Edmonton Teen Files Suit To Get School Board To Be Realistic


tay
#1
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
Bloc Québécois
+1
#2
What a tool... Human Right's complaint.

Emily's version of reality trumps anyone else, eh?
 
Twila
+3
#3  Top Rated Post
Quote:

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
Free Thinker
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

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
#5
Isn't this a parent's job to teach their kids sex?
 
Twila
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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
#7
We beat the world to it.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

We beat the world to it.

'beating the world' is another way to control sexual transmission of disease.
 
Twila
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

We beat the world to it.

You and your wife, do you mean?
 
Corduroy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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

Why should it be?
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

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
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

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
Bloc Québécois
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

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
Free Thinker
+2
#17
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
+2
#18
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
Bloc Québécois
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

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
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

and it most certainly does put them at risk


One could fairly argue that the abstinence angle would virtually eliminate that risk
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

One could fairly argue that the abstinence angle would virtually eliminate that risk

I don't think so, statistically it is unrealistic and thus has been shown to be ineffective as kids do not abide by it

better to show them how to avoid STDs and pregnancy unless of course there is another agenda..

that is what she is claiming another agenda
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#23
No doubt.

With that in mind, how many kids are 100% committed to conventional contraception after a few cocktails and the hormones raging?

My only point was that if the relationship of the 'facts' within a presentation can be attached to the well being of an individual, the abstinence message would hold true to the tenet of looking out after the well being (health) of the kid... The Human Rights complaint would basically be null/void with respect to that argument.. At least that's the theory
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No doubt.

With that in mind, how many kids are 100% committed to conventional contraception after a few cocktails and the hormones raging?

My only point was that if the relationship of the 'facts' within a presentation can be attached to the well being of an individual, the abstinence message would hold true to the tenet of looking out after the well being (health) of the kid... The Human Rights complaint would basically be null/void with respect to that argument.. At least that's the theory

true
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

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

No. It is up to the parents first and foremost. The schools/govt only got involved in the first place because some parents don't have the moral strength or intelligence to teach their children properly. Being I am against overreaching govt and pro personal freedom and responsibility I don't think the govt or schools should be involved at all.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

No. It is up to the parents first and foremost. The schools/govt only got involved in the first place because some parents don't have the moral strength or intelligence to teach their children properly. Being I am against overreaching govt and pro personal freedom and responsibility I don't think the govt or schools should be involved at all.

kids need to discuss it together with leadership, that happens best in a classroom...sure my mum discussed it with me, then I could hardly wait until I discussed it with my girlfriends...

everything is different now anyway...kids start learning this stuff from toddlerhood
 
gerryh
+1
#27
First, this class was from a guest speaker, it was not the only class on sex education that these kids took. It was giving them a look from a different perspective. Yes, they told the kids that Birth control, condoms etc, were not 100% effective. They aren't. They aren't 100% effective with preventing pregnancy's nor are they 100% effective against STD's. Abstinence is. So why not present that as an option? That's all it is and was. What we have here are people that don't want the abstinence option presented to kids period. Why, because abstinence is automatically said to be religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a viable option to 100% prevent STD;s and pregnancy.

When things like this are not presented we get responses like, "I don't understand how I got pregnant/STD, I'm on the pill, I used a condom, I used a spermicide, etc." The answer is, you got pregnant/STD because all of the above are not 100% effective. The kids need to be told this, in no uncertain terms.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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

If it is its one job many chose not to do. My parents never talked to me about sex at all. Well, not when I was a kid anyway. I can exchange dirty jokes with my father but that is as far as a 'sex talk' ever went with either of my parents. Most of my friends had the same experience. School did some of it, the internet did the rest.

I don't see any problem with including abstinence in sex-ed but have a big problem with abstinence only. Its very unrealistic and ultimately dangerous. A lot of teenagers tend to have sex. I did, my sister did, a fair number of my friends did. Fortunately because we knew about contraceptives and where to get them nothing too bad happened. I can't speak for all of them but I know for some of us we were going to do it whether or not the school had an "abstinence only" stance. This isn't anything new either. A few years ago we found out that my grandmother had a child while she was a teenager and gave it up for adoption. So if they are going to do it, give them the tools they need to make it as safe as possible. Abstinence only will only work if you are following them around 24/7. I don't see that happening.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

No. It is up to the parents first and foremost. The schools/govt only got involved in the first place because some parents don't have the moral strength or intelligence to teach their children properly. Being I am against overreaching govt and pro personal freedom and responsibility I don't think the govt or schools should be involved at all.

If the parents don't do it and the schools doesn't do it, who will? If the parents do it, great then the kid will pass that class as it will be old hat to them. No harm done. If they don't and the school doesn't - well that can be costly to society in more ways than one. It would no doubt lead to more teenage/unwanted pregnancies and more STDs/STIs going around.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

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?

Ironic that you post the link I got my info from, aka CBC News.

As I said, personally going to the HR commission was stupid, but that said, she was right to bring up the subject.

We have the school saying it was based on scientific fact but schools have never tried to cover their asses before... no, never.

What I question, in the end, is the people who presented this. I have no problem with abstinence only opinion being taught - I agree, it's the safest way to prevent what happens with sex - BUT for a lot of kids that's not going to happen. And being from an anti-abortion group, I don't trust that their 'facts' were actually, you know, truth and not the biased or other bs that normally happens with anti-abortion type groups.

I don't take the word of the 17 year old, however she WAS the one that was being taught all this. If she had a concern, it's only right it be looked into a least. Going public with it though was dumb, unless the school board was trying to cover it up.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

kids need to discuss it together with leadership, that happens best in a classroom...sure my mum discussed it with me, then I could hardly wait until I discussed it with my girlfriends...

everything is different now anyway...kids start learning this stuff from toddlerhood

If you want to pass on the job to others whom you don't know that's your business. I just think it is another step in the big brother state. Considering we are all here and sex ed didn't hit schools til the 50s or 60s I'd say no matter how inept our ancestors were at teaching their kids it all worked out ok.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

First, this class was from a guest speaker, it was not the only class on sex education that these kids took. It was giving them a look from a different perspective. Yes, they told the kids that Birth control, condoms etc, were not 100% effective. They aren't. They aren't 100% effective with preventing pregnancy's nor are they 100% effective against STD's. Abstinence is. So why not present that as an option? That's all it is and was. What we have here are people that don't want the abstinence option presented to kids period. Why, because abstinence is automatically said to be religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a viable option to 100% prevent STD;s and pregnancy.

When things like this are not presented we get responses like, "I don't understand how I got pregnant/STD, I'm on the pill, I used a condom, I used a spermicide, etc." The answer is, you got pregnant/STD because all of the above are not 100% effective. The kids need to be told this, in no uncertain terms.

I am all for abstinence for young teenagers. What we don't know is exactly what they were told about contraceptives. They may have been told condoms or pills don't work at all or that they were only 25% effective which is bullsh*t. So yes abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy (STDs can be caught in a multitude of ways other than sex) but did they get the correct information about the effectiveness of other methods? If there were exaggerations about the birth rate while on the pill or the failure rate of condoms then the idiot giving the class should be banned from ever teaching kids again. I'm guessing that since an 18 year old says she was being lied to she probably was.

Just an FYI from experience....4 kids either in or graduated from the Catholic School system where they were given all the FACTS and then encouraged to abstain.
 
no new posts