The Alberta provincial government (Canada’s version of Texas ?) is currently in the process of legislating possibly the largest step backwards yet this century, in terms of human rights (in Canada).
Bill 44 is a Trojan horse piece of legislation that the gov’t is using to effectively limit the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Basically, while every other province has included sexual orientation in their human rights provincial legislation, since the historic (and Alberta created) Vriend case, Alberta has been able to avoid this responsibility for 10 years. Finally, after pressure from just about everyone reasonable, the AB government has promised under bill 44 to include sexual orientation in it’s human rights legislation.
The story should end there. But it doesn’t. Included in bill 44 is a section that would enshrine “parental rights” as well. This law would ‘protect’ the rights of parents to pull their children from "courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, prescribed under (the School)Act (which) include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation."
I can’t even begin to describe the multitude of problems this starts to create.
Restricting a teacher's ability to speak about certain topics has the danger of silencing them when it comes to "controversial topics." At best this is problematic in an academic setting, where topics will be avoided or skimmed rather than rigorously examined. At worst, this will encourage staff members to stay silent when issues concerning human rights arise. At times in schools, issues of sexual orientation are brought forth as a direct result of some sort of marginalization that occurs in the school setting. For example, when a student is being harassed by other students for being (or being perceived as) gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered it is not be uncommon for a teacher to discuss issues of homophobia in order to foster a safe community, where acceptance is expected. Would that teacher need to send a form home for that? And what if some of the students who were responsible for the bullying were to 'opt' out? Traditionally LGBT youth have been linked to higher suicide rates . How can school be a safe place for these students when their peers are able to 'opt out' of any kind of discussion that might address homophobia? Likewise, what might happen if a student asks a married gay male teacher if he has a "wife"? Will that teacher need to send home a form to be able to say that he is married to man? How is that not a violation of his rights when clearly no heterosexual teacher has needed to do the same this thus far?
Human rights legislation was created, in part, to protect groups of people who have been and continue to be, discriminated against. As most of the parental groups who have vocalized their concern over this legislation have confirmed, parents in this regard are not marginalized and have not been consulted on this issue . Parents have clear, outlined procedures and processes which to follow if there are concerns about their child’s education. To enshrine these as ‘human rights,’ de-values the meaning of human rights and the experiences of those who are being discriminated against.
This bill was clearly meant to limit the protection and rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The fact that our provincial government is using the term 'human rights' to target an already marginalized group is dangerously Orwellian, shamelessly discriminatory and disgustingly embarrassing.
Provincial, National and International pressure can’t hurt:
1.Contact your MLA (Alberta residents)
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_home ,
2. Lindsay Blackett (Minister of Culture and Community Spirit)
calgary.northwest@assembly.ab.ca, (780) 422-3559;
3. Dave Hancock (Minister of Education)
edmonton.whitemud@assembly.ab.ca, (780) 427-5010; and
4. Premier Ed Stelmach
fortsaskatchewan.vegreville@assembly.ab.ca, (780) 427-2251.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Censorship: The New Human Right in Alberta.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13642
It is truely the right of people to guide their children. If it is not obvious then it makes sense to clearly put it into the legislation. Somebody should find another way to protect marginalized groups. But not through mandatng what and how children should be taught.
So then do you also support the rights of parents to opt out of their kids being taught about civil rights struggles, so that they can teach them at home that its ok to discriminate against black people?
Yes, I do. I wouldn't opt out in either case but I would like to keep this right for other parents.
So basically you think parents should be able to opt out of anything? What if I don't want my daughter to learn math, because girls don't need it? Or what if I don't want my kid to learn about the Franco-Prussian war because our ancestors fought in it and I only want to give him my version? Or what if I want to raise my kid as a Holocaust-denier?
There are a couple issues. The obvious issue is whether its fair to society and to the kids to keep them from learning important and relevent things that they might need to know as adults.
But another realistic issue is logistics. If a parent is supposed to sign off on everything their kid learns, how can a classroom possibly be run? If a discussion on something comes up, is the teacher supposed to stop it and remember which kids to send out into the hall? Do they have to give parents a list of every possible topic that might come up and have them check yes or no? There's no way it would work. If you want to support the rights of parents to control what their kids learn, the only way to realistically do it is by homeschooling or private school. Its not feasible in practical terms for a parent to micromanage what gets discussed in the classroom.
Parents do already have this right provided to them. They can choose private, religious or home-schooling options - all of which are at least partially funded by the provincial government. in fact, no official complaint has been made by any parental groups in the way that this procedure works. That's what makes this section of the bill confusing and un-provoked.
Every single public school district does "(mandate) what" children should be taught by providing something called the provincial curriculum, which public school teachers are obliged to teach. That, in fact, is part of the government's role in public education. To decide on what curriculum children should study. Who do you think makes that decision for public schools? For example, in our grade 6 social studies curriculum, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is taught to children. Sexual orientation is read into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 15, so yes, they learn that it is not alright to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. This is part of our curriculum. The European Renaissance is taught in grade 8 social studies, which deals in large part with religion. Geologic time is taught in grade 7 science classes, which contradicts the Christian bible.
It is against the law in Canada to discriminate against all people. It needs to be okay for students to learn that in school.
Schools need to be safe places for all students. That is why teachers need (and up until now have had) the right to teach anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic material. What "other way to protect marginalized groups" would you suggest if not education?