When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. Don't think about a kiss, or follow with the eyes; Don't imagine youth can have an id, If sex is in the pot, keep on the lid! And if our youth, it seems, must live in fear Of knowledge, surely school is not the place to hear!

Welcome to the world of the Fundagelical Christian right. Enjoy your stay. Next stop, creationist science.

If Campbell chooses to ally himself and his party with the hard Christian fundagelical agenda he's going to get a very rude awakening. I don't for a minute believe that a significant plurality of BC residents have any patience whatever for the medieval nonsense spewed by these religious zealots. In fact I think they're more likely to be publicly scorned than they are to be patiently foreborne. The absurdity of the anti-science, anti-thought agenda regarding education has drawn gales of ridiculing Canadian laughter every time we've read of Arkansas or Mississippi or Texas eliminating this or that subject from their schools. We won't intentionally set ourselves up to be laughed at that way.

She sounds like a nightmare...

It is mind- blowing that in this day and age the same narrow-minded, fearful attitudes toward sex exist that have for thousands of years. People are soooo stupid it's embarrassing...

Oh my god - Billy took the words right out of my fingers! I was just going to say - what's up with the Cristie Clarke lookalike - are there an army out there who look and act like Clarke and are on a mission to break down educational support for our youth? Ignorance is bliss when it comes to Liberals staying in power.

High school was a nightmare for someone with my last name. Since most of the homophobes at my school were only familiar with the rhymes of Dr. Seuss and Dr. Dre, they were quick to label me "Darryl Queer." My father dealt with it in the sixties, and my brother just a few years before me. It got quite bad sometimes, and I'm just starting to really deal with those issues now. It's been three years since high school, but time hasn't healed all wounds yet. Kids were cruel, and they will continue to be no matter how educated they are. Words like gay, faggot, and queer have taken on new meaning in schools. They mean stupid, lame, or uncool. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Those words are not always an attack on one's sexuality, but on one's character. What the bullies in my high school didn't understand was that instead of cutting me down, their words just made me strive to become better than them, and now I can say with all honesty that it's true. My school did nothing to curb bullying, homophobic or otherwise, and the last thing we need are some self-righteous right-wing pundits who don't know what it's like to be bullied to the brink of tears almost everyday saying that sex-education is not important. Sexuality should be discussed in schools, and the bullying and victimizing that is associated with sexuality should be discussed more now than ever because it's not going to go away. Especially not if the issue is shrouded in dogmatic rhetoric by our elected officials with right-wing fundamentalist agendas.

Well said, Darryl and I'm glad you survived and overcame the minefield that high school often is. I agree, school boards should more courageously defend the rights of students and teachers to discuss issues of social significance and not allow that discussion to be hijacked by the pressures of political interference.

That woman is dangerous!

It's only a short step from telling someone what they can't say to telling them what they can't read,what they can't think. What they can't be.

Expect bookburnings. This is a terribly aggressive and violent philosophy, only barely restrained.

How long must we put up with having these neurotics shoving their screwed up world views upon us? If Ms. Polak has problems with sexuality, well, I feel sorry for her. But why does she have to impose it on the rest of us? It is about time we saw these people as what they are, deviants, and not allowing them power over us. Go get some therapy, lady!

Wonder what she'll do when her daughter comes home one day only to say that she's pregnant....or if her son finally has the courage to tell her he's gay. She hears only what she wants to hear. Forget about logic, forget about helping out kids and embarrassed parents; this is all meaningless to her. In her mind, who cares if kids don't get the info they so desperately need? At least they won't be exposed to the evils of sex (GASP!).She needs a huge reality check, especially when the rates of teen pregnancy and STD's will suddenly inexplicably start to go up in Surrey. This woman truly scares me.

Since it isn't any fun when everyone agrees on the subject matter - I'll play the devil's advocate and take a moment to ponder upon the stance taken by the link provided above giving background on the Surrey school board's case in objecting to books depicting same sex parents for grades K-1 because: "... the subject matter was inappropriate for children in kindergarten and Grade 1, and offensive to the religious convictions of some parents." When in an agreeable mood - I would buy that excuse. I personally feel France's embracing the "secular religion" went too far when it banned religious wear and symbols in a society that is supposed to be inclusive to all. If you were of a faith that objected against homosexuality and had the concept fed to your child before puberty was even over the horizon - I can see why you'd be miffed. Your child would be taught about same-sex families before you've finished brainwashing them with what is acceptable in your given culture/religion. We are not talking sex-ed - it is kindergarten, and I wonder if the school board can choose less sensitive topics to occupy the minds of children - such as peter rabbit, world peace, the environment, and Mr. Grumpy - and leave the definition of what a family is upto the respective family of the child until they are a bit more mature and can handle the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Schools should not be teaching "family values" - but should show the diversity of what a family is - when the topic is covered at a more mature level- and discuss how one matures to embrace ones identity. Parents/groups threatened by early endoctrination by the schools would tend to polarize the beliefs/views of the child by going to the extreme to counteract the information being taught and instilling "homophobic" or intolerant attitudes from an early age when otherwise they would not have focused so much on the topic.

