See here and here. (HT: Wintery Knight)
From the first link:
In what pro-life leaders are calling a stunning and unprecedented attack on religious freedom, Ontario’s Education Minister has apparently declared that Catholic schools can no longer teach that abortion is wrong.
Laurel Broten, who serves under Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, said Wednesday that Catholic schools are barred from teaching this core moral belief because Bill 13, the government’s controversial “anti-bullying” law, prohibits “misogyny.”
“Taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be considered one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take,” she told the Canadian Press. “I don’t think there is a conflict between choosing Catholic education for your children and supporting a woman’s right to choose.”
Bill 13 had already been slammed by Ontario’s bishops as an attack on religious freedom because it forces Catholic schools to allow “gay-straight alliance” clubs.
From the second link:
An official transcript sent to LifeSiteNews by the Ontario government confirms that Dalton McGuinty’s Education Minister told media on Wednesday that Catholic schools should not be teaching that abortion is wrong because it is a violation of the government’s newly-enacted anti-bullying bill.
[…]
In her press conference, Minister Broten went beyond saying that Catholic schools cannot teach their pro-life beliefs, insinuating that they must actually adopt a “pro-choice” position. “We must ensure that women, young girls in our schools, especially highlighted during the week of the first ever Day of the Girl tomorrow, that young girls can make the choices that they make. This is not about being pro-abortion, it is about being pro-choice,” she stated.
A reporter pointed out that in the debates around Bill 13 there was no mention of abortion, and so asked why she had brought up the controversial bill.
“Bill 13 has in it a clear indication of ensuring that our schools are safe, accepting places for all our students,” she explained. “That includes of LGBTQ students. That includes young girls in our school. Bill 13 is about tackling misogyny, taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take.”
“There are many, many families that send their children to Catholic school and choose that education for their children that also support a woman’s right to choose,” she continued. “And as I said, I don’t think that there is a contrast or a conflict between choosing a Catholic education for your children and supporting a woman’s right to choose.”
Absurd, of course; teaching children that abortion is wrong isn’t inherently misogynistic (and indeed, would save female fetus’ lives), and doesn’t ‘take away’ any ‘choice’ of women to murder their unborn children (unfortunately; that would only happen if pro-lifers were able to win broad enough support for their position to be able to effect political and legal changes in the matter, which unfortunately I don’t see happening any time soon, thus leaving Canada as the only Western country without any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, indeed without any laws on the matter of abortion EXCEPT that the provinces have to pay for it in their health-care plans, so the worst of both worlds occurs – abortion is legal and widespread and tax-funded…). But pro-choicers are the extremists here, who can’t even accept the idea of anyone morally opposing abortion, much less politically, and spreading that POV…
Now, as I’ve mentioned before, in Ontario, Roman Catholic schools are funded by taxpayer dollars (unlike other Christian schools, which receive no such funding and are private schools, paid for by parents who still have to pay taxes for public education, so such education costs families more), and are run by educational bureaucracies who make decisions to do things like this, and who are forced, by government edict, to allow gay proms, and things like this latest decision. Remember, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” Traditionalist faithful Roman Catholics here in Ontario should really question whether the special arrangement the Ontario government has with taxpayer-funded Catholic schools is really a good idea for their children, and whether or not they’d in fact be better off either homeschooling their kids or setting up independent private Catholic schools, or if that’s not feasible then sending their children to pre-existing Christian (mostly Protestant) schools, following the examples of their traditionalist conservative Protestant brethren, eschewing tax revenues, which come, as we see, with strings attached.
Patriactionary 
DC Al Fine
October 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Part of the problem is that most of the students there are CINO’s; Catholics In Name Only. It’s hard for the Catholic church to claim moral legitimacy when 3/4’s of the parents are saying things like “Oh, we don’t REALLY believe that”
However, the minority of devout parents could certainly establish private Catholic schools. There’s a Catholic church in every neighbourhood that could serve as a building and expenses would also be kept low by eschewing the expensive bureaucracies that the public schools used.
Such a program could use a wealthy benefactor or three. If I ever become a multi millionaire, I am definitely starting a reactionary school.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm
If taking away a woman’s right to choose is “misogynistic”.
Then is taking a away a man’s right to choose – misandtry??
“A WOMAN’s right to choose.”
(thinks about that for a minute….)
