About 200 people have e-mailed me about Bill 44, specifically Section 9 (the proposed s.11.1 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act). I cannot respond to each of them by blog except in a general sense, although I am responding to each directly. Many have responded viscerally to the media interpretation of the section, and continue to harp on the supposed support by the Premier that this will allow parents to opt out of class when evolution is taught. The Premier, the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit (who is the sponsor of the Bill) and myself as Minister of Education have all made it explicitly clear: the notice and opt out provisions refer specifically and explicitly to the teaching of religion and human sexuality and not to the teaching of the mandatory science, math, social studies, or other curriculum. This is not about a religious lens on any and all goings on in the classroom. This is about involving parents in two areas of particular and important interface between the values of society and the values of parent and family — sex and religion.
Colleen comments, "It seems to me a vast number of valid comments didn't make the screening process to be included and therefore weren't addresses by you". I can assure you that every comment that is about Bill 44 has been posted. Nothing is screened out, except spam offering services neither I nor any reader would wish to be connected with. This blog is not the same as my e-mail — which are essentially private communications by individual constituents, Albertans and others. As I noted above, those are responded to directly. (I am told that if no e-mail address is provided on the blog, a comment may bounce and we may not receive it. We have now indicated that an e-mail address is required, and further changes to the comments system will be forthcoming.)
Bill 44 offers an interesting study of the issues and obligations around public discourse, public policy making and law. Government has determined, through the usual extensive process to amend the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. The purpose pf the process primarily was and is to update the functional operation of the Human Rights Commission. Over the past few years it has become public sport to deride the role and function of the commission in Alberta, because of complaints made to it against Bishop Henry and Ezra Levant. Ezra has even written his book about it.
The reality is that the Commission plays an important role in our society providing an important source of correction and recourse in explicit cases of discrimination, and helping to determine on a situational basis the balance between competing values in society. Not everything is explicit and clear. Not everything can be codified. No matter how law is written, everyone will interpret it in their own best interest (or to realize their worst fears). The Commission then has a role not only in areas of discrimination (notwithstanding the calls for its abolishment and reliance on the Criminal Code) but also in assisting with that fine line between freedom of speech and protection of individuals from discrimination and hatred. We have a wonderfully cosmopolitan society in Alberta made up of people who claim heritage in all parts of the world. We have a diversity of religions, values and beliefs, social structure, sexuality and virtually every other factor both identifiable and non-identifiable. It is what makes Alberta so interesting and vibrant. We live together here in relative peace and harmony — not perfect, but better than any other place in the world. It is something of which we can be proud.
Much of the comment now both in response to my blog and in e-mail is concerned that teachers in classrooms engaged in spontaneous discussions, teachable moments will be stifled by this new section and the fear of running afoul of or being brought before the HRC.
Tracy, for example, expresses: "What many people don't realize is how incidental teachings will be stifled by sections of this bill. Some of the most important lessons my students and children have learned have occurred during discussions and debates that have emerged from a relatively 'non-controversial' lesson."
Sue writes: "How will Bill 44 restrict excellent teachers? How will it make them second-guess themselves and, even if only for a moment, wonder: Should I be sending home advance notices on this? Will someone think this is a Human Rights violation?"
I have clearly stated previously that that is not the intention of the Bill. In my remarks in the Legislature, I tried again to make this perfectly clear. We seem to be in a position that the broad interpretation which others have placed on the proposed section (that it will alow a religious lens to be placed against all classroom activities) has reached a broad audience, and the intention of the Bill is not being heard.
If nothing else, at least I am providing a clear record for those who may be charged with interpretation. This section is about the explicit and planned teaching of religion and human sexuality (which includes sexual orientation). These are rights which parents have now. The School Act (Section 50) provides for religious instruction and opting out. It does not require notice. This section goes beyond religious instruction to include instruction explicitly about religion and requires notice. It should not be read any more broadly than that. It does not include topics in science, social studies or math that any person may believe touches on religion. It is not about evolution. If a teacher plans to teach a unit about religion(s), notice would be required. If a teacher is teaching a unit in social studies and religion comes up or indeed is part of the historical or current fact structure (such as the Holocaust or Middle East wars), that is not teaching about religion and notice is not required.
Human Sexuality is now covered by a mandated policy. Schools are required to give notice to parents when certain portions of the Health and CALM curriculum — as they include human sexuality — are taught and parents are allowed to have their children opt out. Bill 44 merely puts this into law rather than policy.
