Edmonton Teen Files Suit To Get School Board To Be Realistic

[tay]

McNally High School in Edmonton, Canada provided students with an abstinence-only sex education workshop that rubbed 18-year-old Emily Dawson the wrong way — to the point of her filing a human rights complaint over it.


The complaint states that the class, which is taught by the Edmonton Pregnancy Care Centre at McNally, taught false information about contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, and sex in general.


The class also tried to convince students to abstain from sex completely. The Alberta Human Rights Commission accepted the complaint, filed by both Dawson and her mother, Kathy.


“It was based on value-based teachings, instead of scientific fact,” Emily Dawson told CBC News. “They basically said that condoms were ineffective and they did not at all talk about the combined methods to protect ourselves during sexual intercourse.” She said this was all “highly disappointing.”


In a Facebook post, the Edmonton Public Schools Board stated:


I took immediate steps to look into the Pregnancy Care Centre’s presentation on sex ed. I had staff members, one of whom was a registered nurse, attend and observe the presentation unannounced. They found that the presentation met our standards and expectations on every level — information was presented in a scientifically-sound way… Having said that, we’ve heard a lot of concerns expressed from the public over the last several days about guest speakers invited to present on the topic of sexual health education… We are asking our schools in the fall to use different presenters so that we can continue this conversation, and focus on meeting the needs of students and parents.”


more




Teenage Girl Stops School From Teaching Abstinence-Only, ‘Value-Based’ Sex Ed Instead Of Scientific Facts

 

[captain morgan]

What a tool... Human Right's complaint.

Emily's version of reality trumps anyone else, eh?

 

[Twila]

The complaint states that the class, which is taught by the Edmonton Pregnancy Care Centre at McNally, taught false information about contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, and sex in general.

That's highly concerning.

 

[PoliticalNick]

What a tool... Human Right's complaint.

Emily's version of reality trumps anyone else, eh?

It appears from your comment you have the same attitude.

I can't blame her for complaining and if this is the only forum for her to use then so be it. I happen to agree that the school should teach comprehensive sex-ed if they are going to teach it and not tell lies. I do not have a problem with them recommending abstinence as long as they give all the facts about all contraception and STDs at the same time.

 

[petros]

Isn't this a parent's job to teach their kids sex?

 

[Twila]

Isn't this a parent's job to teach their kids sex?

The world will educate your kids whether you want it to or not.

 

[petros]

We beat the world to it.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

We beat the world to it.

'beating the world' is another way to control sexual transmission of disease.

 

[Twila]

We beat the world to it.

You and your wife, do you mean?

 

[Corduroy]

Isn't this a parent's job to teach their kids sex?

Why should it be?

 

[Sal]

Isn't this a parent's job to teach their kids sex?

maybe from when they are 3 until they are 10...after that it should be done in a classroom and discussed in groups

 

[Twila]

maybe from when they are 3 until they are 10...after that it should be done in a classroom and discussed in groups

in a classroom with the CORRECT information as well as all information.

In the adult world with a fully realized brain the person who lies or spreads unreliable information is known to be unreliable and a liar.

Magnify and amplify that and you have how a teenager views adults and the information given by those adults. When a child is lied to and finds out the trust is broken for a very long time. When a teenager is lied to the response is to prove the lie. The means with which they do that could be very bad indeed.

When you lie to a child or teenager you are saying to them very clearly that you do think they are of value...at least not value enough to be honest and truthful.

 

[wulfie68]

I'm aghast that the Edmonton Public School Board would be so idiotic as to be on board with this. I could see it more in the Catholic boards, where faith and moral beliefs are accepted as part of the educational experience, but not in the public system.

As to the comments about parents teaching kids about sex, I think there is a place for this but it shouldn't be the only source of education, in large part because some parents and kids find it awkward to discuss it. I was never comfortable talking about sex with my parents: who in their right mind WANTS to think of their parents as sexual beings, which is what needs to happen to some degree for the parents to have any credibility when talking about it.

As to abstinence, yes it should be presented as a choice to kids, but realistically, we should accept that for many its not going to happen. We need to arm them with as much accurate information as possible, about STDs, about pregnancy and about birth control. This education is how we cut down/eliminate unwanted teen pregnancies which can lead to (in many cases) abortions or young, single, uneducated teen mothers who lack tools to raise and care for their children and are more predisposed to live off the public ***.

 

[Twila]

As to the comments about parents teaching kids about sex, I think there is a place for this but it shouldn't be the only source of education, in large part because some parents and kids find it awkward to discuss it. I was never comfortable talking about sex with my parents: who in their right mind WANTS to think of their parents as sexual beings, which is what needs to happen to some degree for the parents to have any credibility when talking about it.

I remember the talk my mom gave me to this day. It went like this " you have an appointment with Dr. Ray tomorrow". Dr. Ray gave me birth control pills. That was the extent of it. School sex education was all about menstruation for girls. I have no idea what the boys were taught.

 

[Sal]

in a classroom with the CORRECT information as well as all information.

