10.03.2011 10:46 AM

The Hudak PCs unveil their version of the “face ad”

Here’s the C.P. story that just moved on the wire:

Ont Elxn Conservatives
Source: The Canadian Press
Oct 3, 2011 10:54

AMHERSTBURG, Ont. – Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is defending a piece of campaign literature that the rival Liberals have branded as homophobic.

He says the flyers on the Liberals’ sex ed curriculum reflects Premier Dalton McGuinty’s “out of the mainstream” policy ideas.

Hudak says Grade 1 students should be taught the alphabet, not sex education, and it’s another example of how McGuinty has lost touch.

The Tory flyer urges parents to vote against the Liberals for “keeping parents in the dark” about what’s being taught in schools.

It says the sex ed curriculum teaches “cross dressing for six-year-olds” and suggests that teachers allow students to hold their own gay pride parade in their schools.

The literature quotes from a handbook provided to Toronto teachers that was obtained by The Canadian Press.

(The Canadian Press)

The slick PC pamphlet in question says, for example, that page 19 advocated “cross-dressing for six year-olds.”

So, here’s page 19:

It’s a list of names of people whose words or histories were consulted for the study. Nothing about “cross-dressing for six year-olds” is on that page. Not a word.

The rest of the allegations in the pamphlet are similarly wrong.  Most of the things they allege come from the curriculum in 2002 – when Tim Hudak was a government minister.

What does it mean? Well, it means Hudak is prepared to lie, and to smear people who are different.

Why is he doing that?

Because, as with the Campbell Conservatives in 1993 (on whose campaign he toiled), he’s losing, and he’s getting desperate.  He hasn’t run ad yet that attacks people for their physical appearance.  But he still has three days, so who knows.

28 Comments

  1. DECIPHERING KARL ROVE’S PLAYBOOK:
    CAMPAIGN TACTICS AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES
    http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

  2. Be on the alert for the Rovian Technique:

    “Rove’s detractors have claimed he was involved in dirty tricks. One oft-cited example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry’s ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election.

    Democratic candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean directly accused Rove of involvement in terror warning manipulation, stating “I suppose that’s Karl Rove’s MO still.” Another example is the 2006 announcement that planned terrorist attacks had been thwarted, which was made soon after the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was discovered.”

    http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

  3. steve says:

    Hudaks whole campaign is based upon lies, even the post went after him for his Dumbmeters. This is what Hudak fears the most, imagine no more coal.
    http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/30/negative-pricing-germany-swamped-with-renewable-energy/
    This can be Ontario in ten years, but only with strong visionary leadership.

  4. frmr disgruntled Con now happy Lib says:

    I looked for John Baird’s name, and couldnt find it anywhere……

    But then again, my name wasnt on the list either……dang………..;)

  5. smelter rat says:

    No Gord, he’s saying that Hudak is saying that there are. Try to keep up.

    • Mattbin says:

      It’s not in error, Gord. It’s a bald-faced lie. And you’re the sucker, here, that they’re depending on to overlook that, because hey, they’re playing to your prejudices.

      Pathetic.

  6. Mattbin says:

    Gord, I looked at every reference to “cross” and “dress” in that document myself, and couldn’t find a single phrase that comes anywhere close to what’s on that pamphlet.

    The reference to holding pride parades in schools is in the following paragraph, pp 56-57:

    “One idea students could come up with is to make posters for the TDSB float and/or school bus that are in the Pride Parade. Additionally, students could have their own Pride Parade in their school and invite the local media as well as representatives from Pride Toronto or other community agencies that celebrate and promote equity for sexual orientation and gender identity.”

    Note that this involves letting students hold a pride parade in the school, not a school-run pride parade. This is the only reference in the document, though, to pride parades in schools. All of the other uses of the word “parade” are either historical, or in aid of teacher-led discussions about pride parades (e.g. “Include a historical discussion on why there is a Pride Parade for the LGBTQ community and why there isn’t one for straight communities.”)

    Yes, all very horrible, won’t somebody think of the etc. etc.