“A WOMAN’s right to choose.”
“A woman’s RIGHT to choose??”
“A woman’s right to CHOOSE?????”
Hang on a second there “ladies”…. a man’s got a right to choose. Remember that …. when he “chooses” not to call you again. Remember that, when he “chooses” not to marry your fat & lazy ass. Remember that, when he “chooses” to travel to another country to seek a better bride. Remember that, when a man chooses not to pay for and support your bastard womb turd. Remember that, when he chooses not to date a single mother. After all, it’s still legal in this country for a woman to allow herself to get pregnant without a man’s consent. Men are not required to stick around and support that shit under any circumstances. If women have a “right to choose”… then they can be no such thing as “deadbeat dads”.
“Her body her choice”?
—>> HIS WALLET, HIS CHOICE.
Fascinating how they want these “anti-bullying” laws .. while thinking bullying a man into fatherhood (against his own will and better judgement) is acceptable.
Women want the right to choose whether or not YOU become a father. Fortunately for Men, women don’t get to make that choice anymore. So when your pregnant girlfriend/wife tells you that you “OOPS! I’m pregnant. You need to live up to YOUR responsibilities now”….. you look her straight in the eye without blinking and calmly tell her: “Fine. Maybe you will get my money (CS). But you and your bastard child will NEVER see me again. Starting right now.”
Then exit.
That’s called giving her “the right to choose”… while exercising YOURS. You have just multiplied your chances that she will “choose” an abortion before the week is out.
I can’t help but wonder if they teach THAT to catholic school boys…..
infowarrior1
October 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Obey god rather than government. If it is a fight they are looking for they gonna get it.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm
So glad to hear it. But if this “Laurel Broten” character is going into battle holding a shield which says “Taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be considered one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take”…… that’s like a Viking charging into battle holding a salami. Dumb and embarrassing.
As you said: “teaching children abortion is wrong isn’t inherently misogynistic”. Of course it isn’t. But for a moment, let’s never mind the abortion debate….. because it simply doesn’t MATTER what a woman does after she allowed herself to get pregnant when she didn’t want to be. Why didn’t she exercise her “right to choose” BEFORE she spread her legs??? What happened to her “right to choose” to keep her legs closed? Women don’t ever want to talk about that. The argument is always deflected to her “right to choose” an abortion. After the fact. When it’s too late.
The abortion debate (right or wrong) is always the argument from women and feminists. It’s designed to be a distraction away from the REAL issue. It’s women deflecting focus away from their sluttiness and irresponsible behavior. She can’t claim “misogyny” when someone points that out to her.
What the fuck is she doing even TALKING about abortion in catholic schools.
Clearly she is out of her mind.
numnut
October 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“So when your pregnant girlfriend/wife tells you that you “OOPS! I’m pregnant. You need to live up to YOUR responsibilities now”….. you look her straight in the eye without blinking and calmly tell her: “Fine. Maybe you will get my money (CS). But you and your bastard child will NEVER see me again. Starting right now.”
There is a bill pending in Michigan to outlaw such action.It’s called CAPA,fathers and families website has a petition against it.
So yes,less and less choices for men,and more and more choices for women.
Must be sweet to have rights w/o responsibilities,vs the inverse.
Keep playin gamers,the State needs your funds.
(or go to jail you bastards)
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm
To be clear… I am from Ontario. Not a Catholic, and do not believe abortion is acceptable. But in today’s social / government climate, men had best find a way to deal with it. My first comment would NOT be my first choice. But it’s how things are. Mirror the feminist argument right back to them, and they will hate it and cry “misogyny”. You can see that every time you treat a woman “equally”. Treat women “equally” they will accuse you of being a misogynist. A pro-male agenda is not inherently anti-female.
dejour
October 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Completely ridiculous. I hope that those were off-the-cuff remarks from Broten and not some official position of the Ontario government.
It’s like pro-choicers can’t comprehend that someone has a different view of life than them and they assume that their opponents can only be driven by hate.
dejour
October 14, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Look at the transcript. It was an official press conference. She was speaking in her role as “Minister for Women’s Issues” and not Minister of Education. She was responding to a question.
