Education to be optional in Alberta

This from a province that makes it's living from fermented dinosaurs.  Ironic, ain't it?

Now thats FUNNY!!!

If I were religious, I would thank my Deity for allowing me to live in the 21st century:

Quebec crackdown: Private Christian schools must teach Darwin and sex ed or they will be shut down

All this furor about evolution, but yet they have the highest spousal and child assualt rates in the country!

If I'm reading the article correctly, parents would also be allowed to exclude their kids from:

1. all sex education whatsoever ("discussion about sexuality")

2. any course that mentions homosexuals (because that could involve "discussion about ... homosexuality").

I don't think it's coincidental that Stelmach's hordes are targetting the very same issues that the Québec government targetted - except from the opposite side of the trench.

What about other provinces? Are accredited schools allowed to remove kids from sex ed or discussion about evolution at parental request? Are they allowed to omit these subjects from their curricula altogether?

remind, they have to stick to the issues that really matter, remember?

What I find most amusing about the illogic of the position of "teaching homosexuality in the schools" will lead to "kids think homosexuality is okay" is that nobody who's queer today was taught that!! By any institution!! So, where did all the queers today, and, you know, in yesteryear, magically come from, hm? San Francisco? The Isle of Lesbos?

With its insanely poor drafting it's evenbroader than that.  Any lesson explicitly dealing with religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation would require parental approval.  A social studies class studying Japan, for example, would need parental approval to discuss the predominant religions and marital practice (since martial practice involves sexual orienation - even heterosexuality is ostensibly taboo).  How many works of literature don't discuss sexuality or sexual relationships?  Those are obviously ridiculous examples, but the point is that teachers have no idea where to draw the line, and if they get it wrong - or rather, if a parent feels the teacher got it wrong - the teacher is subjected to a Human Rights Complaint.

The damage this law could do to every single classroom in the province is terrifying.  The ability of a few fringe parents to raise their child in ignorance - already a reality across the country - is nothing compared to the dangers this law poses.

I live in Alberta - my kids go to school here. I am so tired of being dictated to by a group of undereducated religious nutjobs. There are great people here, progressive wonderful educated people - I know I have met them - how come they aren't voting??? Alberta, please! Stop the insanity. I am not sure which is more embarassing. That we are allowing parents the right to choose which FACTS their children learn, or that we are just now getting around to extending human rights to homosexuals. (And it's only lip service at that.)

Could the dinosaurs be backing off - or are they just getting all confused by these big thoughts?

Proposed Alberta law doesn't make evolution classes optional: minister

Will the real dinosaur please stand up - Stelmach, or Blackett?

Facebook group: Pull my kids from school if they're taught about the Alberta Conservatives

Please join and tell your friends!

I believe it is still the parents role to influence their children as they see fit.  If a parent feels strongly about an issue based on their religious or moral beliefs, they should not be condemed for it.  If these same parents decided that they should influence other parents children with what they believe, well that is wrong.  Moral issues are a parents responsibility not the states.  So long as it does not cultivate criminal behavior the state should stay out of parenting.  The education system should portray all aspects of society, but if some parent feels strongly that they do not want their child to be taught that message and would rather instruct their own message that is their god given right in a free society.  Just as I have no right to push my moral views on you; you have no right to push yours on me.

If the state is to stay out of the nations bedrooms the state should stay out of the nations family homes when it comes to moral/religious grounds.

Should the state stay away from dealing with child abuse? I think that's a "moral" issue, don't you?

I couldn't disagree with you more CD. Public education is of interest to the public and should be in support of the public's ideals. Everything we teach has a moral component.

This is already the case in Alberta.  Under the School Act, parents have the ability to take their kids out of classes that deal with religion or sexuality. 

But Bill 44 takes this to a whole new level.  If the parents are not satisfied with the school's handling of their beliefs, they can take the school district, the school, and even the teacher to a Human Rights Tribunal.

If a teachers pulls apart a fight in the school yard where a gay kid is getting picked on because of his sexuality, most teachers would use the moment to teach about equality and respect.  Under Bill 44 - that teacher has just broken the law.

seeing as how chester choose the last thread started on this to respond to about his so called family values in AB, I will repost my post from the other thread, as follows from the other thread;

Well, that is interesting, I guess their "Family Values" means it is okay to beat up your children and wife, seeing as how Alberta has the highest incidences of both in Canada.

