$250 million for abstinence education not evidence-based, groups say

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/31/abstinence.education/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

March 31, 2010 10:21 a.m. EDT

Under federal guidelines, programs that get abstinence-only funding must "teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy."

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Health care bill has renewal of $50 million per year for abstinence education until 2014
• States have the option of tapping into the $50 million or not
• There's a separate funding stream for programs including contraception

RELATED TOPICS

• Health Care Issues
• Health Care Policy
• Sexually Transmitted Diseases
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(CNN) -- The health care reform legislation that President Obama signed recently isn't only about insurance coverage -- there's also a renewal of $50 million per year for five years for abstinence-focused education.

Programs that receive this funding must "teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems," according to the Department of Health and Human Services. To qualify, they must also teach that sex before marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." These are part of the "A-H definition," requirements for programs to receive abstinence funding under Title V of the Social Security Act.

"Title V is trying to make sure that kids are being given a message that saving sex and childbearing for marriage is the safest, healthiest, best choice," said Scott Phelps, executive director of Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership. Public schools hire educators from this organization to teach abstinence, and may use Title V funding for it, he said.

In Phelps' experience -- he started his abstinence education work in Chicago, Illinois, 10 years ago -- the abstinence message is embraced by kids, even some who have already become sexually active. "They didn't realize they could stop," he said.

Organizations promoting evidence-based sex education say it's troubling that this $250 million will go to state programs that have not been shown to work.

"Just the fact that we continue to pour money into programs that have no evidence of effectiveness at all just doesn't seem to us to be good evidence-based health policy," said Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive and sexual health research firm.

There have been numerous studies suggesting that it's not so easy for people to practice abstinence consistently. A congressionally mandated study in 2007 found that none of four abstinence programs showed a significant positive effect on sexual behavior among youth. A January 2009 study in Pediatrics found that religious teens who take virginity pledges are less likely to use condoms or birth control when they become sexually active, and just as likely to have sex before marriage as their peers who didn't take pledges.

Medical professional organizations also criticize abstinence education on ethical grounds, for leaving out potentially lifesaving information. Abstinence-only programs "are inherently coercive by withholding information needed to make informed choices," the American Public Health Association said in a statement.

Phelps' program doesn't teach that sex before marriage is wrong, but that waiting will enable teens to eliminate the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Students are taught that contraception, a "limited part of our conversation," reduces risk, but does not avoid it altogether, he said.

The law sets up a separate funding stream of $75 million for "personal responsibility education," which includes teaching about both abstinence and contraception. It sets aside an additional $25 million for untested but innovative programs.

Having separate funding for abstinence-focused and comprehensive programs "is a method that provides real choice for states and for communities, and we would like to see that model used across the board," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

But Huber's group is not happy that abstinence-focused programs get less funding per year than the other approaches. "We would like to see equitable funding," she said.

Abstinence programs have received federal funding through a program that grew out of welfare reform during the Clinton administration. The $50 million per year began in 1998 and expired in 2009, with restoration in the recent health care legislation from this year until 2014.

States have the option of tapping into the $50 million or not, but those who want it have to contribute also, Boonstra noted. For every $4 of federal money, states have to put up $3 of their own money, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

As of June 2009, 22 states, plus Washington D.C., had declined to apply for funds under the program, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

A study published in February in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that an abstinence-based program was more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period.

Rather than asking students to delay intercourse until marriage, however, the program told students to wait until they were ready. It also did not portray sex in a negative light.

For these reasons, it is unclear whether that program would qualify for funding from the $50 million allocated in the health care bill, because it does not fit the A-H definition, said Bill Albert of the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Boonstra agreed that it would likely not fit this category, as it differs from the programs that have received funding in the past. Huber said she thought it would qualify, although she has not seen the curriculum.

It's better to invest taxpayer dollars into what works, Albert said. Public opinion surveys reveal that Americans view abstinence and contraceptive education as complementary, not contradictory.

"There is great and very wide support among parents and among teens themselves that young people should be encouraged to delay sexual activity," Albert said. "But it is also clear that the American public wants young people to receive information about contraception."

9 Charged In Student's Bullying Death

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22987784/detail.html?hpt=T2

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. -- Nine teenagers have been charged in connection with the suicide death of South Hadley High School student Phoebe Prince, 15, who took her life after she was bullied by other students at her school, Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel said Monday.

