Monthly Archives: May 2009

The evolution of so-called “parental rights”

Alberta, Conservatives, Links, Politics, Secularism

Alberta is set to enact “parental rights” into law today, at the expense of their children’s more fundamental right to education, with Bill 44, the amendments to the Alberta Human Rights Act.

But where did these notions come from? The Alberta Conservatives are not known for being creative with respect to policy, preferring incremental steps rather than sweeping revolutions. So where’s the push coming from to enact rights that are supposedly protected under the current School Act in Human Rights Legislation?

The ideas of parental rights over education are nothing new. In the mid to late 1990s many States, under pressure from the Religious Right, held constitutional amendment initiatives that would enshrine things ominously similar to what is being proposed here in Alberta.

In 1996, Colorado narrowly (57:43%) defeated a proposed amendment that would have stated:

The rights of parents to control the upbringing, discipline, education, and values of their children shall not be abridged.

While this is a bit stronger with words like “discipline” and “values” included, it comes very similar desires.

The 1996 initiative was proposed by various Conservative Christian groups, which united behind “Of The People” and included the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Coincidentally to our situation here, it is quoted that from 1994 to 1997 about half of the states in the US have enacted these “rights,” however Colorado was the first to put it to the people. The Guttmacher Institute article suggests that these measures are often put forth in “seemingly innocuous language.” That sounds familiar to the innocuous Bill 44 right?

So it’s clear that the Religious Right has thought of these issues before and pushed for them in the States. But where are the Canadian Evangelicals and Canadian Religious Right on this issue?

Let’s see what Focus on the Family’s Canadian wing has to say about “How to Make Changes in the Public School System” in 2003:

There has been a new movement in the last few years that is best described as ‘opt in’ schooling. In these schools (such as ‘Fundamental’ schools, ‘Back to Basics’, ‘Traditional Education’, ‘Charter Schools’, etc) the parents are consulted on what the school will stand for and teach, and the school will not teach what the parents do not agree to (do not ‘opt in’ to) have taught in the school.

…

3. Continue to opt your child out of classes of which you do not approve.

…

4. Push your trustee to approve more ‘opt in’ schools in your district, or if this is not an option, elect new trustees.

…

5. Push your provincial MLA/MPP/MNA and Minister of Education to promote legislation that would allow for ‘opt in’ schooling in your province.

They reference Alberta’s “Bill 16″ as a good example of progress. By the date of the article I assume this refers to the 2001 Bill 16 (since our province restarts the numbering every year), the “School Amendment Act” which set out to:

Sponsored by Learning Minister Lyle Oberg, Bill 16 clarifies the process for establishing charter schools and removes the ability of school boards to establish them; furthers the move to coterminous public and separate school board boundaries; ensures public and separate school supporters are assessed the same property tax rates; and abolishes the School Buildings Board, leaving final decisions on new school facilities in the hands of the ministers of learning and infrastructure.

Or in laymen terms, basically entrench a few more powers in the Minister of Education and make it easier for religious separate schools to be established.

Focus on the Family is diverting a lot of their efforts toward their vision of “education” in Canada, and even titles a whole section of their website “Homosexuality in Education,” as though we truly do have “Gay 101” in schools already.

The best explanation we have so far of who proposed this legislation in Alberta comes from an exchange in the Legislature between NDP Leader Brian Mason and the Bill’s sponsor, Lindsay Blackett:

Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The government proposes adding new human rights for Alberta children, including the right to not learn about sexuality, sexual orientation, or religion, which according to the Premier includes evolution. It’s an interesting list, considering that it could have included the creation of rights for disabled students or protection against bullying. Obviously, someone has been urging this government to create this specific list of rights. Can the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit tell the House what groups have been urging the government to protect so called parental rights?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’d be my pleasure. One such group was a group of Alberta faith leaders that I met with a little over a year ago. They include Bishop Fred Henry; Reverend Tim Seim, the president of the Alberta Church Executive Fellowship; Syed Soharwardy, the president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada; Reverend Glen Johnson, chair of Synod Council, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; Kulwant Dhillon, adviser to president, Dashmesh Culture Centre, the Sikh temple; Majeed Ahmad, national vice-president, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; Reverend Jonathan Gibson, chairman, Calgary and southern Alberta chapter, Anglican Essentials Canada . . .

Mr. Mason: Will the minister confirm that each one of those individuals and groups that he has named urged the government to create these categories of rights in the human rights act?