Perhaps they could use a little bit less of "parents in the household"? Or at least 1.

Safe communities? How about safe homes?

Perhaps what/who people should be fearing is the religious wingnuts who are the largest identifiable community in AB?

And what the hell is the Premier doing spouting off about evolution in a Human Rights Bill for? Is he trying to sell a quid pro quo?

Like is he covertly saying; "we have to give human rights to homosexuals, but we will give additional rights to you"?

And as for this:

Is the first sentence saying that parents can now opt their children out of religious instruction, whereas before they couldn't? And that parents can't opt out on religious belief reasons?

But then he actully states that a teacher can teach religion in a science class when teaching evolution. Unfuckingbelievable.

Or perhaps even saying that the teachers can teach anti-homosexual information in sexuality classes, after all the teacher has to have "latitude", they are not the "thought police".

And I will add now that I have thought about this further, I think this  so called human rights legistaltion is actually a  back door attempt, to halt any criticism of or opposition to  religion and religious bigotry. Anyone who tries to give an alernative view, let's say like Lou's example of a bully bullying a gay kid and a teacher speaking to the bully about how wrong it is,  will end up  before the human rights commission.

So teachers will have latitude in 1 direction only. Speak religion or else.

Hmmm, learn something every day.  Never knew Alberta had an education system.

Teachers condemn draft legislation; Alberta cabinet minister admits that it was designed to win support from homophobes

"Both sides" means: 1. Latte-sipping urban socialists; and 2. Hard-working God-fearing proto-fascists.

Ah, the simplicity of politics in Alberta!

Yep, as I supposed 2 posts above, quid pro quo, to the fundies.

I agree on your views.  However sometimes the majorities interests are not what the minorities see as mainstream.  Just because it is legal for abortions to occur or gay marriage to exist, does not mean that those who have personal moral/religious issues opposing them have to be trivialize or marginalized by those who support those issues.  I see no problem with those parents who want to instill their morals on those issues rather than an institutionalized version.  On a side note I could care less about abortion as a man I have no say over a womans choice, that is between her doctor, herself and her maker.  Gay marriage and rights no problem either, but I draw the line when the education system dictates to my children what the moral implications are for those two issues.  Only my wife and I have that power.

From some of the statements here it seem that if you have differring points of view than what the education system is promoting then you are morally corrupt and have no rights to be tolerated by the mainstream.  It appears that there are many here who believe it is ok to remove ones right if it differs from the mainstream, Canada I hope is bigger than that.

And as for the childish remark about childabuse, no one is condoning or saying an illegal activity such as that can be moralized.  Come people, be mature about this.

What about math, CD? You and your wife have any compunctions on that score?

You do not have a right to impose your personal viewpoints upon  children, especially those pertaining to being against human rights!

Chester:

I agree with this to some degree, as long as the moral implications you teach your child excludes denying peoples rights, gay or otherwise.

Evolution is a scientific concept and lacks a moral component (knowledge in general lacks a moral component, interpretation of such knowledge is where the moral component comes in).  Opting out of this is the moral equivlent of book burning.  Evolution is a vital theory later in biology and other fields as well and opting out of this knowledge will have a negative impact later on...not much different than the negative impact insisting the universe is 4000 years old has on geology or astronomy.

How exactly you wish to interpret evolution as far as your creation/purpose/religion goes is up to you, theres your moral component.

So you reserve the right to ensure your child is a homophobe?  To what extent would you stand up for my right to teach my child to commit hate crimes?  I know I went a bit more extreme then the what you may have been thinking Chester, but it's still a valid question...where is the line drawn as to what you can teach your child?  There are gaybashers still around, would you defend their right to teach their child assaulting homosexuals was moralling acceptable?

 I believe the charter of rights and freedom protects religious freedom.  Therefore it is not against human rights to educate your children on moral/religious values.  It is however against the charter to prevent those from practicing their moral/religious beliefs.  Just as it is against the law to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, creed etc.  It appears that there are those that feel it is better to abdicate their parental responsibility to the state as the state can do a better job. 

"What about math, CD? You and your wife have any compunctions on that score?" Sorry that one does not compute.

.

It would be your religious freedom, not your child's, you are depriving a child of their charter rights to have their own religious freedom, or to be free from it if they want!!!