Sometimes you come across an article like this that really nails most of the points and certainly in the case of my community the problems. Allen is correct, she is a dangerous person, but the more dangerous person is her mentor, whom I have met. Make no mistake about it, these "kindly" folks have a nasty political agenda that does not respect any political party and have no qualms about belonging to a party that does not subscribe to their viewpoints. They seek power through whatever means are at their disposal to change things back to the way they were 50 years ago. I suspect that Madame Stilwell would have had a complete fit had she known that she was sitting across the table from a gay male. Of course sitting with her facing me and Kathleen Toth of the Family Coalition Party behind me, it was quite an eye opener into their thought processes. I still remember clearly the topic of gay rights coming up and the reponse from the leader of the Family Coalition Party stating quite clearly "who care about their rights". When teachers are afraid to teach and counsellors are afraid to counsel, we have a very major problem. The schools are the first truly social interaction that children have and if we are not giving them the information and the tools that they need to survive in this ever changing world then I fear for the future. I am not sure if any of you have ever listened to Mary Polak on radio or television, but she comes across as articulate and is extremely good at deflecting issues. She has been well taught by her mentors. It would have been interesting to see Carol James come up against her in the upcoming byelection. We truly would have seen a formidable debate not just on the failures of the Campbell pseudo liberals but on the failures of the Surrey School Board as well.

Is this the same Mary that runs a political polling company? How many favours do you think she's done for the Campbell government in the past?

The argument put forth by Stan the Surrey man validates the observation such singular individuals are rendered "dangerous" only when a Province wide school curriculum is not laid out from the get-go which would be less vulnerable to ruin by the appointment of certain people with a single mindset taking the chair. Above all - children should be encouraged in an all inclusive environment where xenophobia is dealt with early. This is hardly a matter of controversary - what is more tenacious is in what context this acceptance of diversity is endorsed. Clearly children see the diversity around them in the classroom, and it is not hard for them to fathom that they come from diverse backgrounds and experiences. The question is why we have to play tug-and-war with religious zealots and the politically correct side when the matter is not of utmost importance to a child that hasn't reached grade 3. - I never was exposed to "my two dads" scenario in kindergarten - I was even ignorant of the full details of the relationship between my own parents (and ignorance was bliss why it lasted) in kindergarten. However, I have grown up relatively accepting that we all dance to our tunes - and it is no chip off my shoulder what anyone's sexul orientation is. We can't crucify people or blacklist them because they go against the PC regiment - but we can't give them the power to threaten the sensibilities of the whole curriculum in one district. The subject matter of the curriculum should be acceptable to all, however. Sexuality has its time and place in education - but we should respect the wishes of a family's ideologies prior to when the science of life is brought into the mix of a classroom. What is the goal of the school system? - and is this goal uniform throughout the stages of the child's development or does it become more involved later when the child has grown into its own identity separate from their family?

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out with voters in the by-election. Following the tactics of Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain"), will this candidate motivate the right-wing base to turn out to vote in a sleepy by-election? Or, alternatively will this candidate motivate centrist and progressive voters to actually turn out so that they can cast a protest vote?

What's really going on here with the Mary Polak nomiantion is the Liberals trying to maintain their support from social conservatives, primarily in the Fraser Valley. Unity BC and BC Reform have just struck a merger to create the BC Conservative Party, which come May 17, 2005 may be a popular enough brand name to do some serious damage to Gordon Campbell's prospects for a second term. Polak is being held up like the proverbial pole in the Liberal "big tent".

In response to Matt, she doesn't have to worry about motivating the right wing base, that will be done by SET and the Alliance Church. In Surrey there is no real separation of Church and State. The fundamentalist portion of all faiths in Surrey are of a single mind and are able to get their vote out. The centrist and progressive voters are the real problem voters, they just don't vote for some reason not even when the issues are important. The hard right wing has learned how to get their vote out and to make that vote count. They know with a certainty that they can get 75 to 80% of their vote out in any given election while getting maybe 40% of the moderate voters out is a real challenge.

I spent 12 years learning math in school. Everyday after school, I certainly did not feel like running home and doing some math. The idea that not teaching kids about sex and sexuality so they won't run out and fornicate madly is nonsense. Can I just repeat how much I hate the Campbell government?

The Surrey School Board issued a press release saying that it would continue to ban the books on same sex parents, in spite of the court rulings. They would ban them,among other reasons,for bad grammar. The press release, signed by Mary Polack, had a number of linguistic errors.

In my opinion, it is necessary to talk to teens about sex. Even if it is not a good thing to talk about. The teens need to know and have the right to know about sex and safe sex. You shouldnt ban talking about sex. If they want to do it, they will. Its noone's choice except theirs. We have the right to know about sex.

I have to disagree with you Avicenna- if I had read a book in grade 3 (and I devoured books) about a family with two dads or two mums, I would have totally accepted it. We are CONSTANTLY brainwashed about how we should live- that is, heterosexually, 2 children, white picket fence, car... you get the point. Children are so open and bias-free and honest and loving they will accept everyone. Instead, I didn't know a gay person until I was 21 and my boyfriend's best friend came out. I was a bit uncomfortable. Years later I met more homosexuals while working overseas, and they became my good friends. Nowadays I have several homosexual friends and interact with them regularly and am ashamed that at one time I was "uncomfortable".. but why was I? Because it was hidden, it was not "accepted" when and where I was growing up and because I had been brainwashed, by the time I was 8, to think that all families consist of "mummy" and "daddy" (and in the books I read- circa early 70's- mummies were usually in the kitchen!!) and that anything else was weird or wrong. If I were a parent I would BUY those books for my children and sit them down and explain that people make different choices in life and that everyone should be accepted for who they are and how they choose to live. The parents who complained about those books, in my opinion, have NO RIGHT to bring children into this world. Excuse my language, but screw their narrrow minded and harmful "ideologies".

FiMaxwell -you illustrate 2 of my points very well. You appear, as far as I could discern from your posts, that you are both an open-minded and reasonable person - and yet you were not exposed to the concept of homosexuality in grades K-3. If you had read about "My two dads/moms" - would you have understood the relationship between the two adults? Would it have mattered? My concern is more about the stress for the child who is taught one thing at school that they have not fully come to comprehend and then being taught an extreme polar opposite view at home. Of course, it would not be an issue if the parents were of the same mindset as the school - but it could be very confusing if the parents went out of their way to "unteach" such concepts to their child. Whether or not we agree with the philosophies of the parent - they do have the right to bring their children up according to their belief systems. That is why there should be a greater focus on acceptance for all (adopted children, those living in mixed households etc) family settings and not so much a focus on the sexual orientation simply to make a point - because it is such a sensitive issue for many still. Children are not stupid - and they know (as I did way back then) that not everyone has a mom and dad and that a family is more than the nuclear version that is of virtual extinction today. The point you brought up about teaching your kids what you feel is right is the second point you illustrated well for me. I personally feel that such concepts as family and the bonds within should be introduced by the parents. It is not pleasant for a child to have conflicting views than their parents, and until a time of greater maturity and identifying with one's own personal viewpoints separate from what the family believes - sex, lies, and politics does not need to be forced down the kids consciousness. Give them some more time just to be kids and accept everyone for who they are as people without worrying too much with who they sleep with. Of course, when sex ed (or guidance class as they used to call it back in my day) - all aspects of human sexuality should be covered as natural and part of continuum because the level of maturity and the formation of self-concepts would allow assimilation of ideas different from one's parents.

What irks me is that the neocon Gordo Campbell and his band of neoconservatives have just signed on an ARCH-CONSERVATIVE to run for them, a party that calls themselves LIBERALS!!! The public has got to realize that this group has outright lied about their name and philosophy, not to mention all the lies about tax cuts, privatizing BC Rail, etc. On a brighter note, maybe Surrey progressives will work hard to defeat the Christy Clarke look-a-like so she can move down Texas way. With a bit of luck, perhaps she can become the mostress of George W. as his mistress. Or better yet, as Cheney's mistress!

So this lady disagrees with you. She has a whole different world view, and acts accordingly. You oppose her policies and opinions? Fine. Put forth your arguments. Use your brilliant writing to convince the world. But can you not have the decency to be polite about it? Calling this woman "deviant" or "neurotic", or suggesting that "perhaps she can become the mostress of George W. as his mistress" - well, that is puerile, and it makes you seem pathetic. Disagree all you like. But why not do it with class?

