Aug 092012

Let’s examine some of the antics of the “gay teacher” about whom Rafe Mair felt compelled to lie—repeatedly.

Instead of telling his audience the truth about this “gay teacher”, Mair vilified the parents for removing their son from the classroom of this bigoted, lying, misguided and unprofessional teacher—and then repeatedly lied that the only reason the parents removed their child (and that Kari Simpson supported them) was because the teacher was gay. He never once mentioned the real reason: James Chamberlain’s continual violation of the Ministry of Education’s guidelines.

By the way, this is the same teacher that Chief Justice McLachlin thought was worthy of the Supreme Court of Canada’s favour in the Surrey Book Case, in which the SCC spanked the duly-elected school board for being influenced by parents’ religious beliefs.

Would you want James Chamberlain to be teaching your 5-year-old? 

You decide, based on these facts:

  • A kindergarten/Grade 1 teacher who is a proven liar;
  • A teacher in one of Canada’s most multi-culturally diverse school districts who despises Christians and is hostile toward all people of faith;
  • A teacher who requires his 5- and 6-year-old students to “check their religious beliefs at his classroom door”;
  • A teacher who wrongly believes that he is an equal authority to parents in the education of children;
  • A teacher who was caught lying under oath in quasi-judicial proceedings;
  • A teacher who was compelled under oath to admit making misleading statements on national TV about teaching same-sex issues in his classroom;
  • A teacher who is an admitted left-wing political activist, and has admitted to authoring the resolution put forward at the NDP convention promoting issues around homosexuality and heteorophobia;
  • A teacher who admits to indoctrinating his young 5-year-old students about alleged “global oppression and sexism”, and other left-wing propaganda;
  • A teacher who admits writing curricula and resources about gays, lesbians and other sex activists for distribution throughout the province without Ministry of Education approval or district approval;
  • A teacher who admits that curricula and resources he helped develop were done without the aid of mental health professionals and/or child development specialists;
  • A so-called professional teacher who has stated he would “ignore” warnings by mental health professionals if these resources, on review, were found to be potentially harmful or confusing to children;
  • A teacher who required his students—5- and 6-year-olds—to study about an artist—a gay sex activist dying from AIDs— and required his young student to adopt this activists’ last name and legacy as a “tribute” when signing their own artwork;
  • A teacher who has admitted that he has taught other teachers how to circumvent Ministry of Education policies that require notifying parents about the teaching of issues related to homosexuality;
  • A teacher who has lied in sworn affidavits used in court proceedings in which he is named;
  • A teacher who has published several letters in various media using language unbecoming to a teacher; and has called people of faith, elected officials, and those opposed to his political agenda names such as “bigots” and “hate mongers”;
  • A teacher who acted unprofessionally at public meetings by causing disruptions, yelling out “Bigots!”;
  • A teacher who does not want discussions concerning the medical consequences of homosexual sex to be discussed in classrooms, and claims that he has no knowledge about AIDs statistics in Canada (although these are readily available);
  • A teacher who—with all these ethical and moral impediments, as well as many others—has publicly declared on a number of occasions that he wants to be a “role model” for his students!

Here’s a bit more insight into this so-called “gay teacher”. The excerpts below are all from transcripts of a hearing held before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in 2000, and result from Kari Simpson’s cross-examination of one of the complainants in the case, the “gay teacher” James Chamberlain himself. Mr. Chamberlain and the other complainants had complained to the BCHRC about the Citizens’ Research Institute’s Declaration of Family Rights, a document mentioned in the Simpson v. Mair case—a document developed to compel sex activist teachers, like Chamberlain, to abide by Ministry of Education policy, the School Act and the Charter.

Mr. Chamberlain was the first and only complainant to testify in this BCHRT hearing, as the other complainants withdrew their complaint after Simpson elicited a substantial amount of damaging testimony about their activism and misuse of their roles as teachers—elicited by Kari Simpson from Mr. Chamberlain himself! It should also be noted that soon after filing their complaint, the complainants attempted to delay matters when Simpson informed them that she was going to fight the case. Indeed, Simpson eventually had to subpoena a number of the complainants to testify in their own case!

Concerning the adherence to the Ministry of Education’s requirement to notify parents when sensitive subject matter was to be discussed in class, Mr. Chamberlain provided these insightful answers: 

Q What is your knowledge of the Ministry of Education policy on such matters?

A My knowledge is that if a teacher is to discuss an issue of a sensitive nature that they’re supposed to inform parents of what they’re going to teach about. And parents can opt their children out of the delivery of the curriculum and teach it themselves, as long as they provide some kind of assurance to the school that they are actually meeting the curricular goals.

Q Did you notify any of the parents in the school year of 1995/96 that you’d be teaching a sensitive subject matter?

A No, I wasn’t teaching a sensitive subject matter. I was simply reading a book about two dads on Father’s Day.

Q And you don’t view that as a sensitive subject matter? Did it involve same-sex partners?

A No, I never mentioned anything about same-sex partners when I read the book to the children.

Q Did the book portray same-sex partners?

A It doesn’t say the word “gay” or “lesbian” in it. It could be portraying same-sex partners, or two men who live together and have two families in the same house.  There’s no reference to gay and lesbian in the book, or the word “homosexual.”