And that IMV is child abuse.

Until school-leaving age, parents must send their children to accredited schools on pain of legal sanctions.

Accredited schools must follow a certain minimum curriculum, otherwise they will not satisfy the requirements to avoid truancy charges.

If society dictates that the curriculum must include sex ed, evolution, and equality of human beings - and of course it should - then parents must comply, even if they are prudes, homophobes, and creationists.

That's why I posted the link above from Québec. We shut down phoney "schools" that preach anti-scientific and anti-human stories.

Your freedom of religion is protected by the Charter. Your children's right to be protected from superstitious and human-hating theories while at school is protected by law - inadequately, but progress is being made. The Alberta government is preparing to apply to be the 51st state. I'm optimistic that Albertans will chase these monsters out before they succeed.

"The Alberta government is preparing to apply to be the 51st state. I'm optimistic that Albertans will chase these monsters out before they succeed."

Is this for real?

I'm not saying that anyone has the right to initiate criminal activity, just that they have the right to educate their own kids as they see fit.  What is so wrong with that?  If someone believes the world is only 4,000 years old and petrified bones in the rock is the work of the Devil who cares.  Why is that wrong? I personally believe in evolution.  If someone has strong religious beliefs against homosexuality who cares if they want to restrict their kids exposure to it.  Society has no right to interfear unless out right criminal activity is being promoted.

No one is promoting illegal activity, they are ony promoting choice.  Just as I have no right to judge or restrict those that are homosexual or had an abortion, you have no right to judge or restrict others who have a different view than you on that issue.  The Charter of Rights and Freedom treats all the same.  Whether you or I like it.

The next big issue will be poligamy, get the beer and popcorn out for that one.  If ya want more than one wife good on you.

Remind, I was exaggerating. You know how some countries introduce "reforms" so that they can apply to the EU? That's what I was thinking of. At least I hope I was exaggerating.

Dinosaurs underground, dinosaurs above ground...

Chester you are interferring in your child's charter rights and freedoms, your religious rights are your own, NOT your child's. You have no right to impose your religious beliefs upon them. It is child abuse. That is what is wrong with that!

If someone beleives the world is only 4000 years...good on them. Someone choosing that their child has no choice to believe that is a different story. You seem to be confusing your rights with the child rights consistantly throughout this thread...the only thing I see you arguing for is the childs rights are superceeded by the desicions of their parents.

Ummmm - perhaps because it is wrong?

Completely, totally and absolutely wrong, as a matter of fact. In fact, science has determined that creationism is superstitious ignorance, and these parents have no right to deny real knowledge of the universe to their children.

I think thats key LTJ.....a parents right to religious freedom does not supercede a childs right to education.  Although, if a person still chooses to beleive the world is 4k years old, in the end it's their choice.  However denying a child access to information suggesting the earth is more than 4000 years old because your faith says it is, is wrong...you are assuming your rights as a parent far outweigh a childs basic human rights.

On a related note, ritual tatoo and scarring my child based on religious views seems to be out of it too.  Damn state interfering with my right to waterboard my child.

Editted to add:

Is there any irony in the group arguing their 'rights' as parents supercede the rights of their children are the same ones that argue that the rights of unborn children outweigh that of their mother?  Full rights of the state to control them when they're unborn, but stay the f*ck away after their born.

One more edit:

They are promoting their choice and denying their child the right to education that might state otherwise than the choice they've already made for them. Whether you or I like it or not, that child has the same rights too and nothing as their parent gives you the right to deny theirs. Do you realize how hypocritical your position is yet Chester??? 

You are assuming that the word hypocritical is understood, as it takes a certain amount of cognative dissonance to hold said position in the first place.

Well Rewind you are saying that you also have no right to instill your views on your children either, as they should make their own choice.  I would hope that you provide both sides of all issues not just yours to your children then.  Good for the goose good for the gander I guess.  You can not have it your way only.

Bullshit, Chester. 

No one is obliged to provide superstitions and lies as an alternative to scientific fact.

I agree LTJ on evolution.  So I guess Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc are all absolutely wrong and their followers should not have the right to educate their kids on their beliefs and morals. 

When their kids turn the age of majority they can choose form themselves then.  Until then parents have rights under the charter.

No, but the state has no interest or place in religious education.

Which is why the province of Ontario will have to deal with the existence of public funding of Catholic schools eventually; and better sooner than later.