Phoebe Prince

Two male teens, ages 17 and 18, were also both charged with statutory rape."The investigation revealed relentless activity directed at Phoebe," in the three months before her death, Scheibel said, until the situation became "intolerable" for the girl.Prince, a student at the school whose family had recently moved to the U.S. from Ireland, took her own life in January, authorities said, after she was bullied for three months both at school and online by other students."It appears that Phoebe's death on Jan. 14 followed a tortuous day for her in which she was subjected to verbal harassment and threatened physical abuse," Scheibel said.The district attorney said according to the investigation, which involved interviews with more than 50 people, on the day of her death Prince was harassed as she studied in the school library, and as she walked in the school hallways and later as she walked home.The bullying in the library was witnessed by a faculty member and other students but was not reported until after Prince's death, Scheibel said, adding that the bullying of Prince was "common knowledge" at the school."On the day of her death, primarily three individuals -- one male and two females -- were involved in this assaultive behavior, which appears to have been motivated by the group's displeasure with Phoebe's brief dating relationship with a male student which had ended some six weeks previous," Scheibel said."Their conduct far exceeded the limits of normal teenage relationship-related quarrels," Scheibel said.Six teens and three juveniles were charged in connection with the case, the charges including criminal harassment, violation of civil rights and disturbing a school assembly.

Click To Comment | 9 Charged In Student's Bullying Death | Video | Images: Phoebe Prince Case Timeline

Among those charged, three were teenaged girls, Scheibel said.The teens were identified as:

A 16-year-old from South Hadley was charged with violation of civil rights, as a youthful offender.

A 16-year-old from South Hadley was charged with violation of civil rights as a youthful offender, stalking as a youthful offender.

Sean Mulveyhill More

Sean Mulveyhill, 17, of South Hadley, charged with statutory rape, violation of civil rights, criminal harassment, disturbance of a school assembly.

Kayla Narey, 17, of South Hadley, charged with violation of civil rights, criminal harassment, disturbance of a school assembly.

Austin Renaud, 18, of Springfield, charged with statutory rape.

A 16-year-old from South Hadley was charged with violation of civil rights as a youthful offender, stalking as a youthful offender.

SURVEY Nine teens are facing criminal charges in connection with the suicide death of a South Hadley, Mass., teen who committed suicide in January. Do you agree or disagree with this move? Yes, they should have been charged No, they should not have been charged I'm not sure Results | Disclaimer | E-Mail

All of those charged will be summoned to court at a later date and more charges could follow, authorities said.The indictments were handed up Friday, Scheibel said.Three are still students at the school, and three were expelled in February, authorities said."These students' lives have also been dramatically altered, and they won't be graduating from South Hadley High School," Principal Daniel T. Smith said at the time the expulsion was announced.The district attorney said there were three months of intense harassment that ended when Prince hanged herself at her Newton Street home in South Hadley after school. Her younger sister found her in the staircase heading up to the family's second-floor apartment.The case, and the earlier bullying-related death of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, 11, of Springfield, sparked outrage across the commonwealth and prompted calls for strict anti-bullying legislation to be passed.Lawmakers approved an anti-bullying law earlier this month that requires schools to report incidents of bullying to local police if it's believed any laws may have been broken. The bill is in conference committee to settle differences between House and Senate versions.The district attorney said South Hadley school officials were aware of the Prince bullying but none were charged in connection with the case because officials said their actions did not rise to the level of a crime.She did, however, say that Prince's mother had spoken to at least two school staff members about the bullying, and some faculty had intervened and reported it, but administrators failed to intervene, which Scheibel called "troublesome.""A lack of understanding of harassment associated with teen dating relationships seems to have been prevalent at South Hadley High School. That in turn brought about an inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the school's code of conduct when incidents were observed and reported," Scheibel said.

Previous Stories:

• March 18, 2010: House Approves Anti-Bullying Bill
• March 8, 2010: Mass. Lawmakers To Debate Anti-Bullying Bill
• February 24, 2010: Students Expelled Following Teen's Suicide
• February 17, 2010: Students Suspended After Bullying Incident
• February 12, 2010: Parents Confront School Over Bullying
• February 2, 2010: Parents Demand Answers On Bullying

Oxfam International report called "Fair Miles -- Recharting the Food Miles Map

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/fair_food_miles.pdf

Sorry, Canada, the U.S. has the better safety net Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/19/f-canada-us-pension-reform.html#ixzz0ixRlG1m1

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/19/f-canada-us-pension-reform.html

Have you been watching the American health-care fight?