This exchange concerns Mr. Chamberlain, and the Surrey Teacher’s Association instructing other teachers on how to circumvent Ministry of Education requirement of parental notification concerning sensitive subject matters like homosexuality—

Q Mr. Chamberlain, looking at the resource guide, you then go on to say:

Should a teacher wish to use a learning resource under CAPP or personal planning which may be considered sensitive in nature, the following process applies:

And then in brackets you have a most interesting thing here. You say:

This process only

And the word “only” is underlined:

…applies to resource being used under CAPP. For example, learning resources necessary to teach human rights legislation and social studies curriculum do not need to go through this process.

Are you intending to instruct teachers how to get around the parental notification requirement in Career and Personal Planning?

A No, I think you’re—one thing that you’re attributing is that I wrote this whole thing, and I didn’t. There’s a committee involved and the STA executive actually drafted this part of the document, and the STA executive put in this advice around policy. I didn’t write this.

Q You support this resource guide, Mr. Chamberlain?

A Yes, I do.

Q You support the advice that the Surrey Teachers Association has put in?

A Yes, I do.

Q Then you agree that that is a directive to teachers on how to get around—

A No, I do not. It’s a directive to teachers as to how they can teach the topic without being persecuted by the school board, or subject to any disciplinary action by the school board.

This exchange concerns Mr. Chamberlain’s comments on a televised CBC forum in April of 1997. He admits that it may lead people to believe he’s talking, contrary to Ministry of Education policies, about same-sex families 

Q Mr. Chamberlain, I appreciate your counsel probably wants confirmation through the videotape, which we will be happy to provide, but is that in essence what you said?

A Yes, that’s correct.

Q And I draw your attention to there, right in the middle:

In my kindergarten class we talk about sexism in age-appropriate ways; we talk about how girls and boys should be able to do the same things; and I also talk about same-sex families.

Is that correct?

A Is that statement correct?

Q Mm-hmm.

A Yes.

Q And is that what you were doing in your kindergarten classroom?

A I was not talking about same-sex families in my classroom at that time.

Q You would agree your comments say something very different?

A They may lead people to believe that I was talking about same-sex families in my classroom at the time, yes.

As for the evidence of Mr. Chamberlain’s lack of respect for parental rights and understanding of his limited role as a teacher, this exchange should make every parent flee his classroom—

Q Do you agree, Mr. Chamberlain, that parents are the authority over their children’s education?

A I’ve already stated that I think that parents are equal partners in the education process, and I don’t think that parents or teachers are the authority over anyone’s education.

Q Then who is the authority?

A It’s an equal partnership.

Chamberlain’s strange insight into what it means to be healthy –

Q What about people who come to the classroom and think that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle; is that something that needs to be checked at the door?

A Certainly something that needs to be questioned.

Q Why is that?

A Because in my view there’s nothing unhealthy about being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered.

Q Do you agree that there’s increased health risks if you’re a gay man?

A Yes, just as there would be for HIV drug users or anybody under the age of 25 in our society.

Chamberlain’s willingness to violate the Charter rights of students who hold religious beliefs, and his intolerance of those beliefs within his classroom (remember these are 5 year olds!)-

Q You agree that some religious beliefs don’t find homosexuality acceptable?

A Yes.

Q And you believe that those beliefs and opinions should be left at home, correct?

A Yes.

Mr. Chamberlain’s total disregard for proper and professional development of curriculum and resources he was creating and distributing with the help of the BCTF throughout BC schools.

Q. Mr. Chamberlain, what if a psychiatrist came out and said that this information in the lesson plans contained herein were very dangerous as far as the healthy normal development of children and would interfere in proper development of sexual identity, what would you do?

A Ignore them.

Mr. Chamberlain, during this BCHRT proceeding, lied about numerous 

Things, including being outed by the media; lied about parents and 

colleagues knowing he was gay; lied about the filing of the Declaration of Family Rights on his classroom. 

Here is a textbook example of the language/propaganda and lies used by 

sex activists. During direct examination Mr. Chamberlain provided a troubling, but false, depiction of his “departure” from a well-attended forum on the Facts of Homosexuality.

Chamberlain’s testimony:

“And there was a reporter who asked to speak to me afterwards, and I actually left three-quarters of the way through it because I was so emotionally upset by what I had heard. And I didn’t stay because I didn’t want to be interviewed by the media and I felt that the comments by Ms. Simpson and other speakers perpetuated a lot of the myths and negative stereotypes about gay and lesbian people that are heard in society all the time. And having been a student in the public school system who was a victim of homophobic harassment for many years, it brought back a lot of those childhood memories and I felt that I—I just couldn’t stay. I had to get out of the room. It was just a hostile place to be. And I’m not really a wilting flower, but on that occasion I felt like it was a place I needed to leave pronto.

Of course Chamberlain was lying. Fortunately, the meeting was videotaped—and Mr. Chamberlain was filmed standing patiently in a long line of people, after the meeting, waiting to ask Simpson a question about her organization’s funding.

After Simpson destroyed Chamberlain’s credibility and demonstrated Chamberlain’s political and ideological abuse of his classroom during the BCHRT cross-examination, he and the other sex activists withdrew their case from the Human Rights Tribunal.

Rafe Mair and CKNW refused to report any of these facts or events.