"Kisses land five-year old in hot water." (National Post, 2004.09.13)A mother received a warning from her son's kindergarden teacher of a possible suspension for (wait for it!) "sexual harassment" if he didn't stop showing affection toward some of his peers. The likes of Mary Polak, Heather Stilwell and their cohorts in the far right fundamentalist camp, which includes Christians, Muslims and Jews, will only be happy when their concept of "zero tolerance" extends into the lifes of each and every one of us. One only has to look south of the border as to where these idealogues are headed. They cloak themselves and their agenda using terms like "liberal, compassionate conservatives" and the like, but in reality they are fascists.

Ah yes, Mary Polak. She was the one, as chair of the Surrey School Board in 2001, who had the answer to the shortage of Teachers-on-Call in her district. Yes, pay is low,($11,000 to $15,000 per year), but the pay issue "really isn't going to solve the shortage" since the true answer is "attendance management." And so it is the fault of those pesky teachers that there are not enough teachers. A true ornament for the Liberal Party in BC.

I object to the ignorant generalization of Rob's post. As a Muslim who was brought up in the Sufi tradition - a more socialist mind-set in my community cannot be imagined. I cannot lay claim to having any "cohorts in the far right fundamentalist camp" - where in heaven that camp may be - I don't know. There is absolutely no sense to bash those that have a faith (anymore than there is sense in bashing homosexuals) - since pluralism is the epitome of an inclusive of environment that we wish our children to have. Perhaps a little maturity from the adults would have a greater influence on the child's education and world perspective then such narrow-minded assertions.

Couple of corrections, since that is what we're famous for: 1)the rate of teen pregnancies in Surrey already is higher than the neighboring areas; 2)the primary curriculum [they're called IRPs these days, Integrated Resource Packages] does include the discussion of the composition of families, and the purpose is to show a variety of them, not just straight and gay; 3)the three books do not talk about sex, and neither do primary teachers, generally, unless it is thrust upon them; 4)the Board maintained its ban on the three books, but immediately approved two others on the subject that have been published since the controversy first errupted; 5)there are many conscientious and courageous teachers in Surrey who teach teens about sex, in spite of everything the board has done--I just won't name any of them, or myself!

Well so much for the theory that the world would be a better place if women ran it!!!

Re: Teaching sex ed. One of the problems with teaching sex ed is the biased materials produced by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC and blindly endorsed by the BCTF (though not the BC School Counsellors Association). I always taught my CAPP students about orientation issues, but couldn't use GALE's stuff because it was so badly edited, replete with contradictions and errors of fact, and ideologically biased. It's no wonder social conservative resist this blatant attempt to brainwash their children.

I don't think parents "have the right to bring their children up according to their belief systems" if those belief systems are in any way harmful toward others- and Avicenna, clearly very very many belief systems are, or we would not have the war, violence and hatred we have in this world. Something has to change and change fast or this nonsense will never end. "Give them some time just to be kids"??? In this day and age? HOW??!! You say "accept everyone for who they are as people" is exactly my point. Reading a book about two dads (unless I'm mistaken and the book has colour pics of the two dads in bed together?) does not translate in a child's mind into sex... does it? Guess in this day and age it very well could...:)

Steve- she isn't a real woman any more than G Campbell is a real man :)

good grief - so much controversy over biology. I have to say that avicenna sounds like my parents - when everyone of my friends were working in fast food restaurants at the age of 15 - I was told by my indulgent folks to enjoy my youth and forget such toil since I will be working my whole life. -I actually did head their advise and used my time being creative in other ways other than saying, "would you like fries with that?" - and I thank them for their insight, though it is a philosophy not shared by many parents from capitalist nations. I also think a parent who is Christian can teach "Christian Values" and those that are Buddist teach "Buddist Values" without inspiring hate for those different from themselves. To that end, I was excused from partaking in the "Lord's Prayer" and reading passages from the Bible every morning when I was in Grade 5 because I was not brought up in the Christian faith. I did not hate those that were. -What would be school board - or those supporting books having 2 dads, 2 moms, and an uncle to boot - say if parents who feel that they would prefer not exposing their young'uns (I'm sure they see it as "promoting") to homosexuality because it goes against the Bible (or whatever doctrine). If I had children - I'd definitely object to any material supplied by the Fraser Institute being read to my child before they are mature enough to know which side of the political spectrum they sit (and if they are brought up in my house - they better know wrong from right....). This controversy between the secularists and the ideologists is going to get stickier as we move forward through time, and it would be in our best interest to learn to compromise so that no one's views are infringed upon. As they say - different strokes for different folks.

shirin, insight and understanding poured from your post. You certainly sound like an adult who would focus on any children you might have.