It’s pretty bad, but I still hold faint hope that that is not the official position of the Ministry of Education.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm
@ DC al FIne: “Part of the problem is that most of the students there are CINO’s; Catholics In Name Only. It’s hard for the Catholic church to claim moral legitimacy when 3/4′s of the parents are saying things like “Oh, we don’t REALLY believe that””
Indeed, and when Catholic schools admit Muslim students, as happens, it shows they’ve already capitulated, and will NOT teach that Catholicism is the way one ought to follow, as they used to.
“However, the minority of devout parents could certainly establish private Catholic schools. There’s a Catholic church in every neighbourhood that could serve as a building and expenses would also be kept low by eschewing the expensive bureaucracies that the public schools used.
Such a program could use a wealthy benefactor or three. If I ever become a multi millionaire, I am definitely starting a reactionary school.”
It could be done, indeed, like that.
@ Tom: Yes, taking away men’s choices certainly is misandristic…
Certainly, the abortion debate distracts from the matter of female promiscuity…
A properly pro-male agenda simply means a pro-human agenda, one which will benefit all.
@ infowarrior: I hope they have a fight on their hands.
@ dejour: I looked at the transcript, and noticed that, but I think it’s a distinction without a difference, unfortunately; we shall see if the Ontario government backpedals if confronted on the matter.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:30 pm
@dejour. Exactly right. But in the second link, she was clearly and DIRECTLY pushing her “women’s issue” into the Catholic Education system.
Copy: In her press conference, Minister Broten went beyond saying that Catholic schools cannot teach their pro-life beliefs, insinuating that they must actually adopt a “pro-choice” position. “We must ensure that women, young girls in our schools……… can make the choices that they make. This is not about being pro-abortion, it is about being pro-choice,” she stated.
She shouldn’t be “teaching” (or preaching) ANYTHING.
If it’s about “education” and being pro-choice, she would do better to keep her mouth shut, keep the subject of “abortion” out of Catholic Schools and teach young women to stop allowing themselves to get pregnant when they don’t want to be.
She wants to push a “pro-choice” message??
That’s every woman’s choice.
An unwanted pregnancy is 100% avoidable –>> by HER.
NO, Mizzzzzzzzzzz Broten. You mustn’t ensure young girls can make the choices they make, unless they are willing to PAY for the choices they make. How about ensuring that, instead of ensuring a Man pays for her mistakes and shitty choices.
She wants 100% choice?
Then she must accept 100% of the responsibility.
You will never hear women talk about accepting responsibility.
Only that they get to make choices, and the fetus and the man should pay.
Sick.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:30 pm
@ numnut: That is the feminist game, to maximize women’s choices and minimize men’s; ultimately, it’s all about power…
Any man who foolishly puts himself in a position like that has acted foolish, indeed. Scripture condemns fornication not only for reasons of morality (i.e. because God opposes it and thus has declared it wrong), but for practical reasons, too (fornication can lead to unwanted pregnancies, which no doubt is part of why God has declared it wrong).
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Correction: The fetus, the STATE, or the man…. should pay.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm
@ Tom: You’ll never hear feminists talking about accepting responsibility, agreed; other women, who aren’t feminists (like some of our fellow traditionalist conservatives, to which we link, for instance), are a different matter.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:44 pm
@numnut.
“Keep playin gamers,the State needs your funds.
(or go to jail you bastards)”
It’s the women who are the gamers. Woman reaches into the GARBAGE to extract the sperm from a discarded condom to try and fertilize herself ….. and trap an otherwise responsibly behaved man into fatherhood.
Go to jail you bitches.
See we can’t send them to jail for it (because women refuse to pay for their mistakes), but we CAN put extra-hot tabasco sauce in our discarded condoms so she burns her OWN cooch – instead of him.
And that’s LEGAL. The condom is HIS property and Tom Leykis has recorded testimony of at least 6 men who women tried to extort 216 monthly payments from. Every woman LOST.
Nevermind jail.
Those bitches can rot in hell.
Putting hot sauce in our condoms isn’t called “gaming”.
It’s called WINNING and beating her at her own game.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm
“Must be sweet to have rights w/o responsibilities”?
