[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

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.

It is reasonable to make a distinction between mandatory stuff that kids have to do to get educated, and their extra-curricular activities concerning issues they may have in their personal and private lives.

HS is a time when children really start to learn about being independent from their parents. Part of that learning is to explore elements of their identity on their own, without their every move being reported to their parents.

On a practical level, the whole purpose of having a club or organization for gay kids is undermined if the kids think they will be "outed". Those most in need of some sort of reassurance or direction will, naturally enough, not join - because these are the kids who are most likely to fear being "outed".

[Barrister]

It is reasonable to make a distinction between mandatory stuff that kids have to do to get educated, and their extra-curricular activities concerning issues they may have in their personal and private lives.

HS is a time when children really start to learn about being independent from their parents. Part of that learning is to explore elements of their identity on their own, without their every move being reported to their parents.

On a practical level, the whole purpose of having a club or organization for gay kids is undermined if the kids think they will be "outed". Those most in need of some sort of reassurance or direction will, naturally enough, not join - because these are the kids who are most likely to fear being "outed".

Okay what about the flip side of this - is there really a need to have a specific law, passed province wide, that will apply specifically to only one sort of club?  Why can't schools, or school boards, come up with their own rules and guidelines?

I just looked it up.  According to albertagsanetwork.ca (which site I found after looking at a government of alberta website), there are 40 GSAs in schools across the province.  There are 2388 schools in Alberta.  Only 1.6% of schools have such a club.  In my own backyard, there are only three GSAs in the entire south half of Edmonton - and none at the high school my boys would likely attend. There have been no reports of any kid anywhere in Alberta being "outed" to parents against there will, nevermind any reports of a kid suffering as a result of being "outed".

This issue is pure politics.  You guys rightly made fun of the "barbaric cultural practices" hotline as being the answer to a question no one was asking.  How is this any different?

[HVC]

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?

why err on the side of harm. If a parent would be accepting and doesn't find out what's the harm? Why risk outing someone to a unsupportive parent?

[crazy canuck]

It is reasonable to make a distinction between mandatory stuff that kids have to do to get educated, and their extra-curricular activities concerning issues they may have in their personal and private lives.

HS is a time when children really start to learn about being independent from their parents. Part of that learning is to explore elements of their identity on their own, without their every move being reported to their parents.

On a practical level, the whole purpose of having a club or organization for gay kids is undermined if the kids think they will be "outed". Those most in need of some sort of reassurance or direction will, naturally enough, not join - because these are the kids who are most likely to fear being "outed".

Okay what about the flip side of this - is there really a need to have a specific law, passed province wide, that will apply specifically to only one sort of club?  Why can't schools, or school boards, come up with their own rules and guidelines?

What is wrong with having a consistent policy across the province which errs on the side of protecting the interests of gay high school students?

edit: HVC made the same point.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Are you seriously equating a gay child maintaining control over their choice of whether they wish to come out to their parents with knowing their grades?

[Jacob]

why err on the side of harm. If a parent would be accepting and doesn't find out what's the harm? Why risk outing someone to a unsupportive parent?

Because it shores up the anti-gay social conservative constituency, while providing enough of a fig leaf to pretend that that's not the case.

[Barrister]

why err on the side of harm. If a parent would be accepting and doesn't find out what's the harm? Why risk outing someone to a unsupportive parent?

Because it shores up the anti-gay social conservative constituency, while providing enough of a fig leaf to pretend that that's not the case.

This is a proposal being pushed by the governing NDP.  Who exactly is trying to shore up a constituency here?

[crazy canuck]

why err on the side of harm. If a parent would be accepting and doesn't find out what's the harm? Why risk outing someone to a unsupportive parent?

Because it shores up the anti-gay social conservative constituency, while providing enough of a fig leaf to pretend that that's not the case.

This is a proposal being pushed by the governing NDP.  Who exactly is trying to shore up a constituency here?

The people making the claim that the NDP proposal makes no sense because parents should have full disclosure if their child self identifies as homosexual.

[Jacob]

This is a proposal being pushed by the governing NDP.  Who exactly is trying to shore up a constituency here?

There's nothing wrong with shoring up constituencies. That's what politics is about. What does matter, however, is what the constituency is and how it's being shored up. If the Conservatives want to shore up the anti-gay social conservative constituency by putting vulnerable gay teens at risk, that is entirely their prerogative within our political system - but don't try to soft peddle it, call it what it is.

Conversely, the NDP shoring up the constituency in favour of protecting vulnerable gay youth is also perfectly within their prerogative.

Personally I think that shoring up the constituency of people who want to protect vulnerable teens is significantly more laudable than shoring up the anti-gay social conservative constituency.

[Grey Fox]

and you people give Quebec shit about almost everything.

