[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

It definitely looks like Alberta conservatives - federally and provincially - think championing social conservative positions is a winning play. Now we have the UCP in Alberta staking the position that it's okay for schools to out kids to their parents whether or not the kid thinks it's a good idea.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/kenney-says-ucp-will-oppose-gay-straight-alliance-bill-24

[PRC]

It definitely looks like Alberta conservatives - federally and provincially - think championing social conservative positions is a winning play. Now we have the UCP in Alberta staking the position that it's okay for schools to out kids to their parents whether or not the kid thinks it's a good idea.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/kenney-says-ucp-will-oppose-gay-straight-alliance-bill-24

Yeah, Kenney is a moron on this issue and he certainly won't have my vote.  Not sure my vote will matter though, the people here mostly seem outraged at the NDP but I think they've done a fair job and I will be voting for them again.  Hopefully enough Albertans feel the same way. 

[Barrister]

It definitely looks like Alberta conservatives - federally and provincially - think championing social conservative positions is a winning play. Now we have the UCP in Alberta staking the position that it's okay for schools to out kids to their parents whether or not the kid thinks it's a good idea.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/kenney-says-ucp-will-oppose-gay-straight-alliance-bill-24

So Mrs. B isn't super-political.  She usually votes the same way I do.  I think 2012 Alberta is the only time we split our vote - that was the election where one of the Wildrose candidates had earlier said something about gays going into a "lake of fire" which probably cost them the election.  It turned Mrs B off as she is very supportive of our gay nephew.

So anyways... a few days ago she said that she heard Jason Kenney was anti-gay.  I said I don't think so unless you count voting against gay marriage in Parliament in 2005.  But that wasn't what she meant - she had heard about the GSA bill.

I replied that, as far as I understood it, Kenney's position was that parents should be informed if their kid joins a gay-straight alliance.  Mrs B said 'well of course they should.  I would want to know if one of our boys did so I could help support them in what they're going through'.

There's this weird assumption in the NDP approach that informing parents is "outing" the child, and that the reaction of parents is likely going to be negative.  I don't know why you would assume that.  And besides, a "gay straight alliance" is supposed to include straight kids - so why is joining one mean that you're gay?

Look - kids often don't tell their parents things they are going through.  They're afraid to disappoint their parents, or are uncomfortable talking about topics, or just don't know how.  And as parents we aren't with our kids at school so we don't know what they're going through - whether it be bullying, or drugs, or social problems, or whatever.  We rely on teachers and schools to tell us what our kids are going through so that we can work together to help support our kids.

I get why the NDP is doing this.  It's a wedge issue (I thought the left was against those, but I digress), and it appears to have some traction.  This is hardly a burning issue in the province, but it seems like smart hard-nosed politics by Notley.  Politically the smartest thing for Kenney to do would probably be to say "we support the bill - now let's talk about the economy".  But I think there is a strong principled position to be against the bill as worded, that has nothing to do with being anti-gay, and frankly it is one I agree with.  Take a more nuanced approach, depending on the individual circumstances of the child.  If the kid describes coming from a home where the parents say that gays should be punished, or that they'd throw a gay child out of the home - then by all means don't say anything!  But maybe, just maybe, you can show some trust and faith in parents to be sensible on this issue.

[Jacob]

Of course you'll put it in that light, Beeb. Of course you and your wife should know, so you can support your kids.

What about those kids whose parents wouldn't support them though?

[garbon]

Of course you'll put it in that light, Beeb. Of course you and your wife should know, so you can support your kids.

What about those kids whose parents wouldn't support them though?

Also, is the proposal that parents should be told about all the clubs that they join?

[HVC]

a large proportion of homeless youth are gay. Outing someone to their family is wrong. there's a reason they haven't done so themselves and it's not the states job to do it for the kid.

[Barrister]

Of course you'll put it in that light, Beeb. Of course you and your wife should know, so you can support your kids.

What about those kids whose parents wouldn't support them though?

Also, is the proposal that parents should be told about all the clubs that they join?

I don't know if the United Conservatives have proposed a specific amendment, but the response from Kenney was:

At a news conference Tuesday, he said the unique circumstances of each child should be the key factor in determining when parents are told their child is in a GSA, "not the blunt instrument of law."

"We believe that highly trained educators are in a much better position than politicians to exercise their discretion on whether it is in the best interests of children to engage parents," he said.

[garbon]

Of course you'll put it in that light, Beeb. Of course you and your wife should know, so you can support your kids.

What about those kids whose parents wouldn't support them though?

Also, is the proposal that parents should be told about all the clubs that they join?

I don't know if the United Conservatives have proposed a specific amendment, but the response from Kenney was:

At a news conference Tuesday, he said the unique circumstances of each child should be the key factor in determining when parents are told their child is in a GSA, "not the blunt instrument of law."

"We believe that highly trained educators are in a much better position than politicians to exercise their discretion on whether it is in the best interests of children to engage parents," he said.

So sounds like no then. Seems like a negative if somehow being in the GSA (which in theory, should have some straight people!) is being singled out for this special consideration.

[crazy canuck]

I replied that, as far as I understood it, Kenney's position was that parents should be informed if their kid joins a gay-straight alliance.  Mrs B said 'well of course they should.  I would want to know if one of our boys did so I could help support them in what they're going through'.

There's this weird assumption in the NDP approach that informing parents is "outing" the child, and that the reaction of parents is likely going to be negative.  I don't know why you would assume that.  And besides, a "gay straight alliance" is supposed to include straight kids - so why is joining one mean that you're gay?

On the other hand, one might argue it is weird to assume that all parents want to support a gay child on the basis that one parent has declared that intention.  I don't know why one would assume that of all parents. 

[PRC]

I don't know if the United Conservatives have proposed a specific amendment, but the response from Kenney was:

At a news conference Tuesday, he said the unique circumstances of each child should be the key factor in determining when parents are told their child is in a GSA, "not the blunt instrument of law."

"We believe that highly trained educators are in a much better position than politicians to exercise their discretion on whether it is in the best interests of children to engage parents," he said.

Why would "highly trained educators"... the State, be better placed to make this decision than the families themselves? 

[crazy canuck]

I don't know if the United Conservatives have proposed a specific amendment, but the response from Kenney was:

At a news conference Tuesday, he said the unique circumstances of each child should be the key factor in determining when parents are told their child is in a GSA, "not the blunt instrument of law."

"We believe that highly trained educators are in a much better position than politicians to exercise their discretion on whether it is in the best interests of children to engage parents," he said.

Why would "highly trained educators"... the State, be better placed to make this decision than the families themselves?

More to the point, what is the compelling reason to give an educator power to make a decision that may be different from the wishes of the child.  The better public policy argument, and the won social conservatives miss completely, is that the whole purpose of confidentiality is to encourage vulnerable children to come forward and seek assistance.  If the person there is a risk of being outed to their parents the policy objective is undermined.

[Barrister]

Of course you'll put it in that light, Beeb. Of course you and your wife should know, so you can support your kids.

What about those kids whose parents wouldn't support them though?

Well we don't necessarily know which parents will support, and which parents won't. The NDP position is that we assume many parents will not support, and that "outing" the child will put the child at risk. 

But generally in our Canadian society we assume that parents will make the right decisions.  There's no license to have children.  We don't have CFS workers doing random inspections of children.  We don't regulate what kind of food kids can be given, or how much tv they can be shown.

If children are being maltreated the state does step in, and we have a whole child welfare system, potentially involving the courts, that can and does step into action.

So why on this one issue do we assume parents will do the wrong thing and automatically, by operation of law, exclude them from this one fact about their child's lives?

[Barrister]

More to the point, what is the compelling reason to give an educator power to make a decision that may be different from the wishes of the child.  The better public policy argument, and the won social conservatives miss completely, is that the whole purpose of confidentiality is to encourage vulnerable children to come forward and seek assistance.  If the person there is a risk of being outed to their parents the policy objective is undermined.

The child is, well, a child.  By law, and by considerable lived experience, they have diminished capability to make decisions when compared to an adult.

Look I routinely receive information about what my children are doing in school.  I get report cards, student-teacher meetings, comments written in agendas, all telling me about what they do every day.  I don't see them problem in that.

Should schools refuse to give out children's marks to parents?  After all, there's a risk someone will be beaten for getting an F in mathematics.

[Oexmelin]

Maybe because anti-gay bigotry, and its consequences, are more widespread than anti math bigotry?

You seem to be grasping at straws here.

[Barrister]

Maybe because anti-gay bigotry, and its consequences, are more widespread than anti math bigotry?

You seem to be grasping at straws here.

Oh, I think anti-bad-grades bigotry is alive and well in homes across Alberta. I know it is in mine.

Obviously that's a bit of a reductio ad absurdum on my part, but that is a valid form of argument.