Chester, you're not getting it. They/you/me have our right to educate our children in whatever wackjob religion you wanna list. What they/me/you don't have is the ability to DENY them information. See the difference yet? Selective blindness is also a family value.

again?

Thats just it, you can teach em whatever you want for an alternative. You cannot prevent them from information based on your beliefs.

Was thinking about religious whacks in AB's insecurity in their belief system. If they actually believed, what they believed, they would not hesitate to inform their child of other realities, as they would know that truth would win in the end.

Hey! Did you see Google today?

Very timely.

Funny I just started a thread on that!

Answer me this.  Just for arguments state.  What if the situation was reversed as you say the religious whack jobs ruled the world. The education system then taught the majority view that homosexuality is immoral.  Not against the law but immoral.  And you as one of the minority disagree with this position, you are saying that you would still let your children learn an opposing view to your moral fabric and then try to defend your position against all the pressure from peers and educators, just so you do not violate your child rights to make their own decision.  I truly find that hard to believe given that your positions currently are so strong on these issues.

I'm not a religious person, IMO religion is just a money power grab, no different than unions, professional organizations, corporations and governments.  But I believe that those that have those beliefs have rights as well and one of them is raising their families without state interference unless there is illegal activities and child abuse as defined by statute.  We may not like the opinion of others, but we have to respect them.

...not when they're braindead stupid, I don't.

One could say that religious whacks ruled the world and perhaps still do, but truth has won out!

Great point LTJ! :D

One more time for mr.family values selective  vision

If the opinion of others involves denying access to education to prop up their flimsy moral structure that can be undermined by elemetary syllabus, then no....they're no better than the people who would deny their daughters education based on their religious beleifs.

Noise, what amazes me is that the Bible itself tells them they must obey the laws of the land, as the laws of the land are dispensed by God too!

That they choose to be selective in their reading and application of it boggles the mind.

And we know what family values are more present in AB,  than the rest of Canada, spouse and child battering. Indeed they would not want their children to find out facts like their charter rights are being denied them, and that not all children suffer under their parents oppression, as they do.

Of course, there is the rider implicit in this statement that it excludes those in AB who understand human rights, and who are critical thinkers and doers, as well as their being empathetic and compassionate people who believe in social justice, for all, even children.

I know not everyone's a fan of P.J. O'Rourke but I did laugh when he said something like "Whoever started this family values thing obviously never met my family with values like secret daytime drinking ...."

MINISTER’S RESPONSE
BILL 44 IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

Thank you for your Alberta Connects email regarding Bill 44, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009. This legislation was introduced in the Alberta Legislature by the Honourable Lindsay Blackett, Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, and falls into his portfolio responsibilities.

As part of our democratic legislative process, we welcome public debate and feedback to elected representatives from Albertans. I thank you for your comments, and I will share them with Minister Blackett.

In the interim, I can assure you that public education in Alberta will unequivocally continue to include evolution. In Alberta’s programs of study, evolution is presented as a widely accepted scientific theory of origins based on many well-tested lines of evidence. Science programs may include discussion of other explanations of origins, including creationism, but these explanations are not given equal time and emphasis, or recognition as scientific theories.

Parents have always had the right to exempt their children from specifically religious instruction and exercises. Bill 44 will not change that. However, Bill 44 does not allow religious interpretation of non-religious programs of studies as grounds for opting out of instruction. A cohesive, pluralistic society requires informed citizens who understand both science and religion. While not all students take courses specifically about religion, topics related to religion may be explored in other programs of study such as social studies.

Alberta’s education system is considered to be among the world’s finest, largely because of the depth and breadth of our program of studies and the abilities of our teachers. I am staunchly committed to protecting the high quality of education in this province and will not compromise our curriculum or teaching practices.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views regarding Bill 44.

Yours truly,

..........As part of our democratic legislative process, we welcome public debate and feedback to elected representatives from Albertans. I thank you for your comments, and I will share them with Minister Blackett.............

Oh! I almost peed myself.

The legislation was adopted this morning, after a "marathon debate". "On Monday, a small group of gays and lesbians held an emotional rally at the legislature against the bill."

My views have evolved. I now believe this bill may be a positive development. By allowing dinosaurs to limit their offspring's education, it may hasten their extinction.

