The Shotgun Blog
« Who are the Real Advocates of Human Rights? | Main | Marquess of Harper Rules »
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Does anyone support the parental rights amendments to Alberta’s human rights act?
NDP leader Brian Mason and MLA Rachel Notley applauded the efforts of the Albertan parents, educators, students and citizens who opposed a government bill that they claim “threatens the ability of teachers to do their job.” Over 1,000 signatures were collected for the NDP petition against Bill 44.
Mason maintains the religious right within the Conservative caucus forced a poison pill into Bill 44, which was initially designed to include same sex protections under human rights legislation.
Bill 44 is expected to become law today, and includes a parents’ rights clause that threatens to haul teachers before the human rights commission if they talk about religion, sexual orientation or evolution in the classroom.
“This government is creating a law that Albertans have objected to loud and clear,” Mason said. “They never consulted with parents, teachers or school boards.
“Today it is clearer than ever before that the Progressive Conservatives in this province are being controlled by the religious right and fundamentalist fringe.”
Notley said the NDP is proud and appreciative of all Albertans who took time to sign the petition against Bill 44 and to write letters to their MLAs asking for the bill to be quashed.
“We are not giving up this fight,” she said.
Mason and company may have broader support for this fight than the usual NDP base. At the Calgary Education Fair last Saturday, Tammy Rempel with the School of Hope, a Gospel-centered home schooling facilitator, told the Western Standard she thinks the parental rights clause is unnecessary and destructive.
According to Rempel, the Alberta Education Act already contains all the necessary parental rights protections that allow parents the final say in all matters concerning the education of their children. It is these provisions, in fact, that opened the door to Alberta’s vibrant home school movement.
Furthermore, Rempel shares the concerns of educators that the changes to the Alberta Human Rights Act will put a chill on spontaneous classroom dialogue and prevent teachers from acting on what educators call “teachable moments.”
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on June 2, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Yes, with one caveat: The party or parties responsible for introducing the material should be the ones held responsible. If a teacher does no more than present the material she has been ordered to present, she should not be held accountable for that; her superiors should. If, on the other hand, the teacher decides to play the activist on her own, well, then it's entirely reasonable that she own up to it.
That said, such legislation as this should not be necessary. It stifled the atmosphere of the classroom. If activists weren't so hell-bent on getting their message into classrooms, such expedients would not be felt necessary. The real issue is not with the teachers or the material but with the activist human rights tribunals, who cheerfully hand policy-making over to interest groups or even, as in B.C., a single pair of individuals, to compensate for "injured dignity." It's time these kangaroo courts were turfed entirely. They serve no useful purpose and have made a mockery of justice.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 12:24:11 AM
No. It should never have been up to schools to teach religion or sex in a state run school system.
What if the schools only dealt with academics and actually taught critical thinking? Now that would make sense which is why you'll never see it happen again...
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-02 4:37:56 AM
No. The amendments are nonsense. What it seems no one has noticed is that if notification is required any time sexual orientation is discussed in school, that this would include any time that heterosexuality was discussed. So if a history teacher was teaching about King Henry VIII and his six marriages and his problems producing a male heir, parental notification would be needed. In fact, this case is worse since to discuss the creation of the C of E parents would have to be notified that religion was being discussed. Similarly, before a class could start reading Romeo and Juliet parents would have to be notified of heterosexual content and religious content. There is just about no aspect of history and just about no literary work that does not deal in some way with (hetero)sexuality and/or religion.
I hope that some parents decide to file grievances against anything and everything taught in the schools just to make this very point. I am sure there must be a few gay parents who are activist enough to be willing to make a complaint any time heterosexuality is discussed in class and no notification given. I am also sure there must be a few atheist parents willing to make a complaint whenever any religion or religious ceremony is discussed in class.
If the Albertan government wants to make a bad law, then they should have to deal with the consequences. May they be buried under a pile of paperwork of their own making.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-02 5:22:21 AM
That is an unconvincing piece of sophistry, FC. Discussing Henry VIII's marriages and problems producing a male heir need not involve graphic and anatomically correct discussions of sexual behaviour. Some people suspect that King David of Israel had homosexual relations with Jonathan, son of Saul, but a study of Israeli history need not go into what are, in fact, unprovable rumours. Now, if the teacher wanted to talk about obscure practices of 14th-century lesbians, that would ring the bell.