Some are concerned that curriculum can change and policy can change. Putting it into law ensures that whatever the curriculum, when it comes to human sexuality, the parents' right to be involved in and if necessary take precedence is protected by law, and that an Education Minister cannot revise the policy to take that right away. The section is not invoked every time someone says the word "gay," or if discussion around health care raises issues of whether transgender surgery should be covered as an "essential medical service," but in a planned class about human sexuality whether the topic is currently in the curriculum or goes into a discussion of the range of sexualities not in the curriculum notice would be required as it is now. If the primary topic is the teaching of human sexuality notice is required. If you are reading Shakespeare and issues of sexuality emerge, well, they're not covered.
Ian raises three concerns:
- Why the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act and not the School Act? Has the School Act failed to protect religious sensitivities thus far? As noted above, the School Act contains no notice provision. It is also limited to religious instruction, and not instruction explicity and primarily about religion. I resisted changes to the School Act because we are in the process of a completed review coming after the Inspiring Education process and so thought that changes to the School Act should be done in that context. As the issue was raised in the context of the rights of parents in the HRA, the amendment was brought forward there. 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.
- Offer up some regulations or evidence that policies are being developed such that the HRC will not be abused. The HR process has always included a requirement that complainants follow resolution processses available to them before going to the Human Rights Commission. Additionally, the HRC has the ability to dismiss frivolous complaints or those that are not substantive. Most calls to the HRC do not end up in the complaints process. The primary purpose of Bill 44 is to provide changes to the administrative structure and operation of the HRC so that it wil be effective as an arbiter of true discrimination issues, and, where appropriate, help society with that line between free speech and hate speech. If Bill 44 is passed in its current form, I will definitely continue my work with the sponsoring Minister to determine the extent to which school processes and issues can be clarified and predetermined, so that this fear of "freeze-up" and being hauled before the commission can be eliminated.
- Why does government continually go against the will of the people? This is more of a viewpoint than a discussion of the Bill. I will respond by saying that government tries to be reflective of the will of the people. We have a very broad and strong caucus that represents all aspects of the province. Discussion can be very robust. Members bring not their own view of the world, but that of their constituents. I have some 70,000 constituents so obviously there will not be one viewpoint. I must put forward what I would believe to be a consensus, or if necessary a majority view, tempered with reasoned analysis of the merits of the differing positions based on the broader view of the province. No government willingly ignores the clear view of the people. Different people have different perspectives of that broad view.
I've addressed most of Kelly's concerns above. Clearly, dealing with a discipline issue is not teaching human sexuality. Neither is classroom discussion arising out of such incidents. Teen suicide is a very real concern and sexuality issues can be the root cause. Whatever our view of the world, we must not and cannot let a fear of the perceived implications of this section limit important discussion and teachable moments. It is not designed or intended to do that and we certainly cannot allow it to be interpreted by teachers or others in that way. The importance of understanding how we as individuals of different backgrounds, with different languages, cultures and religions — and yes, different sexualities — is important to development and maintenance of civil society. The bill is not "clearly meant to limit the protection and rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals." In fact, it includes explicitly the protection which was already there in law (ironic that many say, "Why put parental rights in law? They are already available and practiced," but government is criticized for not having moved faster to put sexual orientation rights explicitly in law when they have been written in for years). No matter how else you read this, it does not limit the rights of individuals. It merely acknowledges and places in law the existing right of parents with respect to explicit teaching of religion and sex.
Preston gets into what is actually happening in classrooms across the province today. Teachers are expected to teach sensitively in the area of controversial issues. Sometimes parents may have a concern about a particular teaching resource and discuss same with the teacher or principal. Hopefully it doesn't have to go any further. Those concerns are most often resolved with just the student affected, but in some cases, the class or the school is involved.
I am aware of a community which is very closeknit and religious, and where magic is not tolerated as a topic. The kids don't have Harry Potter in their lives — but they still get rich reading instruction and experience, and they are in public education. We as a society benefit from that inclusion and I believe the kids and their families also benefit. A modest adaptation to meet the will of the community is not a serious breach of the ideals of public education such that we should drive them out to private or non-accredited schools.
What we have to guard against in this and any process is the easy over-reaction. "To avoid any concern, ban the whole thing." Intelligent discussion of issues and objections is always warranted in this partnership we have between parents and the state to educate our children. Knee jerk reaction is not. Sometime we take the easy road. Implementation of the FOIP rules was vey interesting, with so many schools and jurisdictions reading the law to limit absolutely everything — that way they could not be accused of releasing anything they should not have released. One cannot live in fear of the rules. One must apply intelligent interpretation. Rules are for when brains run out.
