Apr 172011

Shock…gasp! Actually no surprise here; it is amazing what happens when parents find out what is really going on in their schools and informed media (RKR & LifeSite News) start to ask questions!

RoadKill Radio first talked about this issue on our March 15, 2011 broadcast when we first became aware of the Burnaby School District’s proposed ‘homophobia/heterosexism’ policy. Since that time community associations and parents have united their efforts to put a stop to this absurd and dangerous policy.

In a recent correspondence declining our invitation to appear on RKR and explain the District’s reasoning behind this policy, the Burnaby School District states:

Hello Kari:

Thank you for the invitation to be interviewed on RoadKill Radio however we respectfully decline.

As I mentioned on the phone, the Homophobia/Hetrosexism Policy (#5.45) is currently in the policy development process. The Policy Committee of the Board is currently compiling input on the draft policy received to date and will be meeting in late April or early May to review all input and to finalize a recommendation to the board. The draft policy will return to the board for consideration of adoption in late spring. Should the Board adopt the policy; the superintendent’s office will then distribute policy statements, regulations and procedures to schools.

Thank you for your interest,
Gilian Dusting
Acting Communications Manager
Burnaby School District 41

RKR co-host Kari Simpson believes this is a “regressive and dangerous policy, driven by left-wing political activists.” Simpson recalls in 1997 the NDP adopted a similar resolution when they were government. “The NDP were obliterated in the next election, being left with only 2 seats, this is something the elected officials sitting as school trustees for Burnaby should give serious and sober thought to,” says Simpson.
Click here to read the full story in LifeSite News

  4 Responses to “Burnaby School District DECLINES RoadKill Radio’s request for an interview!!”

  1. The Burnaby School Board’s support of this policy is a reflection of the BC Teachers’ Federation’s agenda. According to an article in the homosexual periodical “Xtra” (March 4), it was the Burnaby Teachers’ Association president and a fellow-teacher who originally “prompted the board to establish an ad hoc LGBT committee tasked with addressing homophobia in the district’s schools.” Apparently it was their efforts that led to the promotion of the policy voted on by the Board on February 22nd.

  2. We seem to have entered a phase where education officials, whether provincial or local, feel free not only to ride rougshod over the wishes of parents, but refuse to even communicate with those who seek to defend parental interests. Best wishes to those in the new media, like Roadkill Radio, who seek to defend legitimate parental rights and the interests of children and youth.
    –Ted Hewlett

  3. Firstly, there are already anti-bullying and non-discrimination policies in existence where sexual orientation is listed as a prohibited ground, which makes this policy redundant redundant redundant and completely unneccesary.

    Secondly this promotes the “ghettoization” of homosexuals by singling them out for special protection. It will cause jealousy and increase anti-LGBTQ feelings similar to those felt by siblings against spoiled children, who get unfairly special treatment.

    Thirdly it is easily abused. Those with an axe to grind can use this special treatment by proclaiming themselves as LGBTQ and create nuisance suits against students they don’t like.

    The document is rife with unfairness and entrenches inequality in policy. I have 4 questions for the school board.

    1) “Straight” or “Heterosexual” is also a gender identity, and therefore inclusion of these terms is mandated in order to achieve stated purpose (a) “Support inclusion of ALL students and employees in all aspects of school life, IRRESPECTIVE of their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    The draft currently fails the test of “inclusiveness” and “equality” as regards heterosexual students. This document grants special status to non-heterosexuals as regards protection from harassment and discrimination. It ignores the fact that LGBTQ+… groups can harass and discriminate against “straights”. Do heterosexual students not deserve equal protection?

    Please provide reference to the school district policy that protects heterosexual students an staff from harassment and discrimination.

    2) Under draft policy “purpose (d)” an unsubstantiated claim is made that “These individuals are often discriminated against, harassed, excluded and feel unsafe based on their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    It would be expected that significant numbers of verifiable, quantified examples of such behaviors within school district 41 have occured in order to warrant the enactment of a policy addressing it.

    How many documented instances of discriminatory or harassing behavior against LGBTQ+ students were there in SD41 during the past 5 years?

    3) The definition of “heterosexism” bundles together 3 assertions, (1-all people are hetero; 2-hetero is superior; 3-hetero is the norm) and declares that “heterosexism” is “invalid”. It may be true that one or more of these assertions are invalid, but calling the opinion “invalid” and has no legitimate place in a definition.

    Please provide reference to research that substantiates that each of these three assertions are invalid.

    4) The definition of “heterosexism” also makes the assertion that it “perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous”. This is also an unsubstantiated claim.

    Please provide reference to scientifically valid research that proves this statement is true, particularly in Burnaby and within the student and staff population of SD41.

    Where is the policy protecting fat, ugly, short, red-haired, nerdy… members of the school population. Spend an hour in a high school and you are far more likely to hear abusive and insulting remarks made about these “types” of students than you are to hear anything “homophobic”.

    By including false unsubstantiated claims in the policy document, the school trustees have exposed that they are up to something other than making LGBTQ’s feel included.

  4. The “3 Rs” are our children’s educators’ only mandate, (and they’re already making a mess of that, too). Moral issues should be the parents’ responsibility, no one else’s
    Bill Van Eldik

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.