None of this nonsense would have come about in the first place if the HRCs hadn't undergone this Darth-Vader-like transformation from tenant rights arbitrators into Thought Police.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:33:26 AM
"Discussing Henry VIII's marriages and problems producing a male heir need not involve graphic and anatomically correct discussions of sexual behaviour."
And the book "Daddy's Roomamte" does not involve graphic and anatomically correct discussions of sexual behaviour either. So I guess no notification is needed to teach that book, right?
I also notice you ignore the religious issue with teaching about Henry VIII. Perhaps it is because you have no answer for that?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-02 7:30:56 AM
"And the book "Daddy's Roomamte" does not involve graphic and anatomically correct discussions of sexual behaviour either. So I guess no notification is needed to teach that book, right?"
Don't use "right." It makes you sound like a petulant teen. And never having read the book you mention and not inclined to trust your judgement of it, I cannot comment. Ditto for "Asha's Mums."
"I also notice you ignore the religious issue with teaching about Henry VIII. Perhaps it is because you have no answer for that?"
Or perhaps it was because that teaching the historical fact of religious strife in the time of Henry VIII is not actually indoctrinating students with that or any other religion, so none was warranted.
You're off your game lately, FC, and you're not the only one. You and P.M. Jaworski haven't been smoking reefer lately, have you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 7:55:31 AM
From the CBC website:
Teachers complain that, "Bill 44 makes it possible for parents to file human rights complaints against teachers and school districts, creating a chill with regard to what is taught in the classroom."
GOOD! There should ALWAYS be a chill with regard to what is taught in the classroom!!! Why should these taxpayer-funded indoctrination officers be free to inject whatever they want into the minds of other peoples' children?
Posted by: anonymous | 2009-06-02 8:06:59 AM
Shane,
Well, if you read the book I am sure you will agree there is nothing graphic about it at all (it is a children's book, after all). So I'll count you as a supporter of allowing it without notification. Excellent!
"...teaching the historical fact of religious strife in the time of Henry VIII is not actually indoctrinating students with that or any other religion, so none was warranted."
Obviously another thing you have not read is the wording of the legislation. Just google "Bill 44 Alberta" and you will find it easily. You will then see that it says: "A board as defined in the School Act shall provide notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation." Talking about how the C of E was founded is to explicitly talk about religion. So whatever you might think about "indoctrinating" being the line, it is not what the legislation says.
Try being better informed before you post. Although after not knowing that Saturday Night Live is satire and completely confusing the murderer of Dr. Tiller with the founder of Operation Rescue, I doubt you have the grey matter required. So perhaps you should just stick to your idiotic rants. At least they can be ammusing sometimes.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-02 8:15:21 AM
You'll count me neither as a supporter or a denouncer, Fact Check; I haven't seen the book. I say nothing against it without evidence, but nothing for it either.
And dealing EXPLICITLY with religion would entail considerably more than a tangential reference to it as a tool for Henry VIII to thumb his nose at the Pope. Apart from mentioning the fact that the Anglican Church allows divorce while the Catholic Church doesn't, no actual religious teachings or dogma are imparted.
Not watching talk shows hardly makes me ignorant, FC. And my "idiotic rants" aren't nearly as amusing as your idiotic attempts to spell words with more than one syllable. Maybe you should get your high-school equivalency before posting here again, and save yourself future embarrassment.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 8:35:58 AM
I'm all for it for a couple of reasons:
1) It's making the teacher's union howl in fear- causing pain to out of control unions is always a good thing.
2) The controversy itself is making parents ask a very important question in regards to their children; "Why do the unions, Libs and NDP want to limit my control over my child's education?" - Having parents wake up, even if it's just a little, is a good thing.