I disagree. I would rather have self respect.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:54 pm
@ Tom: If you’re going to play the fornication game, you could just flush the condoms down the toilet…
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:56 pm
But that can damage my plumbing . (smiles)
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Not that we promote that, here; we are a Christian site, and think the easiest way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is still the best: to obey God’s laws, and not fornicate.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I totally agree. Women should stop fornicating if they don’t want to get pregnant. That was my entire point. Now tell that to a woman (or a feminist arguing abortion) and watch what happens.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I sincerely doubt a flushed condom will wreck plumbing; they’re relatively small, and shouldn’t clog.
Like I said, though, not our preferred solution, as Christians.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Yes, women should stop fornicating. And so should men. That is the Christian position.
Tom
October 14, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Actually I am raised Christian. Just not a Catholic. Protestants can used condoms.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Yes, I know; I’m Protestant myself.
Protestants can use condoms. But they may not fornicate.
Which means that ideally, the only woman they’d be using condoms with would be their wives. Which, if they want kids, doesn’t make much sense; why bother…
infowarrior1
October 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
In the old testament god deals with seducers of virgins this way:
Exodus 22:16-17
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he
must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
Will S.
October 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Yes. And God’s ways are always right.
Chris
October 15, 2012 at 1:02 am
This is a test for the Canuck Papists, Will. Now, I am fairly certain what the ones I respect such as the Shadie and CL would say… something along the line of Fark off you idolatorious twits. We will go our own way. The bishops need to tell the dept of education to take their money and shove it.
And the parents need to pull their kids, and then sue youth aid if they take their children into foster care.
Most countries have a conscience clause for issues like this.
Misogyny my Presbyterian Arse. This is simply a projection of power by a silly woman. But the consequences are serious. God will not be mocked. If British (Upper) Canada wants to worship Molech and ignore the God who their forefathers worshipped, then there will be no British Canada
Will S.
October 15, 2012 at 7:08 am
Yes, it is a test, indeed. Hopefully, they will pass, with flying colours.
electricangel
October 15, 2012 at 9:38 am
Good for the Ontarians! Oppress the Church, and make it clear: the State is NOT your friend, and NEVER will be. Take their money, take their theology. I don’t know if contributions to a Church are tax-deductible in Eau Canada, but it becomes increasingly clear WHO is in charge in Western countries, and it ain’t God. Separation from Satan’s money is the only way.
@Will,
I thought this was sweetly charming in its naivete: “@ infowarrior: I hope they have a fight on their hands.” Let’s recall that these are deracinated Catholic bishops, and CANADIANS to boot (do you guys pronounce that “bout?”). The chances of a fight are somewhere south of a very small number.
Will S.
October 15, 2012 at 9:43 am
EA, I said hope, not because I believe they have a chance, but I would like to see some Ontarian Roman Catholics fight the government on this. Much of the audience of LifeSiteNews, who broke this story, are precisely the sort of Ontarian Roman Catholics who will be dismayed over this news, and who might be inclined to take some sort of action, if any will.
Yes, the modern State is no friend of Christians. Time to “come out from the unclean thing”…
Will S.
October 15, 2012 at 9:44 am
Charitable donations to churches in Canada are partially tax-deductible.
electricangel
October 15, 2012 at 10:22 am
“Charitable donations to churches in Canada are partially tax-deductible.”
Can you explain? In the USA, if I donate $1000 to the Church, I pay no tax on that money. Of course, I DID have to pay 15.3% combined SS/Medicare tax.
It turns out that you can only deduct up to 50% of your income to a charity: “Most of us will be able to deduct cash contributions in full up to 50% of our adjusted gross income. ” But that’s one heck of a tithe!
Will S.
October 15, 2012 at 10:31 am
In Canada, charitable donations only receive a partial tax credit; I forget off the top of my head what exactly the amount is, but you would still pay some portion of tax on that same $1000 if donated to a Canadian charity, including a church.
electricangel
October 15, 2012 at 10:39 am
You piqued my interest. Well, according to this, “For those of you NOT in the highest tax bracket, you will actually GAIN by the tax credit given to you by the government. My current marginal tax rate is around 38%. If I donate to charity, I will get a tax credit of 48.64% (on everything over $200), which is almost 10% more than I paid in taxes.”
That’s extremely interesting, as it incentivizes (sorry, incentivises) giving by those not at the top, and only screws the top payers a LITTLE bit.
Once again I appreciate how much better-governed you Canucks can be at the Federal level.
Will S.
October 15, 2012 at 10:43 am
Our federal government aren’t complete idiots, yes… 🙂