Human Rights organizations and their terminology go beyond the wildest imagination of Orwell’s metaphorical novels. Gems like “remedy”, “applicant”, and “mediation” conceal the big stick wielded by the Commissions. In BC, another ideological weapon has been introduced, via the BC Human Rights Commission, into the school system.
Through a mediated (read: coerced) agreement with two homosexual activists, the BC government in 2006 gave the “respondents” unprecedented power to modify the school curriculum as they wished. If you don’t know much about it, please read the agreement before anything else – even without any of my input it is positively shocking. The implications of this agreement far-reaching, but I’d like to touch on just one – the Social Justice course offered to Grade 12 students.
Here’s what I found in an initial examination of the course IRP:
As one of the goals for the course, the student will “develop and understanding of what it means to act in a socially just manner”. It also requires them to become “responsible agents of change, making positive contributions towards a socially just world.” Is this any different than a religious course? Our government is putting their seal of approval on a particular moral code, using tax dollars and public institutions to push a particular religion, even requiring the students to display evidence of their belief.
Some examples of the prescribed learning outcomes, emphasis mine:
[The student shall] identify fundamental values and principles of social justice (respect, empathy, equity, fair-mindedness, dignity, balancing the common good with the rights of individuals, action)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they plagiarize that straight out of an Ayn Rand novel? Before we go further, the kids must remain politically correct:
[The student shall] use appropriate (i.e. respectful, inclusive) language in discourse about social justice issues
Looks like PETA was consulted in the drafting of this manual:
[the student shall] analyze the relationships between the mistreatment of animals and the environment and the oppression of humans
In the spirit of Ontario’s Barbara Hall, the course attempts to invent new human rights:
[the student shall] describe social injustice in relation to categories that are not fully protected under the Charter or the Human Rights Code (e.g. socioeconomic status, physical appearance, gender identity and gender expression, addiction, mental illness, animals, and the environment)
And here, we get some insight into the perfect, socially just world:
[students are required to] identify the systemic or structural characteristics of society that can cause or perpetuate social injustice (e.g. disparity of wealth, institutionalized sexism, philosophical or religious extremism, hegemony, lack of access to the legal system, emotive conjugation in labels and jargon, how particular jobs and skills are valued, how particular relationships are valued)
In the “socially just” world, we would have the communist dream (no disparity of wealth, everyone’s skills and jobs are of equal value), the feminist dream (an androgynous society), the hedonistic atheist’s dream (no philosophy or religion), the lawyer’s dream (no limit to public legal funding), the censor’s dream (everyone must speak in PC terms), and the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family (relationships become vague, ambiguous, but equal).
The course goes on to excoriate the Canadian government, decrying “limitations” of the charter including the application of it only to the federal government and not to individuals, the “reasonable limits” section, the “notwithstanding” clause, not enough “protected groups”, and that nasty clause that gets in the way of hate crimes prosecution called “freedom of speech”.
Further, under “Practices of Solving Conflict and Promoting Social Justice,” the guide includes civil disobedience, coups, and revolutions. Can’t make an omelet…
The supporters of this course insist that it’s not indoctrination, since it is an elective. Once I see government-funded and promoted electives on the establishment of a Christian theocracy, the wonderful history of the Catholic Church, and the benefits of Sharia law, I won’t be convinced.
Oh, but we’ll never see that. According to the course, “differing belief systems” are a contributing factor to social inequality.
Cross-posted at SF