Mr. Blackett: Actually, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Calgary Herald today, Bishop Fred Henry, the spokesman for the group, has said that they had met with us and that they were disappointed that we didn’t go with further recommendations, not only parental rights, not as far as they wanted to go. They wanted us to amend many other such things, and our caucus, when we looked at it, decided that in the best interests of Albertans we would go forward with the parental rights portion of the human rights bill because we believe in parental rights, we believe in family values, and we believe in the best interests of Albertans.

Mr. Mason: That remains to be seen. However, the minister did not answer the question. He quoted from a newspaper article quoting one person, being Bishop Henry. The question I asked and that I would like an answer for is whether or not the minister is claiming that every one of those groups and individuals he named supports the changes that he is proposing.

Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, I said that they don’t support that because they believe that we didn’t go far enough. Now, Bishop Henry has been on the record. I’d be glad to give those names. The hon. member can contact them and ask them himself if they believe in that or not. [emphasis added]

Well, we can rest a little easier perhaps, knowing that the Tories aren’t going far enough for some faith leaders, but that also could be because of the aforementioned incremental steps this government likes to take.

It seems too late to stop this Bill, but isn’t it odd we still don’t know who’s really sponsoring it? Perhaps one day we’ll have some sort of registry for those who wish to lobby the government.

Get over it: Social Media is not going to change the world

Alberta, BC, Conservatives, Media, Politics

BC STV did everything right online. They had YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, legions of bloggers, and a flashy website to explain it all.

They won the online polls before the election even started.

Last night, dozens stayed up through the night to Twitter the debate on #Bill44. Some PC backbench MLAs even got on Twitter later in the evening and debated a few citizens.

But it made no difference, despite the glorious feelings of self-satisfaction at having vented with other techno-political junkies until late hours in the night.

The teachers of the ATA had far more influence over the government with their policy positions than every single person online.

Meanwhile, realizing that Social Media does have a strategic use, the same Conservative government that is ignoring it and the people there are readily giving citizens a new pseudo-forum to deposit their suggestions into.

Only the reality is that no one reads your suggestions.

AB Tory suggestion-box

Social media is not going to change the world. Host all the Civic/Change/Transit/etc. Camps you want, and it won’t make a world of difference.

Perhaps I’m just jaded, but I’m increasingly seeing a lot of deluded egos in this “so-called” revolution, which I believe is more of just a new form of underground discussion.

But feel free to prove me wrong. (Oh, and like Obama needed to Twitter to win against the McCain/Palin ticket)

(un)Inspiring Education, or using social media to give the illusion of input

Alberta, Conservatives, Edmonton, Links, Media, Politics, School

With the exception of Bill 44, a great buzz and hope has been over the blogosphere that Minister Hancock’s “Inspiring Education” plan would generate some meaningful input from the Albertan public into the future of education in this province.

With a mission statement to:

What are your hopes, dreams and aspirations? For your children and grandchildren? If we are to be successful individually and collectively as a province, we need to consider how to help all Albertans realize their potential. Inspiring Education: A Dialogue with Albertans is an opportunity to shape the future of education in Alberta and we want to hear your perspective. Tell us your story. Share your opinions. Join the conversation!

The discussions will be based on five key values – opportunity, fairness, citizenship, choice and diversity – which are critical to the success of Alberta’s education system. Inspiring Education seeks ideas, suggestions and points of view from all parts of our province, from large cities to remote and rural communities; from inner-city neighbourhoods to expanding suburbs; from towns and cities experiencing the pressures of rapid growth to those dealing with the challenges of declining population.

Inspiring Education is different from a public consultation. It’s a dialogue – an exchange of ideas to change each other’s thinking about what education is and what education means. It’s about looking to the future and deciding what education in Alberta should be in twenty years. No matter who you are or where you live in Alberta, we invite you to listen and contribute to the conversation. One of the primary goals is to reach a clear understanding of what it will mean to be an educated Albertan 20 years from now. To reach that goal we need everyone’s voice.

Sounds exciting right? Who doesn’t want to have a say in the next 20 years of education in this province.

With a website of videos and media, a blog, and a twitter account, the only thing missing for a full “Web 2.0″ presence is Facebook. In the community they’re holding forums at each major city.

Clearly, this must be a meaningful dialogue that can only result in substantial policy documents.

So what does the dialogue look like? We can use their convenient “Community Conversation Kit” and a story (I received by email, but was given permission to republish) from Dr. Jim Linville, who frustratingly sat through an entire session in Lethbridge (his relevant quotes on each session will be in bold).