3) I think it may serve as the catalyst needed to have real changes made the the HRC's - as soon as some lefty teacher pushes some social agenda without permission (you just know that it'll happen) they'll be dragged before the hrc. All of a sudden the lefties will begin to agree that the hrc needs to be scrapped and move to get it done.
Yeah, about #3, I'm not really buyin' it either but a guy can dream...
Re the petition: 1,000 signatures in a province of over 3 million people isn't something to brag about. Seriously, that's only 0.03% of the population.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-02 8:36:57 AM
Teachers complain about a lot, Anonymous. If they're truly as professional and moderate as they would have the public believe, they should instruct their mouthpieces to make that clear instead of pushing for radical causes. Oh, and "professionals" don't typically join unions and go on strike, either.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 8:43:16 AM
What serfs we have become that now the state grants or does not grant parental rights! How far are we from the state granting us the right to breath?
JC is correct that if the schools restricted themselves to teaching the academics and critical thinking, the issue would never arise. Sex and religion have no place in the public school system.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-02 11:06:41 AM
"Sex and religion have no place in the public school system."
Well, maybe under the bleachers, but that's something ENTIRELY different!
Posted by: anonymous | 2009-06-02 12:36:45 PM
"Sex and religion have no place in the public school system."
I'm not sure I agree, Alain. Parents may want to outsource teaching their children about abstinence and faith, for example, although that would probably be a mistake.
I'm sure we can agree, however, that the state should have no place in the school system, which is at the heart of the problem being discussed.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-02 1:27:57 PM
"Yeah, about #3, I'm not really buyin' it either but a guy can dream..."
I think the free speech and education freedom issues are beginning to convince the left that our so-called human rights laws need to be scraped.
#3 is not that far off. A guy can dream anyway.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-02 1:30:28 PM
I do not think that parents should ever have the right to pull their children out of class because of the subject matter. Fortunately notice is not required if the topic comes up incidentally. Hopefully teachers can get their students to ask the right questions.
Posted by: Tyler | 2009-06-02 3:57:41 PM
Matthew, parents who may want to outsource teaching their children about abstinence and faith have all kinds of options other than the public school system. Children normally attend such classes either after regular school or on week-ends. Parents also cover the cost of this, not the general public.
I do agree that the state should have no place in the school system, but since it does the school system needs to stick to teaching the academics and critical thinking. Sex and/or religion has no place there, especially since teachers are not qualified to teach either in the public school system.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-02 4:02:19 PM
this bill 44 is fine Matthew-good grief we are not all libertarians you know.
Parents dont want their kids indoctrinated with pro-gay and transexual nonsense.
I for one support this bill 100%
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-02 6:19:38 PM
"I do not think that parents should ever have the right to pull their children out of class because of the subject matter."
What are you basing that on, Tyler?
"Fortunately notice is not required if the topic comes up incidentally. Hopefully teachers can get their students to ask the right questions."
Oh, a troublemaker. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:58:27 PM
Tyler, are you saying the state should have more rights to educate our kids, with the curriculum they believe is best, than us parents?
Posted by: TM | 2009-06-02 9:07:58 PM
"Tyler, are you saying the state should have more rights to educate our kids, with the curriculum they believe is best, than us parents? "
I think that students must receive the full curriculum. This does not prevent parents from teaching other topics (creationism, theology, abstinence) to their kids by themselves.
All students should receive a full education. Sexual education is essential especially for Christian and Muhammadan fundamentalists. Religion is not an excuse for ignorance. Students need to no that alternative sexuality is okay, understand how to use contraceptives, and know that masturbation is not harmful to the body.
Methinks religion should not be taught in school nor should the school accommodate religion by allowing parents to withdraw their kids from class based on theological objections.
Posted by: Tyler | 2009-06-02 11:51:58 PM
A full education does not necessarily consist of what you say it does, Tyler, nor are views on sexuality necessary the correct ones. Furthermore, you do NOT have the right to tell parents that they're doing it wrong and that you, or the state, has a right to step in, unless you can prove gross negligence. I would remind you that children in state care fare far worse than those who aren't. Historically, the state has made a lousy parent. As have childless child experts.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-03 7:24:11 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.