OrphanPip Wrote:I think there is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Catholic school, these schools are public schools and are attended by many non-Catholics. Alberta is one of the few provinces in Canada that still maintains separate protestant and Catholic school boards, which is a legacy of the dual French and British settler history of the region. Thus, the state has to take into consideration secular concerns of those serviced by Catholic school boards, which are under the public education ministry's control. Since they are under provincial control they must satisfy provincial curriculum standards, which includes protections against discriminating against gays in the education standards. Gay students attend these schools, they often have limited choice about where they attend school, and they deserve not to be discriminated against by a state sponsored curriculum.
Well, that as quaint bit of regionalism for you . . . something like having Bishops in the House of Lords.
OrphanPip Wrote:Homeschoolers are required to meet curriculum standards for their education to be recognized as complete.
I should hope so, there would be a great deal of negligence if they were not required to meet curriculum standards.
OrphanPip Wrote:The law also does not say you can't teach homosexuality is a sin, it just says that you can't incite hate or discriminate against homosexuals within the curriculum.
That certainly makes a difference. The article does not state that. Do you have a link for the original wording of the Act. And are you sure that the idea of sin would not be construed as being under one of those categories?
OrphanPip Wrote:We are acting like the state should be neutral on all elements that involve a choice. But that is nonsense, the state is never neutral on any of these issues.
No, as has always been true in every scenario, one gives up freedom for security. When the state acts to limit choice, you give up that liberty. It is incumbent upon the citizens to determine what is an allowable limitation on their freedoms. To me, this would be unacceptable. A freedom gained by picking my neighbor's pocket is no freedom at all.
OrphanPip Wrote:The state should intervene to promote a more just and cohesive society by promoting inclusive education and prohibiting discrimination.
It is a strange kind of inclusiveness that excludes those who stand in our opposition. Some would call that discriminatory.
Anyway, this is sure to go to court. It will be interesting to see how the Canadian Judiciary tries to thread this needle. I will be sure to follow it.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
The wording in the Bill is:
16 All courses or programs of study offered and instructional
materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and
heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect
for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act
Edit: Also, to put this into perspective, the only people upset about this are a small amount of reactionary wingnuts digging to find a reason to act like they are being persecuted, despite this provision likely having no effect at all on how they will teach their children. Hell, it was tabled and passed by the most conservative government in Canada.
•
OrphanPip Wrote:... We are acting like the state should be neutral on all elements that involve a choice. But that is nonsense, the state is never neutral on any of these issues. The state should intervene to promote a more just and cohesive society by promoting inclusive education and prohibiting discrimination ... 
If we accept the gay population has been a part of humanity since the beginning why should we be discriminated against?
In the US and Canada
Human rights issues were addressed way back in the 60"s and it was a long bitter fight. Street riots and demonstrations, this stuff was HARD won. This led to affirmative action things like equal housing, employment, inter racial marriage. The fight for inter racial marriage is the same as gay marriage.
I hope affirmative action NEVER goes away because its job is not done. Homosexuality was a disease until the early 70's. we missed the boat.
the arguments you see now against gay marriage and gay bashing were the same as what people used in the 60's.
•
OrphanPip Wrote:The wording in the Bill is:
All courses or programs of study offered and instructional
materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and
heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect
for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act
Edit: Also, to put this into perspective, the only people upset about this are a small amount of reactionary wingnuts digging to find a reason to act like they are being persecuted, despite this provision likely having no effect at all on how they will teach their children. Hell, it was tabled and passed by the most conservative government in Canada.
I am aware that Alberta is at least one of the most conservative Provinces of Canada. This is interesting.
Alberta Human Rights Act:
"inalianable rights"-American
"her majesty"-British
How has article three under the Code of Conduct of the Alberta Human Right's Act been construed? This is all very interesting. The way this is written, depending on how one defined one or two words (slight variances with the same root understanding), it could make quite a difference in what is understood as free expression as a whole, not just in education curriculum either.
Certainly, the "reactionary wingnuts" have some reason for concern. The language in both of these are so vague, unless I am missing where the legislature defined certain terms, it could be construed as almost anything. This really will be a matter of the Judiciary threading the needle on this topic.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf
•
pellaz Wrote:
I hope affirmative action NEVER goes away because its job is not done.
So, you hope that its job is never done?
•
pellaz Wrote:
Human rights issues were addressed way back in the 60"s and it was a long bitter fight. Street riots and demonstrations, this stuff was HARD won. This led to affirmative action things like equal housing, employment, inter racial marriage. The fight for inter racial marriage is the same as gay marriage.
None of those things you listed are "affirmative action" things.
•
Inchante Wrote:So, you hope that its job is never done? no you got the terms reversed 
•
Inchante Wrote:None of those things you listed are "affirmative action" things. for your reference:
affirmative action
•
Inchante Wrote:Certainly, the "reactionary wingnuts" have some reason for concern. The language in both of these are so vague, unless I am missing where the legislature defined certain terms, it could be construed as almost anything. This really will be a matter of the Judiciary threading the needle on this topic.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf
No it is quite clear, the first part is a restatement of the multiculturalism act, which is reinforced in the charter, and the second part is merely stating that the curriculum must conform to the requirements of the Charter. Restrictions on curriculum to conform to anti-discrimination legislation have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
There is no tradition of ringing out every little ambiguity of language found in the charter. The intention is already well established and elaborated on in the legal and political literature.
•
This means that other sins also have to be taught as OK. Such as divorcees who are adulterers, and the men who have relations with their wife, even sleep in their wife's bed when its that time of the month (it is a sin you see).
All of those pork eaters (a huge majority eat pork, they are going to hell). Now have to be accepted and we have to teach our children that although they eat unclean flesh we must accept them and tolerate them and that nasty behavior.
The real problem here is that people are picking and choosing what parts of the bible they want to use as a weapon against others, instead of actually applying it fully and completely in their own life.
Homosexuality and eating shell fish and pork and wearing clothing made of poly/cotton blends are on the same level of sin. When is the last time a christian organization has rallied at a funeral with signs saying 'Got Hates Pork Eaters'?
While most if not nearly all Christians would think this is ridiculous, many have no real issue with teaching that homosexuality is abomination - one that we stick to while we have disregarded the other 100+ abominations of Leviticus.
This is really no different than laws abolishing Slavery - While the bible stand by slavery (Even Jesus didn't condemn that), no one in the western world would dare dream to teach their children that invading a neighboring nation to get slaves is ok.
•
|