    • smelter rat says:

      Get a grip Gord.

      • smelter rat says:

        You have never shown any interest in getting the facts. Seriously, are you really suggesting that schools would be permitted to promote pseudo sex acts? If so, you need to get help. If you’re just trolling, admit it…it’s the first step in overcoming that condition.

      • Ted says:

        Which is to say nothing about the “kissing booth” claim – also a complete lie.

        These are not “actual parts of the 2011 K-12 curriculum” as Hudak claims.

        First he goes after Canadian citizens who were born abroad by calling them “foreigners”. Now he goes after homosexuals by lying about a “homo agenda” that McGuinty is supposedly pushing.

        These are desperate lies by a desperate and disgusting man bent on getting votes by dividing Ontarians.

    • Ted says:

      These are suggestions for possible child-directed activities, Gord. Not engineering specifications.

      The point being that the document in question does not advocate for a pride parade.

      And it certainly does not push “cross-dressing for 6 year olds” as the brochure claims.

      Ergo, Hudak is outright lying. Trying to manipulate the public with bald faced lies on the eve of the election with no real chance to refute the many many falsehoods.

      It’s pretty dispicable. And very desperate.

    • M@ says:

      Yes, as a matter of fact, nudity and simulated sex acts were specifically recommended in the document, as well as a directory of preferred shops where students might find child and toddler sized leatherwear and such at reasonable prices.

      Really, it’s in there.

  7. Ford says:

    Have you read the list…wow what a collection:
    Alexander the Great
    Leonardo de Vinci
    Errol Flynn
    Rock Hudson
    Billy Jean King
    Plato

    What convulsions of philosophy are required to tie these togeather?? Curriculums change constantly and not worth the paper they are written on…Come on..can we at least have discussion of real policies?

  8. Alison says:

    Perhaps their difficulty with the page references stems from them confusing it with the Mike Harris/Tim Hudak 2002 “Rainbows and Triangles: A Curriculum Document for Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism in the K—6 Classroom.”

  9. Attack! says:

    There are only 2 ref’s to cross-dress* in the entire 223 pp. ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide’ — a document which is only for the teachers themselves, not the students, it should be noted.

    1) an entry in the ‘Inclusive Curriculum Resources,’ an annotated list of websites:

    The Renaissance Transgender Association, Inc.
    http://www.ren.org/page2.html
    This site includes a very useful guide for creating peer support, activist, and educational groups. It is primarily focused on cross-dressing.

    2) an entry in Appendix A, the Glossary for:

    Transvestite: Some men and women enjoy wearing the clothing of, and appearing as, the other gender. Many of these individuals are heterosexual, who enjoy cross-
    dressing. Unlike transsexuals, they do not want to change their physical sex.

    Note, too, there is no other occurrence of the word ‘Transvestite’ in the Guide.

  10. Max Valiquette says:

    Gord, what exactly are you asking? for someone to go through the entire curriculum and prove that this ad is misleading? Okay, that’s been done, and here it is: http://www.torontostandard.com/daily-cable/ivor-tossell-fact-checking-hudaks-homophobic-flyer . To answer your question: there is nothing in the curriculum about cross-dressing for 6 year olds, at all. Nothing remotely like that on page 19, or any of the adjacent pages. There is one use of “cross-dressing” in a hyperlink located in the appendix (it’s a link to a transgendered support group). The curriculum goals, for kindergarteners, calls for them to “demonstrate a beginning understanding of the diversity in individuals, families, schools, and the wider community.” It does, as a way to teach empathy and diversity, ask for students to role-play opposite roles or animals or objects or elements of nature.

    As for your suggestion that it depends on “what sort of pride parade” – do you really think that one with nudity or sex acts would be encouraged? Or even allowed? Honestly? I can’t believe you asked that question. At least, if that was in the curriculum document, I think that would have been front and centre in this flyer.