Then you know that their health insurance system is a mix of government guarantees, private options and employer-funded plans that offer complete coverage to some — the poor, the rich, seniors, government workers — but leave millions of others without a safety net.

Canadians may be surprised to know that, when it comes to pensions, Americans have a strong safety net. (iStockphoto)

And while many Americans have excellent health care through their employers, they're one layoff away from losing it. What's more, over the years employers have cut back on coverage so that many of today's jobs come with no health insurance at all. And that's not counting the growing ranks of the self-employed who have to fund health care on their own.

Ah, Americans. The more we watch them tearing themselves apart over health care, the more we want to give ourselves gold medals.

But before you get too smug, dear Canadian reader, consider this: The above isn't only a summary of American health care. It's also a pretty good description of Canada's imperfect retirement system.

Just replace "health insurance" with "pension." Too many Americans can't get proper health care? Too many Canadians don't have a proper pension.

The fix for Canada's retirement system is going to come, in part, from borrowing from the American approach. Why? Because the American system of government-sponsored pensions, known as Social Security, offers retirees bigger pensions than Canada's equivalent program, the Canada Pension Plan.

That's right: Their government-run retirement safety net is wider than ours. What's more, and perhaps less surprisingly, the Americans also do a better job of fostering private retirement savings.

'Pension-care'

There's a growing realization that Canadians are not saving enough for retirement, collectively or individually, and a good number of us — at least a fifth by most estimates — run the risk of seeing our living standards drop when we hit retirement age.

Tony Keller has been an editorial writer, columnist and editorial page editor for The Globe and Mail; a columnist for the Toronto Star; managing editor of Maclean's; and editor of the Financial Post Magazine. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation.

In the coming days, Ottawa is expected to announce that it is starting public consultations on improving the pension and retirement system. The Harper government has been lukewarm to the idea of wholesale pension reform, but it is under growing pressure from the provinces, led by British Columbia and Alberta. Two years ago, they proposed the creation of a new supplemental national pension plan, and several other provinces have since signed on to the idea. (Full report - PDF)

This, remember, is how medicare came about in the 1960s. Keith Ambachtsheer, director of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, even calls his version of the reform plan "Pension-care." (More - PDF)

Provincial and federal experts agree that we don't need to reinvent the retirement wheel. The way forward is to build on what's best about the existing Canadian framework: the CPP's guaranteed pensions and low-cost money management, and the encouragment of private savings through registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs), company registered pension plans (RPPs) and tax free savings accounts (TFSAs).

To improve what we already have, we should borrow from the U.S. approach: by offering an expanded national pension plan, coupled with more room and better tax treatment for private pensions and individual savers.

The result would be the world's best retirement system. Oh, and the cost to taxpayers would be approximately zero.

That's because this is not about today's workers subsidizing the already-retired. This isn't generational warfare. It's about people saving more for their own retirements. That's how CPP already works — your pension tomorrow is funded by your pension deductions today.

Crunch

CPP is a well-funded, actuarially sound pension scheme. Polls show that Canadians worry about whether CPP will be there when they retire, but their concern is misplaced: it is the most solid of the retirement options.

It's also more solid than Social Security, in that it's a system where current workers fund their own future retirements, rather than relying on current workers to fund current retirees.

Under CPP (or Quebec's parallel QPP), employees have 4.95 per cent of their earnings deducted from their paychecks, up to the maximum insurable income of $47,200, which is the average full-time wage. Employers contribute an equivalent amount.

The more you contribute, up to the annual ceiling, the more of a pension you're entitled to.

If you've worked a full career earning the average wage or more, you can retire at 65 with a maximum CPP pension of $934 a month, an amount that rises each year with inflation.

You'll also get an Old Age Security payment of $517 a month, though it gets clawed back if you're in an upper-income bracket. The same goes for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is only paid to the poorest retirees.

As for U.S. Social Security, it has a higher payroll deduction rate (6.2 per cent of wages), a higher maximum insurable income ($107,000 US) and therefore offers considerably higher benefits.

