Wednesday, August 24, 2005

PROSECUTING A PARENT WHO JUST WANTED INFORMATION

David Parker of Lexington, Mass., is scheduled to go on trial on Sept. 21 for asking his son's public school to provide parental notification before discussing homosexuality with the 6-year old. The actual charge is criminal trespassing. But the real issue is whether parents or schools will control the teaching of values to children. The conflict began on Jan. 17, when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a Diversity Bookbag from kindergarten. Included was Robert Skutch's "Who's In a Family?" that depicts families headed by same-sex couples. Parker had wanted to decide for himself the timing and manner in which his son was introduced to the subject of homosexuality. (The Bookbag is supposed to be a voluntary program but the Parkers knew nothing about it in advance.)

Parker immediately e-mailed the Estabrook school principal, Joni Jay. Parker expressed his belief that gay parents did not constitute "a spiritually healthy family"; he did not wish his son to be taught that a gay family is "a morally equal alternative to other family constructs." Parker acknowledged the equal rights of gays but objected to "the 'out of the closet' and into the kindergarten classroom mentality." In essence, Parker highlighted the difference between tolerance, which acknowledges someone's right to make a choice, and acceptance, which is the personal validation of that choice.

The conflict moved quickly from the Diversity Bookbag to the more general issue of parental notification. The Parkers wanted to know if sexuality was scheduled to be discussed in class so they could remove their son. They also wanted their son removed from any "spontaneous conversations" about sexuality that involved an adult.

By law, Massachusetts requires schools to notify parents when sexuality is scheduled for discussion. Lexington School Committee chairman Thomas B. Griffiths explained, "We don't view telling a child that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about homosexuality." In an e-mail, the Estabrook school principal stated, "I have confirmed ... that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy."

At an April 27 meeting at the school, Parker refused to leave without an assurance that he would receive parental notification. Arrested for criminal trespass, he spent the night in jail. When asked why he insisted on staying, Parker replied, "I wanted to see how far they [school authorities] would go for [my] asking something simple."

The state now wishes to impose probation upon Parker, along with other restrictions -- such as banning him from Lexington school properties without prior written permission from the superintendent of schools. This means he is barred from places to vote, as well as school committee and parent-teacher meetings. Parker is contesting the charge. Why? After his arraignment, he stated, "I'm just trying to be a good dad." During a May 11 appearance on the FOX News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Parker expanded on this statement, saying that he wanted his son "to play on the swing set and make mud pies. I don't want him thinking about same-sex unions in kindergarten." Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, points to a larger issue -- "the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children's and people's lives."

Otherwise stated, schools are usurping the parental role of teaching personal values to children. They are not acting as educators but as guardians, "in loco parentis" (in the place of a parent). Some schools clearly consider this function to be their right, even over parental objections. Thus, Estabrook defends its "right" to teach Parker's son to accept same-sex marriages. Denner hopes to resolve the conflict before trial but he also intends to file a civil suit in federal court against the town of Lexington, the school system and its officials.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a campaign to discredit Parker. The Lexington School Board has reportedly accused Parker of wanting to be arrested to grab "headlines." If true, it is strange that he wasted months on e-mails, faxes and school meetings before making his move. Parker's actions sound more like those of a father with no options left. The school also claims that Parker's demands would prevent other children from discussing their families or drawing pictures of them.

But this is far from what's been officially requested. According to Neil Tassel, Parker's co-counsel, "the Parkers' proposal was simple: notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about same-sex issues, and, if an adult becomes involved in a discussion spontaneously begun by a child, then remove their child from the discussion."

School authorities quite reasonably responded that they could not be held responsible for monitoring spontaneous conversations or remarks made in the class. Moreover, they contend that children with gay parents have a right to talk about their families and have their families represented. At some point in the dialogue, however, reason broke down; police were called. The attacks on Parker have been so intense that Tassel recently found it necessary to write a defense in the local paper denying that his client is a shill for or member of Article 8, a controversial organization opposed to same-sex marriage. He pointed to Parker's Ph.D. to deflect criticism of his client as an ignorant book burner. To counter the charge that Parker hates gays, Tassel described him as "an exceptionally kind hearted man" whose best friend was gay.

Perhaps Estabrook authorities are trying to divert attention from the real question: Is Parker simply demanding parental notification or not? I think he is. David Parker cares so deeply that he is willing to go to jail and endure a lengthy court process for the right to be a parent. In a world where a myriad of social problems can be traced back to parental abuse or indifference, it is incredible that Parker is being treated as a criminal and not as the hero he is.


Source





AUSTRALIAN POLICE WIMP OUT BEFORE LEFTIST THUGGERY

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott says NSW Police are allowing "thugs" to threaten freedom of speech by urging him not to attend a university debate because of the threat of violence. Mr Abbott today said he had withdrawn from a planned debate about voluntary student unionism (VSU) at Sydney University after NSW Police advised him not to attend because they could not guarantee his safety. He had been scheduled to debate Labor opponent Julia Gillard today about the Government's plans to abolish compulsory student fees.

Student groups oppose the Government's VSU legislation and have staged major rallies across Australia, including a protest at the University of Sydney on August 10, in which three police officers were injured.

Mr Abbott said he did not like the idea that intimidation was stifling free speech. The minister said he called on police to consider the ramifications of allowing "thugs" to intimidate people. "I've asked them to ponder the implications of their actions," he said. "If baddies can threaten goodies with violence and the police then tell the goodies that they can't do what they're lawfully entitled to do, what does that say about the smooth functioning of society? "It says that intimidation works; it says that, forced to adjudicate between normal people and thugs, instead of keeping the thugs in line the police will tell the normal people not to do whatever it is they're trying to do, [and] that's a real worry."

Mr Abbott said he was prepared for a verbal stoush with student groups but was disappointed police were unable to ensure law and order would prevail. "I'm disappointed that the NSW Police didn't feel able to ensure that [the debate] went ahead in comparative safety at Sydney University," he said. "No one expects a university debate to be conducted in an atmosphere more reminiscent of a church service - everyone thinks that a university debate would be a lively and maybe even a rowdy occasion and I've been in plenty of them. "But I am disappointed that the police first thought that there was potentially violent disruption planned and second weren't sufficiently able to stop it to allow it to go ahead."

Mr Abbott admitted being "quite tempted" to ignore the police warnings and attend the debate. "[But] had anything gone wrong and had people been hurt, I would have been blamed and I didn't want to be in that position," he said.

The University of Sydney Union said it was saddened Mr Abbott had decided to pull out of today's debate because of fears for his safety. The debate has since been cancelled. "I'm very disappointed," union spokesman George Livery said. "Mr Abbott is always welcome back to this campus. He's an old boy and he's always been fun to have here, he's never shied away from a debate on campus." Mr Livery would not criticise police for urging Mr Abbott to withdraw from the event but said he had thought police were satisfied with security arrangements for the debate at the university's Manning Bar. "I thought that we had provided the kind of assistance [to police] that alleviated a majority of concerns," he said. "In fact indications from the [police] area command were that they were quite satisfied with what we had done." The union could not control the actions of people outside the university campus but it had not received any indications students were planning violence, Mr Livery said. "From all of our conversations with clubs and societies ... all they were looking forward to was a good, fun day and a great debate," he said.

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************

No comments: