Zub, thanks for posting this. It seems unbelievable that Canada would put something like this forward but isn't this sneaky....

That’s one conclusion drawn from a report released Thursday that surveyed 1,000 young Canadians, as well as nearly 4,000 teens from India, Rwanda and the United Kingdom.

In other words, they got nowhere with 1,000 teens from Canada so added India and Africa?

Since New Zealand isn't far behind Canada, here's some news to add. (just to note, year 12 is 11 - 13 year old)

From Barbara Faithfull.
Today, 26th September, the above lesbian activist was interviewed on National Radio by Lyn Freeman on Nine to Noon Show, where she was simply described as "Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Canterbury, who researches teaching education in NZ.


The subject was the sex education controversy unleashed 15th September on Newstalk ZB on Leighton Smith's show. A father of a 12 year old boy had written of his outrage that his son had been distressed after sitting through a sex education class which included lewd and sick discussion of oral and anal sex and "playing" with a 12 year old girl friend's private parts "as long as she consents" etc... The father had initially spoken with the boy's teacher, and after being fobbed off, has now met with the boy's headmaster....

As part of heavy media coverage of this matter, Lyn Freeman discussed it with Quinlivan,. Of the part of the interview heard by me was the following verbatim segment:-


Lyn Freeman : "Can you appreciate the (concern of the) father of the 12 year old, who was distressed at being taught about 'graphic sexual intercourse'; looking at oral and anal sex. Now for a 12 year old to be having that kind of discussion seems very young - OR AM I BEING NAIVE?"

Kathleen Quinlivan : "No, no. I don't, I don't think it's a matter of that, that the child is really young. I think what's, um, what's the problem there, from MY perspective, is that there must be a lack of COMMUNICATION in terms of a partnership between the school and, um, the family, in relation to TALKING about these issues, because legally it says that schools must consult with parents. What I would have done if I'd been that parent, I would have rung up the school because it's about a PARTNERSHIP between the school and the family. It's not about - I think that's a very important principle to think about here." (end of quote)

Some thoughts on that quote. I see that quote from Quinlivan as simply devious and dishonest weazel talk, a playing with words, and all allowed to go entirely unchallenged by Freeman. Quinlivan should have known that the father had indeed been in touch with the school over the matter - and more than once - so she seemed to have implied otherwise simply in order to sound as if she was making a rational statement.She wasn't, and Freeman allowed this.

Worse, Quinlivan was clearly out of her depth when expected to agree with the concerns of the father - i.e. that homosexual sex (etc.) should not be taught to 12 year olds. (Or, surely, to any age group?) Most certainly she didn't agree, but again was not challenged. In other words, being a homosexual herself, she DID agree with homosexual sex (etc.) being taught to 12 year olds, but craftily camouflaged her support in a flurry of "ums" and hesitations, and then a welter of noble-sounding but inane and irrelevant blatherings about "communication" and "partnership" between school and family.

And Freeman allowed her to get away with it, and with nary a mention of her sexual orientation, which could have assisted more astute listeners to make a strange kind of sense of it all!

Now for a few quotes from past media coverage involving Quinlivan

In the homosexual Express newspaper of 4th March 1999 she was described as "An educational researcher specialising in the needs of queer youth."

On the homosexuyal G & T Show, Access Radio Auckland, 8th July 1999, in an interview she explained that she had "Created 'inclusive schools' for the new sexuality curriculum, in the new Health Curriculum." The latter was to go through from Primary to the end of Form 7 (i.e. Year 12?) Quinlivan: "The sexuality component is exciting. It can provide a venue in classes for children to talk about A RANGE OF SEXUALITIES, rather than just assume that heterosexuality is the one and only form of sexuality that exists.

Back then Quinlivan was a secondary school teacher "now working in the teacher education area....so my area of expertise is looking at creating inclusive secondary schools in terms of affirming sexual diversity in schools."

She explained there that such work came in the Health Curriculum under the Ministry of Education. The curriculum had been "made into a legal document now, that schools have to implement...contracts have been let to enable teachers to make these programmes become real in their classrooms" etc.

G & T Show host Ross Stevenson pointed out that it was not even just an issue for "re-education" of teachers in NZ. He pointed to overseas cases of students protesting about not having an "inclusive environment" and SUEING their schools!. Quinlivan : "That's right! I think it's such a contested area (sexual diversity in schools) that it really takes THAT (i.e. student protest) for someone to sit up and notice, but I think that's a terrible responsibility to put on students." She thought the responsibility should be placed on schools and committees."Although some people disagree with this, I think the responsibilities we have to homosexual youth far outweigh other people's - what they say are their moral concerns......"We're going to develop resources and help train teachers for about 6 months. Then we'll work in schools."

No wonder Quinlivan could not agree with that father's concerns about the morally corrupting content of that sex education class!

Nor can people concerned about this parlous situation expect to find support from the NZPPTA.After all, its own President, Robin Duff, has been a homosexual political activist since the 1970's.

Barbara Faithfull

Added after 26 minutes:

Like...., some people ask for my opinion on topics and what people are saying [I'm not sure why, lol, but I'd like to practice ] and I want to give something on this information above.

I see how the lesbian in charge of our children's schooling thinks there is a relationship between the parents and the school and I take into account that she is stuck in academia's world and was an activist in the 70's. There are many gays in the same position too BTW.

She, IMHO, doesn't have a clue what's going on in the world and how no parent has a relationship with any school the government runs and even private schools are infected with this way of life for their existence.

She doesn't have any knowledge of the boys and girls now being confused of their identity from their teaching which is the most important thing they need for survival. She promotes things for the benefit of lesbians in the 70's as gays do the same. (I'm talking about an elite group btw).

Girls speak out more than boys so we are hearing more from girls how they are confused and this confusing is added to their already difficult time of dealing with being a teenager. No wonder our suicide starts are increasing rapidly with this group and no wonder it's being silenced by ideological freaks.

I don't hate her but instead I take a higher ground and pity her.

Quote from Zuberi

The report of the “Because I am a girl” campaign focuses this year on young men, regarding them as part of the solution to eradicating poverty ...

Men are a huge part of the solution to eradicating poverty. One can see the advancements in doing so, made by men, over the decades and centuries. A hundred years ago most people in the world lived in poverty by the standards of the developed countries. These days, that percentage is vastly reduced as men have helped develop the education systems, infrastructure and industries in many countries.

Feminists are only just catching on to the concept of reducing poverty. They aren't doing much about it, of course: they just blame the remaining poverty on men.

Quote from Zuberi

...and attaining female empowerment.

Wow, golly gosh. Is it news that without men enabling it, female empowerment would not exist? Who passed laws that granted women the vote? Who passed all those equality laws back in the 60s and 70s? According to feminists, men have been (and still are) in charge, so that would make the answer "it is men who have given women the female empowerment that they have" and it is probably no surprise that it will continue to be men until they wake up and realise that females always have been, always will be, empowered over men by biological design and do not need any more special privileges over men.

Quote from Zuberi

“Gender equality isn’t just about girls. It’s about girls and boys,” Ms. McCarney said.

Oh, and I'm sure this is absolutely shocking news to all regulars on this forum, which is striving to gain equality for men and boys.

The problem is, that Ms. McCarney seems to think that gender equality IS only about girls, but wants boys to join in giving them even more privilege over themselves.

the feminit gals use equality in the Marxist sense ie imposed from above according to a humourless monolithic ideology - a pumped up lie -and maintained and enforced by commissars ( commissioners for equality ) who as always see wimyn as a little more equal than the chauvinistic pigs they abhor and lie about and trash in their Family Court as we speak