So let’s analyze the basic structure of the “3-hour model”:

  1. Introductions by Facilitator (10 min)

    2. This portion is supposed to outline the goals of InspiringEd, and emphasizes the following rules:

    • Everyone has wisdom.
    • We need everyone’s wisdom for the wisest result.
    • There are no wrong answers.
    • The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
    • Everyone will hear others and be heard.

    This included the usual greetings and BS and a video “Welcome” from the minister of education. And a video of some Japanese (actually mostly white folk) drum group from Edmonton playing some thing called “Harmony”. On drums. I wonder if the irony was noticed by anyone else. Anyway, the guy introduced the video with a 10 minute BS spiel about drums, heartbeats, healing, spirituality, and associated touchy feeling crap. After the video everyone (but me) applauded.
    The Outcomes of the whole process was to be: 1) The awareness of the importance of education, especially for a prosperous society. 2) Development of a long term vision for education, 3) And the development of a policy framework governing the goals for the delivery of education.
    Sounds pretty specific and good, eh? Well, then they showed another fucking video with more tear-jerking kids are our future crap.

  2. Table Introductions (10 minutes)

    3. Then we had to talk to our neighbor for 10 minutes and then introduce him/her to the rest of the people at the table.

  3. Table Activity: Picture Activity on Past and Future Learning (20 minutes)

    4. Then we had a section called “Past Learning–Its place in our lives” Now, this was NOT a discussion on the history of education or education policy in Alberta. No, not even close. It was “all about us”. So, the facilitator got a big chart and had us talk about “how” and “where” we learned what we know. Did you know that some people have learned things in classrooms? And from the news? And that some people have learned from their mistakes. Wow.
    All of these things were put on the big chart by the facilitator and duly noted by the note taker.

    Then there was the section called “The Beginning of the Story for Your Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations for the Next 20 Years”.
    OK, at this point we get to say what we thing students need to know, right? WRONGO! WE GOT TO LOOK AT BIG 8×10 GLOSSY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH NUMBERS AND TITLES ON THE BACK OF EACH ONE, AND TELL THE GROUP HOW THESE MADE US FEEL ABOUT EDUCATION.

    That is right, kiddies, we had to sort through a whole pile of photos: Everyone got to pick 2, that told the “story” of our own education… but some people picked 3 (bastards). Let’s see, there was a picture of a flower, a boy playing a guitar, 2 kids on a beach, kids finger painting on a wall. A group of people fixing dinner, a newly hatched baby chicken, pyramids, that kind of thing. No slinky babes (bastards).

    The jargon, “accomplishment”, “hopes” “achieving”, “leadership” “victory” “dreams” etc etc were bandied about.

  4. Table Activity (Optional): Creating and Sharing Collective Stories about Learning (10-20 minutes)

    5. After coffee, we had to make a synthesis out of all the selected pictures, to make, as the agenda said, “Your Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations – A Collective Story”. ??? Of course, by this time, the whole affair was reduced to finding the right abstract buzzwords that could link the different pictures. I’ll bet you didn’t know that a picture of baby chicken with the remains of its egg nearby represents the same frickin’ thing as the frinkin’ pyramids, did you. Bet you didn’t want to know. And I bet you didn’t want to know your tax money was going to pay to find out.

    Then we got to see the pictures 2 other tables had and then compare buzzwords (they were much the same).

Dr. Jim’s group then broke for lunch, and while I assume he followed a similar format to the rest of the 3-hour model, he describes it fairly bleakly:

We were promised that after lunch more detailed and practical discussion would take place, which is the only reason I went back, but the facilitator made sure this didn’t happen. There was another videos and this actually had some promise but nothing was made of it. In the video, a U of C education prof linked the old school system to the need to mass produce people for a newly industrialized society. Rather than just give information, education today must help students evaluate mass produced information. Very interesting. But nothing came of it. Another guy said we have to rethink the meritocracy of the old system (new forms of assessing learning etc). Again, lots of fodder for thought, but again, the fascilitator kept everyone well away from specifics (which may have ended up criticizing the government, I was beginning to suspect). The third person on the video was a big advocate of NGOs sharing the burden of education. Lots for me to get pissed off about this, as she would have had every half brained self-interest group being equally involved in public education. Again nothing happened.

Final words from Dr. Jim:

At some point the facilitator/obstacle-ator) wanted to know what we missed talking about, and I mentioned curriculum, but no one wanted to talk about that and we were shepherded away from that anyway.