I'm sorry but I fully stand by my assertion that Alberta is F**ked.

What does "explicity" mean? Naked pictures? Profanity? Violence?

I assume parents will recieve notifications of attempts to teach creationism and have the opportunity to exempt their child from creationism bullshit as well, no?

Time to leave Alberta...I've applied for a Visa and hopefully can get my ass out of this redneck country.

Canada?

Err redneck country would be my term for 90% of Alberta.  

Going to the UK...actually very easy to get a 2 year work visa if you're young enough (under 31)

Awwww, well have a good life there anyway!

Good luck Noise! I'd bolt it out of Alberta quick too.

Yeah, Noise, good luck - and just make sure you pay all your UK debts on time!

Alberta brain drain theory...once the oil rush is gone everyone with a head on their shoulders will vacate and leave the dinosaurs on their own.

Heh, if I had any reason to get chased down by Baliff's I'd doubt they'd let me into the country.  Fortunately I won the biological lottery (white male) and assume I'm immune to such measures.  sad hey?

I would encourage the teachers of Alberta to give a full-year permission form to the parents which indicates that at any time, the class may discuss content that may include sexual orientation, sexuality, and religion.  It would be a blanket yearly form instead of a piecemeal form.  In light of a bad situation for the teachers, it would give the teachers the power to send certain students to another class or the library to complete independent work.  Teachers would not need to wait a day or two before discussing topics related to sexual orientation, sexuality, and religion.  Essentially, teachers would be informing the parents that their classrooms are "world inclusive" where no issue will be denied discussion based on sexual orientation, sex, religion, race, ethnicity, disability, and others.

Believe me, teachers have a great sense of judgement in determining age-appropriate content for the classroom.

For example, in the lower grades, students could explain whether or not boys should wear pink clothes.  Are there games and jobs for boys and girls?  Is it OK for boys to participate in ballet?  Girls in hockey?  Who is in your family?  The word "gay" may be expressed in classroom discussions.

In the higher grades, classes can discuss issues that deal with bullying and perceived sexual orientation.  Why do people call others "faggots?"  In spite of what some right-wingers may think about indoctrination, the focus of discussion would be to get students to think critically and express their views with depth--not to arrive at a correct answer.  For example, I personally don't care if a student supports or opposes gay marriage.  I want to assess and evaluate the students on how well they express their arguments in support or opposition.

Back to the Alberta teachers:

Get a blanket year-long permission form instead of piecemeal forms every time a teacher wishes to discuss sexual orientation, sexuality, and religion.  Place some posters in the classroom showing k.d. lang and the Dalai Lama reading books.  Have signs in the classroom stating, "We do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, sex, religion, race, disability, and other categories."

Maybe a modest amendment to the legislation could be considered?

Before any Alberta parents mention religion, sex, or science to their children, they would be required to provide a 90-day advance notice to the teachers' union, which would enjoy a veto power.

It's harsh, but it's the lesser of evils.

This is fucky. Totally and completely rednecky hillbilly fucky. I have told my kids to put their hands up every single time the word god comes up in everyday classroom discussion, and to ask to please be excused. This is Alberta, it will happen a lot. I intend to complain each and every time some fekking guest speaker asks my child to offer up a little prayer or thank god for this that or some such fucky thing. I will personally show up this year to stop those freaky gideons at the door, and will knock all those crappy free bibles out of their hands. I am going to write a letter to the editor whenever that godawful rackety fucking christian rap duo show up to play for our kids (my kids hate it anyways), I can now ask that they be excused on religious grounds instead of just good musical judgement. And dog help them if they even try one teeny eeny tiny little bit to give any fucking credence whatsoever in any matter shape or form to the whole creationism fable......the cons better be prepared to make this "amendment" fit both sides. Then in three years when the cons get another bigass majority here, I am packing the uhaul and going home to BC.

Oh I have room! :D

I wonder if what these religious cretins are so afraid of is if their children are well educated, they may end up teaching their parents?

What ignorant people are afraid of is that the darkness (ignorance) of their world views are dispelled by the light of logic, science, information, knowledge and wisdom.

Don't you think, my friends?

"Culture" and "education" battle it out in Alberta:

Education minister wants Alberta parents' rights law delayed

...and education clearly loses to the fascist KKKulture of Albertan KKKonservatism.

KKKoming soon to a province near you.