Laurie Blakeman's has introduced
"Bill 202, the Safe and Inclusive School Act, is aimed at making all Alberta schools safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments for every student regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity by:
- Requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations.
- Repealing section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, which requires a parent or guardian be notified if sexual orientation will be discussed in the classroom.
- Referencing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and theAlberta Human Rights Act in Alberta’s Education Act."
I thought I would take some time and share with you some concerns I have with Laurie Blakeman's bill 202.
This bill is being presented as a bill to make schools safer for kids of the LGTBQ community but through this bill I fear that it might make things worse for other students. Add this to the fact that this bill includes other statements and exclusions that put parental duties, responsibility, and rights in danger. I hope that you will see my point and come to the same conclusion that this bill is not a piece of legislation that is required to make schools safer, but actually it undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and serves to remove Parental rights and bestow more power to the state as liberal socialists are in favour of, and may possibly make schools more hostile for other students if passed.
The issues I have are as follows
1) forcing GSAs on schools boards and parents that may not support clubs of a sexual nature to be part of the school environment.
2) removal of Parental rights by striking Sec 11.1 from the Education Act.
3) by tying the Charter of Rights, and the Alberta Human rights Act to the education act undermine the right of home schoolers, private schools, and Public Religious schools to free speech, and also bestow special status to certain groups of people while excluding others.
Parental duty:
- we as society have set 18 years of age as legally becoming an adult
- most parents continue to make decisions for their kids as long as they live at home as is their duty to raise and guide them into adulthood.
-the raising or Education of a child is the fundamental right and duty of parents, not the state nor that of the child being raised.
- legislating the right of kids to set up GSAs sounds like a good idea but in a country where the rule of the majority is the standard, and that parents, not the kids are responsible for the children's education, having a small number of kids having the right to force a club to be endorsed by a school that the majority of parents may not support is wrong. Should students, supported by the school board and the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then yes the club should be allowed. But then the opposite is true as well. Should students of a school, not supported by the school board nor the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then the club should not be allowed nor be forced to be allowed. This allows for freedom, parental say, and the principles of democracy to be paramount.
- we as society have set up an education system to help in the professional education of kids, that being said it is still the Right of parents to have the final say in what their child is being educated on. Should a parent have a problem with any subject they deem their responsibility to teach, the school system can not and should not interfere with that right. Some topics such as religion, morality, and sexuality are sensitive subjects, ones that many parents deem the responsibility of parent. Thus the clause in Sec. 11.1 must remain in order to legally protect a parents fundamental right to have the final say on what is taught.
- Sec. 11.1 dictates that the teacher must notify parents prior to discussing religion, human sexuality, or sexual orientation.
(2) doesn't say anything about informing parents of when it will be discussed.
The question comes up how will the parent give instruction to leave if they don't know when it will be discussed?
By not having prior knowledge to this, a student may only be excused when the discussion comes up rather than not showing up prior to discussion. This can put said student on the spot to leave as per parental request, and open that student up to ridicule and unneeded peer pressure. This doesn't make the school safer for those students.
- The following is an excerpt from the Albert Home School Assosiation website in regards to Bill 2 a couple years ago that was presented and failed due to vast opposition in which the same issue was presented.
"Due to the potential legal impact ... , AHEA has taken a strong position denouncing the inclusion of the Alberta Human Rights Act in the Education Act.
Provincial Human Rights Legislations have been studied at length and have been severely criticized by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca) According to the March 2011 study conducted by John Carpay and Carol Crosson, From Bad to Worse - Examining Restrictions on Speech and Procedural Fairness in Human Rights
Legislation in Fourteen Canadian Jurisdictions ( http://www.jccf.ca/images/From%20Bad%20to%20Worse%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf ), Canadian human rights legislation has, at best, a ‘bad’ rating for procedural fairness. Alberta’s human rights legislation is described as among the worst in Canada as a result of its lack of procedural
fairness and its violation of free speech rights.
The paper discusses Human Rights Commissions and how they function, what they cover, areas of fairness, how complaints occur and how they are treated. The weaknesses
in the Alberta Human Rights Act and how they impede freedom of speech confirm the legitimacy of concerns expressed by Alberta’s parents regarding imbedding the Alberta Human Rights Act being in the Education Act are legitimate.
Finally, an extended column on free speech, posted by Brad Trost, provides clear examples of how Canada’s Human Rights Commissions ‘selectively oppress Canadians who hold small “c” conservative political or religious views.” http://ezralevant.com/Free%20Speech%20by%20MP%20Brad%20Trost%2023JUN08%20.pdf
This information, taken collectively, provides clear evidence which supports the argument for not enshrining the Alberta Human Rights Act within the Education Act."
If the term " the common values and beliefs of Albertans" isn't clear enough and has the public will to be changed, perhaps rather than entrenching the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the AHRA within the education act, perhaps the more realistic thing would be to entrench the freedoms spelled out in section 2.
Bill 202 would then read
(2) Section 16(1) is amended by striking out “the common values and beliefs of Albertans” and substituting “Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act”.
Sec 2.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
It's my conclusion that in order to protect Parental rights, ensure that ALL students are protected from mistreatment, and to ensure that our freedoms and fights are protected, this bill can not and should not be supported in its current form or any form similar to it. The right to form an extra curricular club can't trump a Parents fundamental right to dictate what, how and when things are taught to their children.
