Alberta Passes Contorversial Human Rights Law

[dread pirate jimbo]

Site

After hours of debate, members of the Alberta legislature passed human rights legislation allowing parents to pull their children out of classes dealing with sex, religion or sexual orientation....

The groups in opposition said the issue should be addressed as part of the Schools Act instead of as a human right.

They also claim the law is too vague, which could create problems for teachers who are trying to do their job.

With the legislation in place, school boards are now required to notify parents in writing any time the controversial topics will be "explicitly" covered in class....

Critics have suggested the parental provision was added to Bill 44 to appease far-right Conservatives displeased with the bill also enshrining gay rights under the Human Rights Act.

It gets harder and harder every day to struggle out from under the "Alberta is full of hicks" label when our government continues to make moves such as this. The legislation now makes it possible for a teacher to be arrested and tried for a Human Right's violation if s/he makes the mistake of making a comment in passing about sex or religion during a class. That's beyond ridiculous and hog-ties our teachers in a profound way. Colour me not impressed and thankful that I've never, in 22 years as a person of voting age, voted for the provincial Conservatives.

[featherlou]

I don't think I fully understand the ramifications of this, and I suspect that is because the ramifications are beyond belief - a teacher can be arrested and charged for mentioning evolution in science class?

[dread pirate jimbo]

I believe, after checking a little deeper, that this bill specifically pertains to sex, religion and sexual orientation and not science. So our teachers are allowed to continue to teach science to the students. Well, unless some flat-earther fundamentalist loon manages to successfully spin teaching evolution in science class into a violation of their child's human rights by violating their religious freedoms.

It is also now my understanding that "casual conversations" do not fall under this bill, whatever that means.

And, of course, it should be noted that every parent in the province already had the right, under our education legislation, to be informed of the details of the course curriculum and also had the right to withdraw their child from classes to which they objected.

[OtakuLoki]

Wait-a-minute...

How in the Hell do you propose to teach World History after, say, 1500 without explicit discussion on the topic of what the various religions are, and what their doctrinal differences might be? For the sake of argument, I'm going to completely ignore the effect of the spread of Islam on world history. But without an understanding of the European wars of religion the background for the settlement of North America is impossible to understand.

[Annie]

The legislation now makes it possible for a teacher to be arrested and tried for a Human Right's violation

IANAL, etc etc

Whoa there Nellie! By 'arrested and tried' do you mean the cops swing by and make a criminal arrest and a jury trial ensues? I don't think so- this is civil stuff-akin to being sued. Remedies under the Human Rights, Citizenship &Multicultural Act are based on restoring to the discriminated person what was denied (see Section 32(1) of the Act 'Powers of Panel'. ), not punishment. Besides, the wording of the relevant amendment seems pretty weird- the Code of Conduct section is all"no person shall" discriminate -everything's all 'don't do this!'. The amendment Page 8 of the pdf, sec 11.1 )is worded (paraphrase) "If school's teaching something shocking they must inform parents, if parent makes written request to keep Johnny out of class or at his desk with his fingers in his ears, teacher shall permit that without academic penalty to Johnny". It allows an action(yanking Johnny from class) , rather than prohibits one (the rest of the codes- don't fire the pregnant, don't ban blacks from the coffee shop type stuff) The worst thing that could happen to a teacher under this is they (or are thought to ) deny a kid the chance to leave class, cranky parent files complaint, complaint heard by the commission, if found to have contravened the act, see 32(1) for remedies they can order against teacher. There is a panel, it's not a 'trial'.
No one's getting arrested or jailed.

But I got a question-whose civil rights are being violated here if teacher sits on Johnny and prevents him from leaving the 'queers are people too!" lecture-the parents? Johnny's? If the parents'- what are Johnny's rights to having a full and complete education? And part of the bill adding this stuff makes sexual orientation a protected ground in services (which would include schools)- isn't allowing people to excuse their kids from a discussion of sexual orientation or religion, but not race or ancestry, a contravention unto itself? Where da lawyers here?

Here's where they cleaned up the casual conversation/ incidental references stuff. Which still sounds like if a class was discussing homoerotic interpretation of a Shakespeare play, a letter would have to go home first. What if a student opens up the topic in discussion? "So, maybe Iago had the hots for Othello so that's why he was such a dick?" "Oops, hold that thought Britteny- class, everyone takes your homo-deflector notes home and let your parents know we're talking subtext on Tuesday" How incidental is incidental? Someone might think to mention that a certain artist was gay- will it just be left as a statement of fact, but not to be part of the discussion of the art? Hey, if you want to study Michelangelo, it could be damn relevant!