I echo Allan's thoughts. That was a posting filled with wisdom, Shirin.

To allan and lynn - unfortunately, it takes wisdom to know wisdom - and unlike fear or air pollution, it doesn't diffuse from areas of higher concentration to lower concentration without a catalyst.

FI I think you have that backwards, she is a REAL woman, as in reactionary anti-feminist and Gordon Campbell is a real man as in traditional mysogynistic skirt chaser. My point is that the quaintly niave notion that women are inherently better than mean flies out the window with the Mary Polaks and Maggie Thatchers of the world. Women have the same capacity as men to be evil..

Steve - you underestimate women - they have a greater capacity then men - they are just usually smart enough to know they are better off using their power for self-preservation rather than infantilely blowing things, people, and places up....

Dear every woman, you're saying that woman have a greater capacity for evil than men? Interesting. In my experience I have seen as many sociopathic/psychopathic men as women, its just more of the males end up behind bars...

Steve, you have to be joking... I'm not even getting on this topic again. Yeah you're absolutely right... FAR more women are rapists, husband-beaters, child molesters, sexual assaulters, war-mongers, etc... "just more of the men end up behind bars" ??!!??

Ok, what happens if gay parents ask the school board to not expose their children to "heterosexual" values- being basically every children's book out there, (um, being basically everything out there) because it would cause their children to question their parents' way of life? NO books for kids? Same-sex books in a cover like the porn at the supermarket? Only distributed when requested? No one is forcing children to read these books; I mean it wasn't on the curriculum was it??... when I was in school we chose from a pile, if it disturbs the child they can put it down and grab another one. Geez, most kids avoid books like the plague anyway... but to BAN them- that is extreme and controlling and preventing the children of more liberal parents to have access, is it not?

I was raised Roman Catholic; believe me, my mother tried her best to instill "bible" beliefs in me. It didn't work. I would like to tell those parents what my dad apparently told my mum when she only agreed to marry him (an Anglican) on condition their children be raised Catholic; "You know they will one day develop their own beliefs, don't you?"

Steve - I guess it depends if you equate "evil" with sociopathy/pyschopathy - which I don't. Men are just more moronic in their aggressive behaviour. There is a shorter circuit between impulse and action - sort of like Pavlov's dogs. Women on the other hand can dwell in lucious malicious thoughts and still function as productive contributors within society. And if they ever succumb to temptations involving a bloody knife - there is always the DSM's criteria of PMS. Evil is such a poorly conceived conception... Before you write off another litany of abuses under thatcher the hatcher - I was speaking in broad ridiculous terms as befits the argument in question.

Since Mulroney put in place this program for immigration against payments(if you have 500,000.00 dollars and invest in canada you can immigrate here), we got an array of very conservative, corrupt thinking/behaving immigrants from all colours and all spectrum. We also got them in a real bind. They come, they bring family and they get their Canadian Citizenship and they vote and function as if they are back in the home country. So we get corruption galore in the constituency selection process, we get weird people in the school boards, we get people agreeing with "greedy is good for you", in as much as bringing asians of all stripes (from India to China)to being exploited here. So we get school choices, private health care etc and no one cares, because back home it is cheap to get the best treatment. Now "I have the money to go to my private doctor back home." It is status, therefore as long as there is paid work (work 3 jobs) a house, an expensive car and disco, who cares. "Now that I have money I can invest in some of the corruption system that works well back home and I can make more money". I was talking with a friend about her work in the blueberry fields around the Lower Mainland. You get paid 30 cents per pound of what you picked. You also pay for the transportation. With very few exceptions, most of the berry pickers are old people from India and Philipines. Their family bring them here for picking berries and other agricultural work. They make some money. More than what they normally would get paid at home. One takes 35 - 40 dollars a day, after 10 hours work. You work without holidays or days off. You work the first month to pay your ticket and food, the second month and the third month you take home about 1500 - 2000 dollars. It makes sense. So the families are in the business of exploiting their own, do you think they will care about human rights, rights of who or what, for what reason? School teaching sex, rights of gays? Women's liberation? The immigration policies of bringing the moneyed class of other countries is making Canada intolerant and very right wing. I would not be surprised that in 10 years, some corrupt "upper class" drug lord, is behind the political parties running the show. "Hey, greed is good" (said Vancouver Sun columnist Marilyn Baker on issues and ideas - sept.15th/04). She also stresses that there is a sucker born every minute and the greed person can make a buck from the unaware. We Canadian taxpayers are the suckers. We are allowing the mixture of religious indoctrinations in our secular society. We close our eyes to "all this diverging interests and let them destroy what make this country a better place to live: Acceptance and let people live and relax. I came to this country as immigrant 40 years ago. The racism then was totally different than racism now. Then I was never discriminated by immigrants. Now I am all the time, no matter what the sun says. Asians from all stripes discriminates against, natives, blacks and whites. Now the situation is going further. They vote for moronic people like Mary Pollack.