For example, the top Social Security payout in the U.S. at age 65 is currently $26,292 a year whereas the CPP maxes out at $11,208.

Nest egg

The Canada-U.S. comparison exposes the CPP's only real flaw — it's great as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

Most experts say you'll need an annual income worth 60 to 70 per cent of your former working wage to maintain roughly the same standard of living. For most Canadians, CPP meets only a small fraction of that requirement.

Say you earn $85,000 a year. When you retire at 65, the maximum CPP and OAS pension you can receive is $17,400 a year. If you're aiming for 70 per cent of your pre-retirement income, you're short $42,000.

If you work in the public sector, you have nothing to worry about. Your pension is gold plated. If you work for one of the dwindling number of large companies that offer guaranteed, defined-benefit pension plans, you probably have nothing to worry about either, at least so long as you work there long enough (as in most of your career) to earn a full pension. And so long as your company doesn't end up like Nortel.

Everyone else? To guarantee a $42,000 retirement income stream, indexed to inflation for 25 or so years, you'll need a nest egg of about three quarters of a million dollars.

Very few of us are going to be able to save that much. Not many people are disciplined enough to sock away the maximum RRSP savings, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, in anticipation of a distant and uncertain reward.

So what to do?

The options

BC and Alberta are leading the call for the creation of a new, voluntary contribution national pension plan, what some are calling a supplementary CPP, or SCPP.

Employees, employers and the self-employed would all be able to contribute. The money would be managed at low cost by a professional board similar to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and, though the program would be voluntary, you would be automatically signed up.

You could choose to opt out, but the default position would be "in."

This is the reverse of the RRSP system, where you have to make a conscious effort to open an account, find an investment adviser and make regular contributions. Many Canadians never do.

Others are calling for an expansion of CPP payroll deductions and benefits. That's the U.S. approach and — oh, irony — the federal NDP proposal (PDF).

Others are proposing higher limits for both RRSPs and registered pension plans, as in the U.S..

Which choice is best? How about all of them.

Giving Canadians the option of contributing some of their savings to a government-sponsored, professionally managed supplemental CPP would not cost the public purse anything. Neither would increasing RRSP and RPP contribution limits, as in the long run every cent contributed to these tax-sheltered accounts would eventually be withdrawn and taxed. Higher ceilings would let people with upper-middle class incomes tax shelter enough for their retirements-as they can in the U.S. We should also let the self-employed pay into voluntary, group pensions plans. The self-employed can already buy dental insurance, why not pensions?

Raising CPP premiums and benefits is a little trickier, because half of the CPP premium is paid by the employer.

That means that from an employer's perspective it functions as a tax on jobs, effectively raising the cost of hiring, particularly the hiring of entry-level and low-wage workers. It's the kind of disincentive an economy in recession doesn't need.

As such, the NDP plan to double CPP premiums probably goes too far. But a gradual and lesser raising of CPP premiums to the U.S. level over the course of a decade or more could work. The cost to the taxpayers would be, once again, zero.

While we're at it, let's also raise the CPP contribution ceiling, from the average wage to one and a half times the average wage, or around $70,000. That's still well below the Social Security ceiling, and in any case raising the ceiling has no impact on hiring in lower-income jobs.

Taken together the changes would marry the best of the Canadian approach to the best of the American approach. The result? A novel retirement system, better than either of them.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/19/f-canada-us-pension-reform.html#ixzz0ixRj5N1f

PENSION REFORM

Tony Keller

Last Updated: Friday, March 19, 2010 | 3:42 PM ET

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/19/f-canada-us-pension-reform.html#ixzz0ixRqU5ov

Education chief pitches No Child rewrite plan

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/17/duncan.no.child/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

Washington (CNN) -- Saying the United States is "falling behind" in education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan worked Wednesday to persuade lawmakers that the Obama administration's plan to rewrite a federal education law is the right move for the nation's students and schools.

"A generation ago, we led the world, but we're falling behind. The global achievement gap is growing," he told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

"If we're serious about preparing our nation's young people to compete in a global economy, we must, we must do better than this."

He cited statistics that 27 percent of American high schoolers drop out and that only 40 percent of the country's "young people" earn a two-year or four-year college degree.