In the adult world with a fully realized brain the person who lies or spreads unreliable information is known to be unreliable and a liar.

Magnify and amplify that and you have how a teenager views adults and the information given by those adults. When a child is lied to and finds out the trust is broken for a very long time. When a teenager is lied to the response is to prove the lie. The means with which they do that could be very bad indeed.

When you lie to a child or teenager you are saying to them very clearly that you do think they are of value...at least not value enough to be honest and truthful.

I came through a Catholic school system. We began sex education in grade seven health class first, and backed up by science class. Health class was a female teacher. She was awesome at generating discussion and answering questions correctly. We were given pamphlets which we had to return at the end of class. I guess that was so they wouldn't find mfloating around the halls where the younger kids could see them.

I loved the questions kids asked and how they were answered and the discussions we had. The science teacher began with heredity and genes and worked up to zygotes. By grade ten we saw the birth of a baby. One girl fainted.

I remember being disappointed with health class in high school it was not nearly so indepth.

 

[captain morgan]

It appears from your comment you have the same attitude.

I can't blame her for complaining and if this is the only forum for her to use then so be it. I happen to agree that the school should teach comprehensive sex-ed if they are going to teach it and not tell lies. I do not have a problem with them recommending abstinence as long as they give all the facts about all contraception and STDs at the same time.

In no way, do I hold an attitude that is similar or even remotely close to this girl, quite the opposite in fact.

Ultimately, she disagrees with the information that was passed along, but her individual analysis does not automatically mean that they are 'lies'.. This is where she is dictating that her beliefs are fact and info that is not to her approval are 'lies'.

That said, exactly how are her 'Human Rights' being trampled in this?... Did they put a gun to her head or force a chastity belt on her?... This clown is using the (proven) archaic Human Rights Tribunal to engage her own witch hunt.

The acid-test here is to put the shoe on the other foot.... What would be your take if the school/institution/Church hauled her pathetic a$$ into the Human Rights Tribunal for not agreeing with their POV?

I'm guessing that there would be no end of abuse hurled at the school/institution/Church, etc for taking such actions.... That said, what makes her actions acceptable in this instance?

 

[Serryah]

First it wasn't an "abstinence only" class, it was supposed to be a sex ed class.

Second the class was given by an anti-abortion believer which is probably why the stuff that was taught was wrong/biased information.

This girl has every right to step up and say "this isn't right". I don't like that she went to the human right's commission but that said, if the district was "okay" with how things were, perhaps that was the only way to get them to listen. I'd also have to question the fact that the presenter of the information is religious and from an anti-abortion group, even if they have scientific facts with them.

At least be honest; present yourself as someone from an anti-abortion group to the kids, present your abstinence only view but don't use biased/twisted 'facts' to support your cause. Same would go for any other instructor teaching about safe sex, by the way. I also dislike that they look outside the school to have people teach about sex ed. I can see maybe guest speakers but teachers should be the one teaching, not some outside person with agendas.

 

[Corduroy]

The courts sometimes interpret health risk as part of the charter right to security of person. A human rights tribunal might rule that a sexual health course that gives students false or misleading information puts them at risk.

 

[captain morgan]

First it wasn't an "abstinence only" class, it was supposed to be a sex ed class.

Second the class was given by an anti-abortion believer which is probably why the stuff that was taught was wrong/biased information.

This girl has every right to step up and say "this isn't right". I don't like that she went to the human right's commission but that said, if the district was "okay" with how things were, perhaps that was the only way to get them to listen. I'd also have to question the fact that the presenter of the information is religious and from an anti-abortion group, even if they have scientific facts with them.

At least be honest; present yourself as someone from an anti-abortion group to the kids, present your abstinence only view but don't use biased/twisted 'facts' to support your cause. Same would go for any other instructor teaching about safe sex, by the way. I also dislike that they look outside the school to have people teach about sex ed. I can see maybe guest speakers but teachers should be the one teaching, not some outside person with agendas.

From the publication "Medical Daily"... No bias there, eh?

Regardless, my position is not about abstinence or not, it's about how poor wee Emily's Human Rights were violated.

From the article:

“It was based on value-based teachings, instead of scientific fact,” Emily Dawson told CBC News. “They basically said that condoms were ineffective and they did not at all talk about the combined methods to protect ourselves during sexual intercourse.” She said this was all “highly disappointing.”

In a Facebook post, the Edmonton Public Schools Board stated:

I took immediate steps to look into the Pregnancy Care Centre’s presentation on sex ed. I had staff members, one of whom was a registered nurse, attend and observe the presentation unannounced. They found that the presentation met our standards and expectations on every level — information was presented in a scientifically-sound way…

So... How about this idiot's clain that the presentation was not based on 'scientific fact'?... Looks as if the school board and their representatives, including an RN disagree with our wee lamb.

That said, do we take the word of some 17 y/o or that of the education authority on this?

 

[Sal]

The courts sometimes interpret health risk as part of the charter right to security of person. A human rights tribunal might rule that a sexual health course that gives students false or misleading information puts them at risk.

and it most certainly does put them at risk