Perhaps if there was better sex ed there wouldn't be a "sucker born every minute" from the wellherewegoagain soliloquey. It is interesting that our corrupt right wing are "imported" greedy people from Asia. I never made the brilliant connection. Apparently these corrupt moneyed berry pickers who contribute to BC's organic farming industry but are not considered to be one of the "suckered Canadian taxpayers" and who bring with them their weird voodoo religious beliefs and think they have a right to these views just because they work here and call Canada home. The nerve of them and woe to us. Hello - reality check - I don't think Mary Pollack is an imported corrupt right-wing nut - she is the domestic sort. And the only rascism that spews out of this thread is from the wellgonagain type.

In regards to Fi's last comment - I think the focus on compromise raised by Shirin was lost in that argument. Despite common misperception - same-sex couples don't want to raise their kids to embrace the same lifestyle as them. Most of my gay and lesbian friends really would prefer that if they had any children (most don't for obvious reasons) they would hope them to be heterosexual and have even stated that they would even be happy if they had the almost non-existent ideal of the "happy family with Ma, Pa and the dog" because life has not been easy for them as homosexuals. Furthermore, they do not have a belief system (religion) that endorses only a homosexual way of life that they are raising their kids in. Those reasons - in addition to the fact that by actively prohibiting knowledge of heterosexuality as a way of life for children would mean that they are denouncing the means by which the child came to exist as an abnormal or unacceptable relationship. Thankfully, same-sex partners are more sensitive to the possible stigmatism of their children and would not cut them off from more than 90% of the rest of the general population as social outcasts - if they did, they would unfortunately not be very successful in gaining custody in the first place. That is their reality. We have much to learn from those tales of old that hardly used human subjects as the main characters of their parables - androgenous creatures such billy goats and fairies are far more effective in teaching "morals" about acceptance to children. If schools have a limited number of resources - why not concentrate on material that is inclusive as opposed to exclusive to all? It is far more easier - further exploration of family life should be taken up by the family. I am one of those that still believe that the family has some responsibility in raising their kids - and they should take the initiative to get the books they want their kids to read for their home library.

We all know that children look to their parents, and to other adults, eg. teachers, friends’ parents, mentors, for examples on how and whether to act and react. What they read in books seconds to the real experiences of life and the examples it constantly leaves around them.

Why don't people like Mary Polak _get it_? Banning books, disallowing sex-ed and denying discussion and acknowledgement of homosexuality only perpetuate sexual ignorance and nourish the already rampant intolerance against homosexuals.

Mary Polak should be muzzled and led off stage. Our public institutions have no right to disallow sex-ed and ban books that treat homosexuality as ordinary. They’re there to educate and nurture, not stymie and perpetuate.

Young children have no pre-formed opinions about sex and homosexuality. Adults need to behave like adults and exemplify that sex and homosexuality are OK. This way, our children can continue to believe that they are too.

Wellherewegoagain, after reading your post of the 15th I'd like to clarify my earlier comments. You and that woman are both dangerous.

correct me if i`m wrong here folks , these books were talking about are`nt step by step are they? i mean they don`t explain how to have homosexual sex do they? so why do people discribe them as depicting "sexual" life styles? what does having sex have to do with raising children? or providing a caring and loving enviroment? my point is that i don`t believe that these books or sexual education are teaching kids how to be homosexual, rather they are trying to teachthem that no matter whom you are or what your sexual preferance is, any one is capable of being a good parent. i remember these same types of discussions back in the sixties and seventies surrounding teaching kids racial tolerance. remember what dick nixon said about blacks? "i`m not a racist, why some of my best friends are black" nuff said.