[HVC]

Albertas the English speaking  Quebec

[PRC]

More on the issue from Alberta's United Conservative Party:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/gay-straight-bill-could-allow-covert-sex-ed-alberta-united-conservatives-1.4396738

Gay-straight bill could allow covert sex ed: Alberta United Conservatives

'Now is the time for the government to prove that it doesn't have anything up its sleeve'

By Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 10, 2017 8:04 AM MT Last Updated: Nov 10, 2017 8:04 AM MT

Alberta's United Conservatives say they're concerned the government is using a bill on gay-straight alliances to prepare for kids to be taught sex education without parents being told.

"Now is the time for the government to reassure Albertans that they have no intention of coming after their rights as parents," United Conservative critic Mike Ellis told the legislature Thursday.

"Now is the time for the government to prove that it doesn't have anything up its sleeve."

The bill makes it illegal for school officials to tell parents when a child joins an alliance.

Ellis, saying it would clear up the issue, proposed an amendment.

Premier Rachel Notley's New Democrats, using their majority, rejected the amendment on the grounds the bill already makes it clear that student-led social clubs such as gay-straight alliances do not teach the sex-ed curriculum and therefore are exempt from automatic parental notification required by law.

"Health lessons, for example, are taught in health class, but GSAs are peer support groups. There's a clear differentiation there," said Education Minister David Eggen.

Ellis said it's a grey area given teacher instructional documents for the alliances talk about bringing in speakers or holding educational activities.

Gay-straight alliances are peer-support clubs set up by students to promote understanding and help LGBTQ kids feel safe and free from bullying.

They have been lightning rods of debate in Alberta given they overlap the areas of religion, education, parent and student rights.

Debate was renewed this past spring when Jason Kenney, before he became leader of the United Conservatives, said parents should be notified if their children joined a gay-straight alliance unless that put a child at risk.

Advocates say it must remain a child's choice to tell anyone, including parents, about his or her sexuality.

The NDP has labelled Kenney's stance a cynical, cruel Trojan horse — advocating for the alliances while promising changes that would, in effect, scare away students from joining them.

Kenney said the bill diverts attention from other issues such as the budget deficit and mounting public debt.

Earlier this week, he said teachers are in the best position to decide whether to notify parents if a child joins an alliance.

The Alberta Teachers' Association supports the bill. It argues that having a student — not teachers — inform parents of participation in a gay-straight alliance s the best way to ensure safety and privacy.

The NDP say the United Conservatives want to out students, but Ellis told the legislature the party believes parental notification is not mandatory so they are not advocating outing students.

On Wednesday, Notley labelled that reasoning "fundamentally dishonest" and "Orwellian doublespeak."

"If you're going to vote against this bill, own why it is you are voting against this bill — you believe that adults should have the right to out gay kids against their will," said Notley.

"You know as well as I do that only one person and one person only has the right to out a gay kid.

"And that, of course, is the kid."

[Barrister]

Lorne Gunter: Kenney's UCP turning GSA trap back on NDP
Edmonton Sun
Published:
November 8, 2017


Lorne Gunter

Is a trap really a trap if you know it's there and you trip it anyway because you're confident you can turn it on the people who set it in the first place?

Essentially, Jason Kenney and his UCP caucus have decided to spring the Bill 24 trap the Notley NDP set for them last week when the government introduced legislation that would make it illegal for anyone to inform parents when their child joins a gay-straight alliance (GSA) at school.

With eyes wide open, the UCP caucus will oppose an Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances in Schools, even though they know that doing so will activate what Kenney calls the NDP's "anger machine" and unleash social media's intolerant Tolerance Police.

Kenney and his caucus are not opposed to GSAs. Nor do they support automatically telling parents – "outing" – when students join GSAs at school.

What they can't support is the NDP's new demand that parents never, ever be informed – unless their son or daughter consents, first.

Admittedly, this is a different, more tolerant stand than Kenney and the UCP took at first.

As recently as this past March, while running for the leadership of the old Tory party, Kenney argued parents had a right to know if their child was in a GSA, whether or not the student wanted his or her orientation announced.

You may choose to believe Kenney's recent conversion or not, but the UCP leader now says he supports the right of LGBTQ students to privacy. What he cannot abide about Bill 24 is its blanket prohibition against frontline experts, principals and educators telling parents, even when they deem it is in the best interests of the student.

Kenney and the UCP are, for all intents and purposes, exactly where the NDP were until last week.

The NDP's original rules on GSAs permitted school officials or counsellors to tell parents about a child's GSA membership, without the student's consent, in exceptional circumstances.

And here is where the trap part comes in.

The NDP have decided not to stand pat on the original rules they wrote – rules that both they and the UCP could support; rules that until a week ago seemed perfectly sufficient to the NDP for the protection of LGBTQ students.