I started with Colleen because I was very concerned with her unfounded and inaccurate allegation that I screened out any person's views. I will repeat — I do not and I will not. I am doing this blog because I believe in public discussion of public policy and I believe my main role as an MLA is to foment public discussion. Too often no one cares until a headline riles them up. It is my job to make sure the discussion is broader and deeper. We are all as citizens entitled to our view. I will not censure any view from my blog or anywhere simply because it differs from mine. I will not publish slander or foul language but those edits will be indicated. I will eliminate any spam trying to sell devices or pornography — which seems too prevalent.
Many e-mails I get on this topic and others start or end with the "electoral threat": "If you do not express my view I will get you at the ballot box." While I appreciate that that right is the essential element of our democracy, it cannot be my guiding factor in any discussion of public policy. We are a complex society. I do my best across a wide range of issues. I know some voters are single issue and others use a single issue to gauge a broader perspective, but to try to deal with a rationale discussion under threat of the ballot is in itself limiting expression and thought. So again, Colleen — I do not disregard or minimize any input that I receive on any issue. The expression of each and every constituent who cares to participate or whom I can provoke to particiapate is important.
In the end, I cannot agree with everyone and so have to choose how to go forward. And in the final analysis, once government, with the benefit of my input on behalf of constituents decides to proceed in a direction, then unless it is something that is so fundamental that I cannot do so, it is my responsibility to support it so that I can have an effective voice in the next discussion. The people who lose their voice in this process are the ones who are so dogmatic that they will only support this issues they win on. Public policy is informed discussion followed by the melding of viewpoint, hopefully into an intelligent solution (most of the time) or an inelegant compromise (sometimes). Either way, I will continue to serve to the best of my ability in a complex world and a complex process, until I believe I am no longer adding value, or the power of the ballot box believes I am no longer adding value.
Again, it is wonderful to have politicians who are willing to directly respond like this with we, the concerned public. I agree that it is frustrating that people only seem to get interested in politics when the headlines get sensational (remember how less than 40% of us voted last year, an issue for another minister though).
Regardless, my concern about your mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically article 26), is that it may be selective reading. The first right under that article is for every child to get an education. The third right is for the parents to choose the method of delivery of that education. Now, what measures are going to be put in place to ensure that a child, whose parent(s) opt them out of public education on certain topics (explicitly relating to religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation), will receive the education that they are entitled to, on those topics in some other form? Or does your caucus seek to protect the rights of parents to keep children ignorant (which is not in the UN Declaration)? It is the Universal Declaration after all.
You did mention that work is underway on the School Act, via Inspiring Education (a process I wholly commend you for, let us always seek to provide the best education we can as a province), so it still begs the question of why bring these rights in now and here if they are protected under the School Act already? If, as you suggest, there are some changes that your caucus would like to see (prior notification), then why not bring them in with upcoming amendments to the School Act? Better yet, propose the parental rights as a separate amendment to the School Act.
Finally, you note that over 200 people have emailed or contacted you, and most seem opposed to the changes. Who, and how many, people are in favour of these changes? While you're not the sponsoring member, I imagine as a senior cabinet member, you likely know what special interest groups are behind this push. Is this a Bill the majority of Albertans or your constituents want?
Thank you, Mr. Hancock, for spelling out some of the intentions behind the bill, but forgive me for focusing my worry on the vague provisions of the bill.
Elevating something from policy to law ought to require that terms be strictly defined, and failing explicit definitions of what entails, as the bill clearly states, "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion" may leave it open to legal or definitional challenges.
I appreciate that you mean it not to come into force except under cases of religious instruction or exercises, but the bill does not say that.
If it were, at the very least, amended to spell that out in the text of the bill, out would go a lot of criticism, for it would seem that notwithstanding the good intentions of the bill, even should evolution avoid such a treatment, a case could be made that the Holocaust "dealt explicitly" with religion and sexual orientation, based on the current wording.
I am not well-versed in the legislative practice here, but it does not seem, to the layman at least, that opinions entered into the Readings carry actual legislative weight. If they do, then my apologies.
The worry over evolution is a direct result of some of the legal wranglings south of the border, and even the mere chilling effects the Texas SBOE has had on textbook content. That there are people here willing to take advantage of legal definitions or loopholes is of some likelihood; our province holds two Creationism museums - one fixed and one traveling - as well as cases like the program in Cochrane's Mitford Middle School that is unlikely, given a survey of published Youth Earth Creationism materials, to be treating the science with truth. We have also had - recently - Biology 20 courses developed with the evolution unit completely optional.
