02.24.2015 04:34 PM

Kathleen Wynne smacks down PC MPP, hard

…and he doesn’t get up off the mat, afterwards. Story here.

Her words here:

WynneSmackdown

Don’t mess with this woman, little Con boys in short pants. She’ll make you regret it.

28 Comments

  1. BrianK says:

    One of the more epic rhetorical beat downs we’ve had at Queen’s Park in a while. But he asked for it.

  2. Michael S says:

    Even if he didn’t mean to say it that way, she was more than ready to answer it that way.

    • jeff316 says:

      She had that response in the bag because she knew the questioner didn’t mean the question in any of those ways.

      Which, inadvertently, says a lot about how far we’ve come.

  3. smelter rat says:

    Check out some of the signs. OMFG. Sums up right wing nuttery very concisely.

  4. Matt says:

    Sure she’s a mother…….TO HER CHILDREN.

    She ain’t the mother of anyone else’s children, so she should stop acting like she is.

    • smelter rat says:

      Do you reserve your lack of logic for sex ed only, or should she refrain form pronouncing on math, science and phys ed too?

  5. Joel Robinson says:

    I can’t believe he said that…

  6. Steve T says:

    I like her rebuttal when she references her educational background. It is spot-on. However, I am turned off by her reference to her gender and her motherhood. Those were not being challenged, and referencing them (and implying sexism) is typical politics, and a lazy way to defend yourself. It’s the same way I feel when racism is lobbed as an accusation, when the topic has nothing to do with race. Just cheap, lazy politics.

    • doconnor says:

      She wasn’t implying that he was being sexist. You have to listen to what she didn’t say. She was implying that he was being homophobic.

      I believe his defence was that she wasn’t qualified because of all the police investigations of the government.

  7. JH says:

    I don’t agree with this guy’s comments, but there’s no way a government or a teacher is going to have the final say on what my grade schoold age child is going to be taught about sex. I might have to put myself in debt for years to finance a private education, but I’d do that sooner than turn them over to these people, with no questions asked.

    • Sam Gunsch says:

      oh puh-lease
      …your saying your kids are can’t handle descriptions of human sexual organs?

      • Lance says:

        But are human sexual organs all they are really talking about?

      • JH says:

        Sam, I’m saying I have the right to decide, not some government lackey. My children were at different places in their social development at the same age. I have a grandson who goes to regular school but has Aspergers Syndrome and is brilliant at computers, sciences etc., but very naive at 13 and gets upset at some things we’d consider normal for his age. His brother is an old soul at 10 and seems able to handle anything. Guess which would be more capable of handling the sex-ed.? Im not much for cookie cutter solutions for obvious reasons and feel the parents have the right to decide.

        • davie says:

          I am a retired government lackey. I always got to work with teenagers.
          Schools are here to serve the community, not just parents. Curriculum is mostly passing on to our young the forms, and some content, of what our society and civ have come up with so far. The idea is to give our young a base to build on themselves.
          Over 25 years ago, I was one of the lackeys in my school district who was to present the new provincial sex ed curric. My experience told me that the suggestion that I had ‘the final say” as you put it, with any of my students in an of the curric I presented to them was only something out of one of my late August day dreams. I figured, if parents, grandparents and assorted other caregivers were failing our young people in sex ed, and if the government (right wing gov at that time) ordered it up, well, we would do our best for our students. (Most of them knew way more than I did anyway.)
          Here is what you do.
          When your kid gets home from school, go over the sex ed curric with your kid applying the same zeal and encouragement that you put into going over math, lit, 2nd language, and computer aided drafting lessons with her.

          • JH says:

            I happen to believe that these days schools serve the goverment’s agenda, not the parent’s, not the community’s and not society’s. Cookie cutter solutions are the norm today and very little allowance is made for those who think ‘outside the box’ in any of life’s endeavor. Bureaucrats live to pigeon hole us all, according to their master’s dictates.
            However Davie, since you are now retired, I am quite willing to believe that might not have been as true in your day and age. At least not so much so.

  8. Lance says:

    He was stupid for saying what he said. All the same, I don’t believe that it is the schools’ job to teach religion (other than as a broad historical and philosophical subject); we do that at home and church already, so my kids don’t need to belong to a Catholic School Board. Other than the strict definition of what sex is and what it is for as a scientific subject, the same applies for “sex education”. It isn’t the schools’ job, and it certainly isn’t the government’s job, it is MY job. Full stop.

