So says a York University professor.
In another display of the contempt for parents among public intellectuals, Environmental Studies professor Sarah Flicker believes that government-designated sexual education is now a human right for all children:
“I think access to sexual-health education is a basic human right,” Flicker said.
Imagine. In Flicker’s world, parents who try to teach their children anything other than government-approved sex-education could end up in front of our beloved Tribunals. Among the illegal unapproved messages is the notion that abstinence is best:
“It’s clear that one-size-fits-all prevention strategies don’t work”
She takes issue with laws such as the clause in Alberta’s Bill 44, which restore parental rights over the education of their children:
Flicker said that any law that throws up walls between kids and the sexual information they need will only lead some to make uninformed, risky choices.
You’ve got that backwards, Flicker. Bill 44 only removes the monopoly that a teacher has on the religious and sexual education of the child, returning the responsibility to the parents where it belongs. While I disagree with aspects of Bill 44, specifically the power of parents to take offending teachers to the Human Rights Tribunal, it respects real human rights of freedom and not fake ones of government indoctrination. Will Bill 44 impose a “chill” against discussing controversial issues around children, as critics charge? I would hope so. Teachers have been entrusted by parents over young, impressionable minds – I would hope that educators would think twice before breaking that trust in imposing a point of view that they know is contrary to those of the parents.
But where do parents factor into the intellectual ideal of sex-education? They are always portrayed as a liability, and not an asset. They are a source of judgment, of fear, of clashing moral and religious values. It is with these portrayals that social engineers such as Prof. Flicker attempt to drive a wedge between children and their parents. Only then do they have the raw material (children) under their control to propagate their ideology.
Sex-ed, together with religion and morality, fall under the sovereignty of parents. Failure by some individuals to fulfill any of their civic or familial responsibilities is never a licence for government to step in and take control of all of it. This only worsens the problem as individuals are motivated to further abrogate all their responsibilities to the state. We see this with discrimination. We see this with free speech. And now we see it with the moral education of our children.