"I believe that education is the one true path out of poverty. It has to be the great equalizer in our society," Duncan said.

On Saturday, the Obama administration released its wide-ranging plan for overhauling the No Child Left Behind education law. It shifts the focus from singling out underperforming schools to fostering a "race to the top" to reward successful reforms.

The proposed revisions promise that low-performing schools that fail to improve will be asked to show "dramatic change," but states and school districts will be held accountable for those shortcomings as well.

It supports the expansion of public charter schools and calls for giving states and school districts additional flexibility in how they spend federal dollars "as long as they are continuing to focus on what matters most -- improving outcomes for students."

And it allows them to use federal grant funds to change the way teachers and principals are paid "to provide differentiated compensations and career advancement opportunities to educators who are effective in increasing student academic achievement," among other considerations.

The newly published "blueprint" has come under fire from teachers' unions.

The National Education Association's president, Dennis Van Roekel, said the union was expecting "more funding stability to enable states to meet higher expectations."

He said, "Instead, the 'blueprint' requires states to compete for critical resources, setting up another winners-and-losers scenario. We were expecting school turnaround efforts to be research-based and fully collaborative. Instead, we see too much top-down scapegoating of teachers and not enough collaboration."

The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said the plan puts all the responsibility on teachers but gives them no authority.

"For a law affecting millions of schoolchildren and their teachers, it just doesn't make sense to have teachers -- and teachers alone -- bear the responsibility for school and student success," she said in a statement. "Teachers are on the front lines, in the classroom and in the community, working day and night to help children learn. They should be empowered and supported -- not scapegoated."

The Obama administration's $50 billion proposed education budget adds $3 billion in funding to help schools meet these revised goals, with the possibility of an additional $1 billion if the overhaul plan passes Congress.

The 8-year-old No Child Left Behind law was one of the signature policies of the Bush administration. It set up a regimen of state reading and math tests for students in third through eighth grades, intended to identify failing schools. But critics have said that the Bush administration never properly funded the effort and that states needed more flexibility in meeting those goals.

Duncan said this week that the law was "too punitive."

He said, "It lowered the bar for students and too often narrowed the curriculum, and we have to flip all of that. We have to raise the bar: high standards for all students, meaningful college and career-ready standards."

Obama aide condemns 'destructive' Israeli homes plan

Israel move seemed "calculated to undermine" - courtesy ABC News/This Week

Israel's announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes for Jews in East Jerusalem was "destructive" to peace efforts, a top aide to Barack Obama says.

David Axelrod said the move, which overshadowed a visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden, was also an "insult" to the United States.

Israel's prime minister has tried to play down the unusually bitter diplomatic row between the two allies.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week issued her own stern rebuke.

Mrs Clinton told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by telephone on Friday that the Israeli move was "deeply negative" for US-Israeli relations.

'Affront'

Under the Israeli plans, the new homes will be built in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem.

The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory and says Israel's building there is illegal under international law. But Israel regards East Jerusalem - which it annexed in 1967 - as its territory.

The Palestinians are threatening to boycott newly agreed, indirect talks unless the Ramat Shlomo project is cancelled.

"This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region," David Axelrod, one of President Obama's closest aides, told NBC television.

"We have just started proximity talks, that is shuttle diplomacy, between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and for this announcement to come at that time was very destructive," he said.

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Mr Netanyahu began by giving a survey of media coverage of the spat with the Americans.

"I propose not to be carried away and to calm down," he said. "We know how to handle these situations, calmly, responsibly and seriously."

He went on to admit that the announcement of project during the vice-president's visit had been offensive, but it had been an accident.

Mr Netanyahu has now set up a committee of senior officials to vet the timing of such announcements.

However, the BBC's Paul Wood, in Jerusalem, says it is clear the Americans are not persuaded that this was all just a bureaucratic mix up.

The ill-timed announcement on settlements has allowed Mr Netanyahu to shore up his right-wing coalition, our correspondent says.

But Israel needs the US to deal with Iran's nuclear programme - and that is an issue which Mr Netanyahu himself has said is more important than any other facing Israel.

Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

The Quartet of Middle East peace mediators - the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - has also condemned the Israeli housing announcement and said it would review the situation at its ministerial meeting scheduled for 19 March in Moscow.