Looking through the InspiringEd website, it’s easy to be impressed at first. But digging through, with some actual effort, I have to ask: Where is the substance? Where is the actual commitment to look at anything beyond the bare minimum in buzz words?

And so it starts to dawn on me: Social media, while supposedly powerful (other than supposedly electing Obama in the USA, what public policy has social media actually influenced), may in fact be more likely yet another tool that can be used by powers that be to convince the populace it has input in governance.

Think about it: if Alberta Education gave a shit about your opinion for anything that matters, wouldn’t you have heard about Bill 44′s controversial provisions before they were put before the Legislature (or any number of other controversial bills that this provincial government has put forward)?

Just because the internet is flashy doesn’t mean you shouldn’t question it.

Why is okay to neglect children’s rights?

Alberta, Conservatives, Politics, Secularism

Parents need their rights, the government of Alberta argues.

Didn’t men, a hundred years ago, demand laws to respect their “rights” to keep women at home cleaning?

Didn’t slave-owners call for rights to protect their “property” and do with as they pleased?

Why are we willing to grant parents the “right” to keep their children ignorant?

Since when was knowledge something we wanted to protect people from?

Perhaps once they pass Bill 44 they can start clearing out the child labour laws so parents can have the “right” to put their children to work…

Oh wait, we already let children aged 12 work.

Alberta's workforce. Image from: www.thedaynursery.com/News6.htm

The future Alberta workforce. Image from: www.thedaynursery.com/News6.htm

No wonder young adults don’t vote, they’ve become total wage-slaves after 6 years of working menial jobs and can’t fathom change.

RIP Gilbert Bouchard

Alberta, Atheism, Edmonton, Links, Media, UofA Atheists and Agnostics

Gilbert Bouchard, who I knew as a local Unitarian and Edmonton Journal writer, had been missing for a few weeks after being depressed, and now his body has turned up in the North Saskatchewan River.

Gilbert wrote the first article about the UofA Atheists and Agnostics for the Edmonton Journal’s online “Ed” magazine, which quickly became one of their most lively discussions and was subsequently published in the print Journal.

Gilbert touched many lives in Edmonton, as witnessed by the over 700 members who’ve joined the memorial Facebook group dedicated to him.

Services honouring his life will take place at the Unitarian Church of Edmonton in the near future.

Gilbert will be missed by all who knew him.

AB Tories selectively read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Alberta, Conservatives, Links, Media, Politics, Religion, School

From the United Nations 60-year old Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

From Dave Hancock, Alberta’s Minister of Education (who is doing an amazing job of responding personally to everyone who comments on his Blog, I wish more politicians were as open):

It has been defended on the basis that these parental rights are a very simple expression of the rights of parents expressed in the UN Declaration on the subject and therefore a fittting inclusion in the HRA. [emphasis added]

Okay, so you’re trying to get #3 there, but what about bullets #1 and #2?

University surely isn’t equally accessible, solely on the basis of merit in Alberta (or much of Canada) with average tuition in the province approaching $5000 per year, with Klein and Stelmach rallying through the 90s which saw a 275% increase from 91-06 (and nearly quadruple increase for international students). Provinces like Quebec, Newfoundland and Manitoba, meanwhile, all boast tuitions of under $3500.

It’s up to interpretation if elementary education is “free” in Alberta. Many districts charge school fees to do anything beyond the bare-bones curriculum, but it’s rare that you can “opt-out” of these fees. Further, many districts have a transportation or busing fee to get rural children to and from school. But everyone does have “a right to education,” so perhaps we could be doing a little bit better here as a province.

Now, Bill 44′s opt-out provisions, which vaguely fall under the third bullet (but I’ll elaborate on that shortly), might seem to contradict that second point. If children are being “opted out” of education about other cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, then in what way does that “promote understanding, tolerance and friendship?” One might argue that Bill 44 actually accosts the Declaration rather than submits to it.

Finally, does giving parents the right to opt their children out of “subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation” fall in line with the right for parents “to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children?”

The way I read the Declaration isn’t that parents have the right to keep their children ignorant, but that they can choose what manner their children learn about topics. The topics will remain their to be learnt whether the parent likes it or not. Just because you don’t want your children to learn that Canada was founded by Christians or that now same-sex couples can marry one another, doesn’t mean your child doesn’t have a right to learn such things.

Perhaps an update to Bill 44 (or preferably the School Act since Bill 44 also introduces the infamous Human Rights Tribunals) would require from parents notification of how and where children who are opted out will be alternatively educated, thereby protecting the rights of the child to be educated.