A clarification of the bill's intentions without the equivalent legal clarification in the bill itself is not enough to allay worries.
Another question, if I may: what courses do we have in this province that would actually trip the "explicit religious" portion of the bill as you see it? In my own education, I cannot recall an encounter with such a subject.
If the bill actually covers entire courses, does not the bill also, as stated, essentially allow a student to sign up for a religious course, be exempt for the duration, and then garner complete credit for said course? It seems to me, and I do not mean this flippantly, that the "no academic penalty" clause would actually permit that. Should there not be a proviso against this sort of advantage-taking?
Thank you for taking the time to address some of our concerns, Mr. Hancock.
Regards,
- Ritchie Annand
It has been quite a long time since I have heard of a Legislative bill that is so ill conceived as this. It is not clear what the issue or problem is that it is attempting to address and it raises numerous issues relating to the ability of school administrators and teachers to do their job properly. I really don't think that this bill deserves lengthy discussion of the details. I have read many of the arguments on both sides and it seems clear that this is so poorly drafted that this bill should be defeated. If the undermining issue or problem can be clearly stated then we can take another run at this with a better strategy and approach. In the meantime let's not create problems where there are none.
If the upcoming vote is a free vote (as the Premier has indicated it would be) then I would urge you to vote no.
Mr. Hancock
First, as a teacher I appreciate your handling of the portfolio, and your obvious efforts to make public education in Alberta best serve the people.
The comments you have posted comments by others who share my opposition to the Bill articulate most of my concerns well: I see no reason to repeat what has been said, and said well.
However, I offer some additional points. This Bill, if passed, would only confirm the stereotype of Albertans as extreme reactionaries, intolerant of any view that does not conform to their world view. Should Bill 44 become law, those whose tendency to dismiss Albertans as unthinking rednecks would only have their views confirmed.
Mr. Bruseker, ATA predident, has said that during the six years of his term, he has had more requests for interviews on this subject by national and international media than on all other subjects combined.
It is troubling that the unanimous condemnation of this Bill by groups who are not normally found on the same side of any issue -- the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Alberta School Boards Association, and the College of Alberta School Superintendants -- have been met with nothing more than Minister Blackett's amendments offering only minor changes to some of the most controversial aspects of Section 9.
Your comments posted on the website offer some reassurance to educators, but the tone shows a minister whose greatest concern is caucus solidarity.
I commend the wisdom of your action as House Leader to hold off third reading of Bill 44 until next week. I can only hope your move is a tactical one, designed to move the Bill further down the Order Paper so far that it dies there.
Failing that, I urge you to vote against the Bill.
So, now that the bill has passed, does this mean that if my child goes to a public school in a predominately white Christian rural school and they choose to continue with Christmas and Easter celebrations, I can now pull my child from the school for the duration of the event?
Can parents now pull their child from Social Studies when the middle east and afghanistan are discussed (religion plays an important part in these discussions). If my husband is extreme Islam, can my daughter now be pulled from any class that discusses equality for women?
To Kathy - You always could ask for your child to be excused from religious events or exercises. That is not affected by Bill 44. Social Studies courses are not affected. There is nothing in the curriculum ( I am having it thoroughly reviewed to reconfirm that)which primarily and explicitly teaches religion. The fact that religion may play a part however important, peripheral to another topic, ie Afghanistan or the Middle East does not make it primarily or explicitly and therefore is not impacted by Bill 44. If however a teacher decided that as part of the years studies a unit or lesson on religions explicitly teaching about the religions that may require notice. I think you know the answer re equality of women - I have indicated repeatedly that the bill does not permit people to look through a religious lens at any topic and decide that it is a religious topic - the bill refers to explicitly about religion and means teaching about what a religion specifically stands for, its origins, teachings and values.
My problem with allowing people to have their kids opt out of discussions on sexuality and religion is that ignorance leads to hate. This is not a question, it's not up for debate: people fear and despise what they do not understand. The longer kids are kept ignorant about what is going on around them, the longer that they will think it's OK to use "gay" as a pejorative, or think that "Paki" is a good term for any South Asian. If the purpose of public education is to prepare citizens for life in Canada, then that education should include an understanding of the various religious and yes, even sexual minorities in Canada. Anyone who doesn't like that can enroll their kids in a private religious school.