Whether homosexuals want to "raise their kids to embrace the same lifestyle as them" or not (and you said it, Avicenna- "because life has not been easy for them")- is not the point, because between the two of us we do not know how or what all homosexuals feel. BUT they do want to see their way of life included as normal, not shunned, hidden, treated as wrong. I'm pretty sure on that one, and my homosexual friends would verify that. That was my point. Banning those books (Bill makes good points) is NOT compromising, not in the least. DO those books "explain how to have homosexual sex?" Bill asks. If not (and I highly doubt it) what IS the problem with them, exactly? Does it really just all boil down to fear?

Also, I take it Wellherewegoagain is about my dad's age and I don't think he intended to sound racist. He made a good point- people of his generation (you must be about 60?) DID come to this country because it is tolerant and accepting; because we value the "let people live and relax" attitude. Reminds me of my dad's co-worker back in the 80's- he was shocked when he and my dad bumped into my friend and I one summer day, at a coffee shop. Afterwards he said to my dad "How can you LET your daughter out of the house alone like that- she's only 16" A debate ensued, my dad was quite riled up; the jist of it being that this man who was raising his own daughter in Canada rigidly yet how he felt fit(can't remember exactly where he had immigrated from) was accusing my father of rearing me the wrong way. I think, unless I'm way off base, this is what Wellherewegoagain was getting at. Secularism and live and let live. My dad is from Ireland and he didn't immigrate here to have individual and/or religious ideologies imposed upon him. Plenty of that where he comes from... Banning books is wrong- and let us not forget, it is always one or two pushy parents who make all the noise; if a vote were held I'm sure the books could stay.

fimaxwell - interesting - you seem to "forgive" wellherewegoagain's obviously rascist commentary on the immigrant population of Asia - which is not only rascist but absolutely unfounded in terms of what he said - as being "unintended". Well, your perception of intentions in bigotry don't extend to parents who object to books having homosexual relationship undertones - I'm sure they don't intend in being "homophobic" anymore than the woebegone intended to be rascist. I guess we all have our biases.

So can anybody shed light on how it is that in Surrey kids can't have access to a book about a kid with two mommies but up-country in "Bountiful" a polygamous sect has existed and grown exponentially for years without the government or the RCMP doing dick about it? Girls barely pubescent are are married to men who in many cases are their blood relatives, girls are taken freely across the border to become the umpteenth wife of some old fart, girls barely old enough to experience menstruation are impregnated, often by their uncles, and men rule the roost in "homes" where children are raised by four, five, or six mommies. Many of these families receive welfare as a major source of the funding needed to raise the dozens of children born in these arranged and imposed couplings... and that seems to be just fine with the same mentality which would ram their version of morality down all our throats. "Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice"...

anne: I understand ''authorities'' are beginning to delve into Bountiful, but please be patient. Gordo's directives through his recently retired dep. premier and welfare minister Christi Clarke, who apparently is having a few concerns about her husband's (surely) non-involvement in the BC Rail scandal, are thought to be to go slowly so that another crop of backward, confused new voters can help elect another neo-con Liberal MLA for the province's southeast area in the 2005 election. The nerve of that woman to pull the plug after Gordo set her up with free childcare for three years in the legislature, the only childcare freebie left in the province too. The good news for Gordo is that he seems to have snagged Mary Polak as a handy replacement for Clarke so, if she can get elected the legislature will continue to echo with the 17th century views of Ayn Rand. I just hope she too has a child so the legislative aid looking after the now unused childcare space keeps her job.

Since the unveiling of the "adios amigos" turnabout by Clarke (no complaints here) - this arrival of the look-alike seems even more like ominous foreshadowing. Anyhow, in regards to the Bountiful reference by Anne, I had shunned that controversial thought from my head as soon as it made itself known - but more to remain PC on this subject and not so much as how Anne presented the case. Much of our society sees the way the children brought up in that poligimous community and their introduction into sexual maturity far sooner than what is considered "proper" as reprehensible - not only morally, but innately. Believe it or not, some people view homosexuality as ethically incongruous and don't want our "version of morality [in terms of acceptance of same-sex marriage] rammed down all [their] throats" - paraphrasing from Anne. It doesn't take on overt ability in perspective taking skills in seeing that we can live in a pluralistic environment respecting (key word) people's viewpoint and not putting them at odds with their children over it. Cultural norms change - but we are better to err in the side of caution and steering clear of controversial issues and let parents take the stand until a time of greater maturity - and at the same time protect the interests of children who are in potentially abusive environments -such as bountiful. That should take presedence in terms of priority - not so much as a book with homosexual undertones that has proved more successful in raising the ire and "Hail Marys" than actually teaching children about acceptance - since that is already their nature.