But Bill 44 was never designed to protect children from ignorance.

Pentecostal Chaplain supports secularism

Atheism, Links, Media, Personal, Politics, Religion, School, Secularism

I missed the article that Carleton University’s Charlatan had written about my stance on the Iron Ring, but it has some good quotes.

Specifically, Matthew Glombick, our campus’s Pentecostal (think Jesus Camp Christians) Chaplain, had the following to say about both the convocation charge and the Iron Ring Obligation:

Matthew Glombick, U of A Pentecostal chaplain, said the rewording of the charge makes it more specific and meaningful.

“The term ‘glory of God’ can be somewhat vague and ambiguous for people with a limited religious background,” he said of the old convocation speech.

As the university’s chaplain, he said university events are already a largely secular affair. “Many of the students involved do not seem to have a strong, specific religious orientation, and the existing religious orientations among students are varied,” Glombick said.

Glombick said he supports Bushfield’s decision not to sign the obligation and is in favour of altering the language in certain ceremonies to include a diverse range of beliefs.

“It only seems fair that charges and obligations like the one signed by engineers reflect the values of the majority of those signing them,” he said.

Secularism is not specific to atheists and humanists, it’s a system that ensures equal and fair treatment of all participants in a ceremony.

I’m not trying to impose atheistic beliefs on others, and it’s good to see others get it.

It’s too bad Mr. Glombick wasn’t one of the chaplains who spoke before the General Faculties Council and advocated for continuing religiosity in the ceremonies.

Bill 44 Responses

Alberta, Conservatives, NDP, Politics, Religion

On May 7 I sent out a form letter from the Centre for Inquiry Calgary regarding Bill 44′s attempt to stifle classroom discussion by requiring teachers to provide advance notice of teaching about religious topics (which has been hinted will include sexual orientation for sure and possibly evolution as well).

Here’s the form letter:

I am writing to express my deep concern about planned amendments to Alberta’s human rights legislation which would give parents the right to opt their children out of school lessons that deal explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.

Parents already have the ability to pull their children out of sex education so there is absolutely no need to enshrine this into human rights legislation.

The right to pull children out of a classroom due to religious objections is fraught with potential problems and unintended consequences. Topics in science class—such as evolution—could very well trigger religious objections, prompting a parent to shelter children from fundamental parts of the curriculum. Evolution is not the only science topic at risk. Any topic that contradicts a particular religious belief could be affected—astronomy, geology, dinosaurs, ice ages and so on. To make matters worse, the provision could affect other school subjects including literature and history.

This opt-out provision is a very real threat to the rights of children to a good education. Since all kinds of subjects could prompt parental objections on religious grounds, the quality of children’s education could suffer greatly.

By all accounts, the proposed opt-out provision is vague, poorly thought-out, and has the potential to be very difficult and costly for schools to administer. For every parental objection, human rights cases could be brought against teachers or school boards for failing to notify parents about any lesson that violates the opt-out provision. Teachers, schools and school boards do not need this unnecessary burden on their already strained financial and human resources.

In closing, I strongly urge the Alberta government to remove the parental opt-out provision from Bill 44.

I sent it to my MLA (Gene Zwodesky for Edmonton-Mill Creek), as well as Ministers Hancock (Education) and Blackett (Culture and Community Spirit, who introduced the bill), as well as the party leaders (Stelmach, Swann and Mason).

The next day I had already received a reply from NDP Leader Brian Mason’s office stating:

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns over Bill 44.

This bill as it stands has the capability to prevent children from learning about topics such as evolution as part of their public school curriculum. Moreover, this bill threatens teachers who bring up topics like sexuality in teachable moments; such as the prevention of school-yard bullying. If teachers do they can be hauled in front of the Human Rights Commission. We feel this is the wrong direction for the province and is something many Albertans do not want to see happen.

Mr. Mason is also concerned that preventing a science-based education will close doors to higher learning and affect our students’ acceptance into Colleges and Universities both in Canada and worldwide. This blatant filtering of public education by the Alberta government is an attack on a child’s right to an open and diverse education. Mr. Mason will continue to hold this government to account.

Below you will find a youtube link in which Brian questions Premier Stelmach on Bill 44 during Question Period:

Again, thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns, they will be relayed to Mr. Mason.

Not bad for the party who’s done most of the vocal fighting against this bill.