    • cynical says:

      It might be your job. Maybe you’ll do it. But a shitpot full of parents aren’t, and you can bet that trends in sexual assault, sex- and gender-related bullying, STD infections, addiction to online porn and a myriad of other maladies can be traced to the way a majority of parents deal with sex education.

      I haven’t seen the curriculum, nor do I care about the specifics. I’m in a different phase of life and whatever harm or benefit my kids received from either me or the school system is water under the bridge. I have four lovely grandkids and that works for me.

      I would have welcomed a more structured approach to sex education in schools, especially one that involved parents as partners, as I suspect the better runs schools will do.

      Bravo to Wynne, and Bravo to a province that elects a woman of her character.

      I wish BC would do the same.

  9. Bruce Posch says:

    Monte actually asked Kathleen a question related to the OPP investigation about alleged bribery in the Sudbury election. It was Monte’s follow up question so he was not allowed a follow up question.
    Instead of answering the question, the premier decided to divert the topic of the OPP investigation into a “homophobic” statement. Calling Mac Naughton “homophobic”.
    Mac Naughton’s original comment never said anything about Kathleen’s sexual preference. The rebuttal answer the premier gave was planned before question period to divert the media away from the OPP investigation.
    It is too bad that Ontarian’s attention spans, are so easily .diverted.

  10. wsam says:

    Leaving sex education to parents will result in higher rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We know this for a fact. Teen pregnancies (and teen STDs rates) have declined significantly since the almost universal introduction of Sex Ed.

    Arguing that schools not teach about sex is therefore arguing for more teens to get pregnant (and everything that entails for those individuals) and for more young people to contract sexually transmitted diseases. It is also indirectly arguing for more abortions as many young women faced with an unwanted pregnancy will seek to terminate it, legally or not.

    Fun to watch the Conservatives position themselves as the uninformed sexual choice, anti-consent, pro-gonorrhea party.

    Team Dumb

    • Lance says:

      Leaving sex education to parents will result in higher rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We know this for a fact.

      Arguing that schools not teach about sex is therefore arguing for more teens to get pregnant.

      It is also indirectly arguing for more abortions….

      Any proof to back up these……..”facts”?

      Fun to watch the Conservatives position themselves as the uninformed sexual choice, anti-consent, pro-gonorrhea party.

      So lets see………….they don’t believe that people should have choices, that consent shouldn’t matter, they WANT people to catch a venereal disease, and for teens to have an unwanted pregnancy?

      LMAO

      Why would they be “uniformed” if they learned sexual education at home instead of from the state? SOME parents see this as their responsibility, who are you to tell them different? Oh………..right…………..because of your magical “facts”.

      • doconnor says:

        Here are the facts. Feel free to review the studies referenced.

      • wsam says:

        History. In terms of Sex Ed there exists a before and after. Before Sex Ed was taught in school more young girls got pregnant. STDs were more prevalent. After: less, in both cases.

        These statistics are contemporary. Jurisdictions in the US that preach abstinence, for example, have a higher rate of teen pregnancy and STDs compared to states which teach modern Sex Ed.

        From foreign policy to education to the economy and crime, the modern Conservative movement seems to be against evidence-based policy and instead relies of superstition and tribal tub-thumping to inform its decisions. Team Dumb.

      • wsam says:

        If you are arguing for policies which have a well-understood and known outcome, for example a higher incidence of teen pregnancy, then you are arguing for that outcome. It does not matter if you tell yourself otherwise. Lance. By arguing against Sex Ed in schools you are arguing for more young girls to get pregnant and for more young people of both sexes to catch horrible veneral diseases such as gonorrhea.

        The question is: why? Why do Conservatives consider more disease, more unwanted pregancies, more abortions, a positive?

  11. wsam says:

    Creationists don’t believe in geology and Flat-Earthers don’t believe in Geography.

  12. dave says:

    Typical Liberal answer, ATTACK, never answer the question.

  13. wsam says:

    … like restricting review of a controverial new public surviellance bill to four days.

Leave a Reply

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


*