In Alberta, you can’t have both

Update: read this post by Dave Cournoyer, interesting insight.

I find it interesting that in Alberta the religious right (and I do believe that the members of the PC caucus I am referring to would be comfortable with that label) have the influence to put in place Bill 44 (changes to the Human Rights Act of Alberta – see 11.1), but no one is speaking up for parents who want the freedom and the right to educate their children without religious influence.

This story in the G&M highlights some of the challenges our democracy faces in Alberta. A few very powerful members of a large governing party have the power to put in place a very unpopular piece of legislation. Yet, there is not mechanism, politically or bureaucratically to give the same freedoms, the same power of choice to group of parents who simply desire the right to choose.

Currently, their only choice is to keep their children enrolled in the catholic school system, move out of their community, or home school. For many parents, home schooling is not an option. Just as moving shouldn’t have to be the only alternative.

Where are the MLA’s to protect these parents rights? Just as parents can pull their kids out of class at the hint of discussion of sexuality, shouldn’t these parents be able to enroll their children in a secular educational program in their community?


3 thoughts on “In Alberta, you can’t have both

  1. FACLC says:

    If the “religious right” had such power vis a vis Bill 44, why does that same bill make criticism of sodomists forbidden? They couldn’t have kept THAT out with all their influence?

  2. Jenn Prosser says:

    While Bill 44 did limit the educational freedom teachers have in Alberta, it did also bring our provinces human rights code up to date.

    Bill 44 actually does not mention the act of sodomy (which is an act and not a lifestyle per say) but does legislate against discrimination based on sexual orientation. So, now that it is clear that their “influence” allowed all Albertans to feel safe that their sexual orientation does not define where they work, and giving a sense of security knowing if they are persecuted for being gay it will be prosecuted under the law.

    Interesting you used the term “sodomists”, FACLC. Does this include all heterosexual individuals who partake in anal sexual acts as well? Does this include an accidental touching, and where exactly would you say it is not ok, and is ok? Full on penetration?

    No, I don’t think Bill 44 mentions anything about anyone’s right to enjoy sex. Thanks for pointing THAT out.

    • FACLC says:

      Technically any change of code with a newer date on it “brings the code up to date”. We could revoke all of those disgusting changes tomorrow, and it could be (rightfully) celebrated as “bringing our code up to date”.

      Again, this “influence” didn’t seem to be able to do what any half-second of thinking would have told you a “social conservative” would have required of legislation, not ban social conservative opinions. Seems to be that’s a pretty quick litmus test: does the bill permit people in schools to speak out against uranists or not? You can look up the answer to the question, no need to try to answer knee-jerk without looking first. When will this “orientation” get any protection from persecution? We’ve already seen illegitimate lifestyle choices get unnecessary protection, how about a legitimate one for a change? Just to keep things fresh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: