Terahertz

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.

Related posts:

1. AB Tories selectively read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2. Bill 44 Responses
3. The Journal on private school funding
4. The Journal speaks on private schools
5. Sunday News Briefs