Today I finally received a response from the Liberals, signed by Dr. Swann himself:

Dear Ian Bushfield,

Thank you for your letter regarding Bill 44 – The Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multicultural Amendment Act 2009. My colleagues and I in Alberta’s Official Opposition have received many letters on this controversial bill and it is my privilege to respond to your concerns.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus is extremely concerned with the potential ramifications of Bill 44. As this bill will give parents the right to remove their children from classes that deal with sexual orientation or with religion, many Albertans have expressed concerns that children may be pulled from classes dealing with concepts such as evolution. In addition, many of Alberta’s teachers are worried that they may be brought before a human rights tribunal should a parent lodge a complaint against them. Minister Blackett, Minister for Culture and Community Spirit, has commented that concerns and objections raised regarding the possible ramifications of the parental opt-out clause in Bill 44 were “not the intent” of the legislation. We in the Alberta Liberal Caucus find this argument ridiculous – the unintended consequences of legislation are just as real and important as the intended consequences.

As Alberta’s Official Opposition, the Alberta Liberal Caucus has been actively questioning the Stelmach Administration on Bill 44 (I have included several recent excerpts from Question Period with this letter). Minister Blackett has stated that including sexual orientation as an illegal ground of discrimination under Alberta’s Human Rights Legislation in Bill 44 was an appeal to the ‘left’ and the parental opt-out clause was an appeal to the ‘right’. Human rights should not be a trade-off between ideological groups.

The Stelmach Administration consulted with Christian groups and lobbyists in forming this bill but did not consult with the Alberta Teacher’s Association. This is concerning. Government is not listening to teachers on legislation that will be affecting the way that they can teach Alberta’s children. The Alberta Teacher’s Association has asked for Minister Blackett to completely remove section 11.1 of Bill 44 (the parental opt-out clause). The Alberta Liberal Caucus will be putting forward amendments to remove section 11.1 from Bill 44.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus is listening to Albertans. We would like permission to table your letter in the Legislature. This will allow us to present your views on Bill 44 to the Premier and his government in public and on the record. Thank you again for writing and for giving us the opportunity to represent you in the Legislature. Letters such as yours help us to be more effective as Alberta’s Official Opposition.

Sincerely,

Dr. David Swann

Unfortunately, he failed to provide those debate quotes (hopefully by accident and not because they didn’t happen…)

Either way, I’m glad to see that the opposition was willing to respond. Unfortunately, the best I’ve seen from the government side has been Mr. Hancock’s dithering about why his caucus is making these moves on his blog (here, here, and here – note the unanimously negative comments).

I should note that I’ve not received a single press release on this issue from the Liberal caucus (I somehow got on their mailing list), despite it apparently mattering to them.

And finally, take the time to download, circulate, and submit the NDP’s petition to remove these absurd clauses from Bill 44 and limit the amendments to our Human Rights Code to those that were required a decade ago.

Girl guides make progress

Atheism, Media, Religion, Secularism

The Girl Guides of Canada have submitted a survey to their members to revise their “promise” (or pledge). The current one reads:

I promise to do my best,
To be true to myself, my God/faith* and Canada;
I will help others,
And accept the Guiding Law.

*Choose either the word God or the word faith according to your personal convictions.

They have proposed the following:

I promise to be true to myself, live the Guiding Law, and take action for a better world.

I promise to be true to myself, my community and Canada. I will help others and accept the Guiding Law.

Neither of the above.

Metro Toronto reports that:

Discussion began almost immediately on a Girl Guides Facebook page late last week after a survey on the promise arrived in the homes of Guiding leaders and families.

The debate, almost universally condemned the survey for containing no option to keep references to God or faith in the promise. [link added]

I wouldn’t say there’s a huge debate, or much about “universally condemning” anything. In fact their are only 26 posts by 12 people, of which eight are against the change, two would rather see the word belief instead of faith, one wants every Girl Guide to have their own Promise and one, the group’s creator and admin, is for the changes.

So good on the Guides for considering this change. Perhaps the next generation of Guides can be a bit more tolerant than their imposing parents.

Secular hypocrisy

Atheism, Links, Politics, Religion, Secularism

No, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Secular humanists in New Orleans recently got a Day of Reason proclaimed by their city council.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a minor bit of hypocrisy in getting civic governments to endorse your worldview while complaining about when they endorse the religious ones?

Sure, a “Day of Reason” may be mostly secular, or a-religious, but when the chair of the secular humanists there calls for the following:

Why can’t any atheist organization with a City Council at least ask for something like this?

You have to stop and catch yourself.

Yes, atheists, humanists, and secularists want religion out of government, but we cannot become hypocritical and instill our own values on governance.