To: painted right - very wrong You conveniently, and disingeniously, separate my comment: "...the far right fundamentalist camp, which includes Christians, Muslims and Jews." As a Sufi, surely you must be aware of the persecution of members of you branch of Islam that has existed over the centuries and continues to this very day. You say: "pluralism is the epitome of an inclusive of [sic] environment that we wish our children to have." My point exactly and that which fundamentalists of all stipes seem to be unable to accept. His Holiness, Gohar Shahi, says: Above the religion, is the love of God". The bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; the obliteration of historical Buddhist figures in Afganistan by the Taliban; the destruction of historical Ba'hai holy sites in Iran; the intolerance of Sufism in Iran and the conflict between Sunnis and Shites in Iraq are but a few of the examples of intolerance exihibited by religious fundamentalists who give no consideration for plurality based on their beliefs that it's their way or no way. Of course, if it serves their collective agendas they will form allegiances to further their 'common' goals by placing religion above the love of God. My point of view is neither "an ignorant generalization" nor "a narrow-minded assertion." You might want to expand your view by visiting: http://www.viewsunplugged.com/vu/20040527/reflection_pluralism.shtml and http://www.mindspring.com/~altafb/sufipers.html Look far and be fearless!

Hypocrisy- I didn't think it was "obviously racist"- you did. But you are right, perhaps (some) people don't intend to sound homophobic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is the fact that they take action (whining and complaining to have those books removed entirely) that makes a difference.

Once again Anne, kudos to you for writing something insightful and so true. I'm picking up one of your books next time I'm at the bookstore.

Rob, I first didn't know you were addressing a person on the board in your last post and was surprised to have the discussion turn to sufism out of nowhere. I'm doubly surprised that there be more than one Sufi roaming the Tyee, and that you are familiar with this esoteric group. Just to note, sufism - although historically having its start in central asia (Persia/Afghanistan) - has invaded all spheres of Islam and not just the Shi'a of Persia. And I can certainly attest to the fact we are a beleaugered league - as all groups who promote independent thinking are (as an aside, my roots, ironically enough, sprout from the "Assassins" -I kid not- who actually were the Fatamids of yesteryear and the Nizari Ismailis of today - but that is beside the point). But I do object to those formalized individuals who seem to lack both perceptive and interpretive skills as being "fundamentalist" as they don't represent the fundamentals of thier faith - but rather project their own twisted formalization of it. Any true "believer" - be it whatever faith - would realize they are not in a position to judge the morality of someone else's action. One of the most inspiring words I've read that I use to check my penchant for self-righteousness were spoken by Mother Theresa of all people in her poem which ends - "You see, in the final analysis... It was never between you and them anyway." I think it would be good reading for all levels and faiths.

You guys (the three or four of you) are way off on your comparisons between Christy Clarke and Mary Pollak -- Christy Clarke is a life-long liberal, and Mary Pollak is an anti-gay conservative hatemonger. They might look the same, but they share nothing else in common.

Shirin...compulsory PC is as big a dictatorship as that pack of sad-sack mind-bent droopy-dick and downright dickless crowd currently slurping at the trough in Victoria. Any time PC gets in the way of honest questioning of what is, or seems to be, accepted, it's time to give it a fast boot to the sidelines. For me one of the beauties of this forum is that so many of us, coming from so many different backgrounds, can exchange ideas, even spar and sometimes pitch hissy fits and still find areas in each other's thoughts where we can agree..and even when I don't disagree, I'll defend the person's right to express themselves. Himself,herself,theirself,ourselves...whatever... /// PC is all too often a place for the morally ambivalent to hide/// it takes guts to take a stand. My best friend wears a pin which reads Politically Incorrect is alive and well and wearing this pin. Too often "PC" is just a bunch of recycled , over-worded pap. Ask questions!!! They are our salvation!!!

Mary is a hard working, incredibly smart, you should be so luck to have her represent you person. I have known her for several years and she has no malice in her what so ever. She may not share your same opinion, but that does not make her the tyrant many of you are brandishing her to be so rudely, in other comments posted here. In fact, that only leads me to disrespect your posted opinion.

Mary is a hard working, incredibly smart, you should be so luck to have her represent you person. I have known her for several years and she has no malice in her what so ever. She may not share your same opinion, but that does not make her the tyrant many of you are brandishing her to be so rudely, in other comments posted here. In fact, that only leads me to disrespect your posted opinion.