better' video by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, proving yet again he's the right person for the job as leader of this great, dynamic and diverse province.
It's nice to have a premier who stands up for all students and is willing to take action in government to make our schools safer places. I support any government actions that make it harder for bullies to carry on their evil deeds in our schools. This proposed bill is a step in the right direction.
Today, I remain as ecstatic as ever that Ontario dodged the disgusting conservative triumvirate by re-electing an enlightened, visionary and progressive Liberal government in October. I dread to imagine the kinds of destruction that Tim Hudak and his regressive Conservatives would be plotting for our schools were he to have somehow won the recent Ontario election. Hudak would be looking to find ways to ban the mention of homosexuality in our schools, perhaps. He pandered to homophobia during the election campaign, claiming any attempts to make our schools safer for gay kids was somehow an attack on parents' rights. Get used to opposition, Timmy.
Thank you, Dalton, for your leadership. Now I hope you take this further and crack down on Catholic school boards that cater to bullies and bigots by banning gay-straight alliances. We need to do more than promise, 'It gets better.' We need to make it better and ensuring students who want to form gay-straight alliances can do so in all of Ontario's publicly-funded schools would be a good, fair and wise move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)