POINTS OF TENSION IN JERUSALEM

1 Gilo: 850 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Nov 2009

2 Pisgat Zeev: 600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Jan 2010

3 Sheikh Jarrah: Several Palestinian families evicted in past 18 months to make way for Jewish settlers after court ruled in ownership dispute

4 Ramat Shlomo: 1,600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Mar 2010

5 Silwan: Demolition orders on 88 Palestinian homes built without difficult-to-get permits - Israel planning controversial renewal project

6. West Bank barrier: Making Palestinian movement between West Bank and Jerusalem harder - Israel says it's for security

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/02/immigration-guide-gay-rights-kenney.html?ref=rss

Gay rights section nixed for immigrants' guide

Immigration minister a past opponent of same-sex marriage

Last Updated: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 | 3:28 PM ET Comments163Recommend123

The Canadian Press

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney blocked any reference to gay rights in a new study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship, the Canadian Press has learned.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says his department tried to make an 'inclusive' immigration study guide, but couldn't fit in every government policy and legal decision. (CBC)

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material — but made a last-ditch plea with Kenney in early August to have it reinstated.

"Recommend the re-insertion of the text boxes related to … the decriminalization of homosexual sex/recognition of same-sex marriage," says a memorandum to Kenney from deputy minister Neil Yeates.

"Recommend the addition of 'equality rights' under list of rights. Had noted earlier that this bullet should be reinserted into the list as a means of noting the equality of all based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc."

In the end, however, Kenney's view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, titled Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, was released with fanfare last November and contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

About 500,000 copies were printed and citizenship applicants will start being tested on its contents March 15.

The $400,000 project substantially updated an earlier edition of the guide created in 1995. The new version significantly expands sections on Canada's military past and on aboriginal people, drawing on the views of a panel of prominent Canadians.

The new guide got generally positive reviews when it was launched, though some immediately noted the absence of gay rights, including same-sex marriage.

The publication does include a picture of Olympic gold medal swimmer Mark Tewksbury, however, with a caption saying he is a "prominent activist for gay and lesbian Canadians."

Minister steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage

Drafts and other internal documents related to the guide were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and more recently, civil marriage rights to same-sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005," the earliest draft of the guide says under the section Towards a Modern Canada.

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: "Equality Rights — Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age."

Neither sentence survived the minister's red marker.

Kenney has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage since his time as an opposition MP in the House of Commons.

He spoke against the Civil Marriage Act, or Bill C-38, when it was debated in the Commons in February 2005. And days earlier, Kenney told a session with Toronto-area Punjabi journalists that gays had every right to marry — as long as it wasn't someone of the same sex.

'Choices had to be made about content': Kenney spokesman

He reaffirmed his stand in 2006 when the newly elected Conservative government attempted without success to revoke the legislation.

And last year, Kenney appointed a longtime Conservative who opposes same-sex marriage to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which among other things makes decisions about whether gays can be given refugee status in Canada.

When the new guide was released Nov. 12, Kenney brushed off a reporter's question about why it lacked any reference to same-sex marriage.

"We can't mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada," he said.

"We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn't even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians." He then noted the caption under Tewksbury's photo.

Kenney's spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide "produced by the Liberals" did not mention gays and lesbians.

"We can endlessly debate what was included or not included," Alykhan Velshi said in an email last week. "Unavoidably, choices had to be made about content because we had to ensure the guide did not become encyclopedic."

Velshi also noted the new guide does not refer to marriage at all, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The gay-rights group Egale Canada met with the minister in early December after learning the booklet made no reference to gay and lesbian rights, and is negotiating with the department to have them included in the next printing, about a year away.

Kenney told the group that gay rights had been "overlooked" when the guide was being prepared, executive director Helen Kennedy said in an interview from Toronto.

"I'm hopeful and optimistic that we're going to get it fixed because we're not happy with it."

Kennedy expressed surprise when told draft versions of the guide did, in fact, contain references to gay rights and that they were ordered removed.

The Canadian Press previously reported that other sections of the draft version of the guide were excised at the suggestion of the panel of prominent Canadians.

The deleted sections included one reference that said Canadian churches ran Indian residential schools, where aboriginal children were abused.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/02/immigration-guide-gay-rights-kenney.html?ref=rss#ixzz0h3hyPe0r