    But what I find odd is your reaction. A photo of page 19 appears with NOTHING REMOTELY RELATED to the claim this ad made and your comment suggests what? That the tone of the ad is okay if they just got the page wrong? That it doesn’t encourage homophobia somehow? I’m not sure why you asked what you asked, why that was your immediate question. I mean, it’s your right, of course, but it just strikes me as super-odd.

    Anyway: yes, this flyer is incredibly misleading, and contains errors and/or lies, and appears to be the work of a party that wants to encourage homophobia. I have just one question for you: are you voting for them? And a follow up: if you are, why?

    • The Doctor says:

      I didn’t think Gord lived in Ontario.

      • Jan says:

        You do know that Calgary has a Gay Pride Parade, don’t you? Most religions are not exactly feminist but I saw Baird today touting some sort of Freedom of Religion initiative. He says it’s a Canadian value – do you agree?

      • Attack! says:

        Sorry, Shifty, but merely being “mentioned in the document” is NOT what the flyer claims…

        It claims they’re “parts of the curriculum” (see picture of actual flyer here: http://twitpic.com/6ua28i )

        which would generally be understood by the people ‘at the door’ the flyers are being distributed to, as:

        actually being explicitly part of the content of what’s being taught, discussed, or role-played in the classroom.

        And most of what they’ve claimed there isn’t; at least, not in the ‘adult’ way that people would assume (re: the ‘kissing booths,’ ‘Pride parades,’ & ‘gender-bending’ stories, which would all be done in a WAY more PG manner, if at all).

        And clearly not everything in the 223 pp. resource guide for the teachers IS part of the curriculum in that sense: certainly not the appendices with the glossary & annotated list of websites, where the only 2 mentions of ‘cross-dressing’ are: i.e., nowhere near the actual section that outlines the actual curriculum for the 6-year olds.

        And it DIDN’T say in this guide “not to inform the parents.”

        Plus there’s the whole inconvenient fact that this curriculum was already in place during the previous Conservative administration which Hudak served in as a member, and he apparently did nothing about it then or indeed in the 13 years since until this last-ditch hail Mary.

        And your hair-splitting attempt to defend this from afar as somehow technically accurate is pretty darn revolting, too.

      • Mattbin says:

        I guess what you’re showing its that these guidelines are meant to be interpreted by professional educators and the like, and not by complete idiots.

  11. Lukev says:

    Warren,

    some of the quotes in the flyer are attributed to “CTV News”. Can you get CTV to comment on this? I have a hunch that they were completely fabricated.

    • Warren says:

      Even better: it’s the PCs quoting the quotes THEY uttered, and found in that story. Quote yourself, and attribute a media company. Haven’t seen that one tried, before.

      • smelter rat says:

        CTV must be thrilled.

      • JG says:

        It’s been used before, although the case is perhaps not as infamous as it should be.

        From Bill Moyers Journal, APRIL 25, 2007: “Buying the War” (Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html )

        BILL MOYERS: QUOTING ANONYMOUS ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, THE TIMES REPORTED THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD LAUNCHED A WORLDWIDE HUNT FOR MATERIALS TO MAKE AN ATOMIC BOMB USING SPECIALLY DESIGNED ALUMINIMUM TUBES.

        AND THERE ON MEET THE PRESS THAT SAME MORNING WAS VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY.

        DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): … Tubes. There’s a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is– and I want to attribute this to the TIMES. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but–

        JONATHAN LANDAY: Now, ordinarily information like the aluminum tubes wouldn’t appear. It was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.

        DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”

      • Lukev says:

        Get a response from a CTV rep out to the media, you’ll want this tidbit to be in every article in the subject.

  12. Gord, the bitter truth is that regardless of one’s political leanings, Tim Hudak has run a remarkably negative and ineffective campaign. He has, de facto, shot himself in both feet. (1) the “Foreign worker issue” (2) the “Gays in the school curriculum issue”. Both bogus issues. A friend who is a solid conservative voter told me on the weekend, “Unfortunately it is going to be a Liberal minority. Wait a minute, I take back the unfortunately. The Liberals will provide good government, better than Hudak’s crew.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*