Now they have chosen to turn this into a "wedge issue" to polarize voters by pushing their original rules to a level the UCP cannot agree with.

Their motives are purely political. They may claim to be advancing Bill 24 out of a desire to protect the province's "most vulnerable students." But, in truth, they are mostly just attempting to protect their own slim chances at re-election by framing the UCP and Kenney as social conservative monsters.

The New Dems hope most Albertans won't pay close attention to the details, that voters won't see what protections are already in place for LGBTQ students or how the NDP's new rules rob frontline teachers, counsellors and administrators of the ability to exercise their good judgement.

The NDP's new law amounts to a declaration that politicians know better than teachers what constitutes the best interest of students.

The NDP are hoping that the Twitterlectuals on social media and the Kenney skeptics in the regular media will swallow whole the government's line that the UCP hates gays and lesbians and wants to return Alberta to the Dark Ages, when what the UCP actually wants to do is mostly keep the NDP's current GSA rules in place.

Kenney is undeterred by the Notley strategy. He has faith that most Albertans will take the time to understand the UCP position.

If he's right, this desperate NDP ploy could easily come back to bite the government.

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/lorne-gunter-kenneys-ucp-turning-gsa-trap-back-on-ndp

[crazy canuck]

Lorne Gunter: Kenney's UCP turning GSA trap back on NDP
Edmonton Sun
Published:
November 8, 2017


Lorne Gunter

Is a trap really a trap if you know it's there and you trip it anyway because you're confident you can turn it on the people who set it in the first place?

Essentially, Jason Kenney and his UCP caucus have decided to spring the Bill 24 trap the Notley NDP set for them last week when the government introduced legislation that would make it illegal for anyone to inform parents when their child joins a gay-straight alliance (GSA) at school.

With eyes wide open, the UCP caucus will oppose an Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances in Schools, even though they know that doing so will activate what Kenney calls the NDP's "anger machine" and unleash social media's intolerant Tolerance Police.

Kenney and his caucus are not opposed to GSAs. Nor do they support automatically telling parents – "outing" – when students join GSAs at school.

What they can't support is the NDP's new demand that parents never, ever be informed – unless their son or daughter consents, first.

Admittedly, this is a different, more tolerant stand than Kenney and the UCP took at first.

As recently as this past March, while running for the leadership of the old Tory party, Kenney argued parents had a right to know if their child was in a GSA, whether or not the student wanted his or her orientation announced.

You may choose to believe Kenney's recent conversion or not, but the UCP leader now says he supports the right of LGBTQ students to privacy. What he cannot abide about Bill 24 is its blanket prohibition against frontline experts, principals and educators telling parents, even when they deem it is in the best interests of the student.

Kenney and the UCP are, for all intents and purposes, exactly where the NDP were until last week.

The NDP's original rules on GSAs permitted school officials or counsellors to tell parents about a child's GSA membership, without the student's consent, in exceptional circumstances.

And here is where the trap part comes in.

The NDP have decided not to stand pat on the original rules they wrote – rules that both they and the UCP could support; rules that until a week ago seemed perfectly sufficient to the NDP for the protection of LGBTQ students.

Now they have chosen to turn this into a "wedge issue" to polarize voters by pushing their original rules to a level the UCP cannot agree with.

Their motives are purely political. They may claim to be advancing Bill 24 out of a desire to protect the province's "most vulnerable students." But, in truth, they are mostly just attempting to protect their own slim chances at re-election by framing the UCP and Kenney as social conservative monsters.

The New Dems hope most Albertans won't pay close attention to the details, that voters won't see what protections are already in place for LGBTQ students or how the NDP's new rules rob frontline teachers, counsellors and administrators of the ability to exercise their good judgement.

The NDP's new law amounts to a declaration that politicians know better than teachers what constitutes the best interest of students.

The NDP are hoping that the Twitterlectuals on social media and the Kenney skeptics in the regular media will swallow whole the government's line that the UCP hates gays and lesbians and wants to return Alberta to the Dark Ages, when what the UCP actually wants to do is mostly keep the NDP's current GSA rules in place.

Kenney is undeterred by the Notley strategy. He has faith that most Albertans will take the time to understand the UCP position.

If he's right, this desperate NDP ploy could easily come back to bite the government.

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/lorne-gunter-kenneys-ucp-turning-gsa-trap-back-on-ndp

You missed highlighting the bits that make it clear Kenney is being intellectually dishonest.  He advocated for mandatory parental notification and now he "softened" his stance to allow schools to notify.  He now claims students won't be outed.   Might fool the people who were going to vote for him anyway.  But for the rest, not so much.

Answer me this BB, what "expertise" does a principal have to determine whether a parent should be informed and on what basis would that decision be made?

[Barrister]

You missed highlighting the bits that make it clear Kenney is being intellectually dishonest.  He advocated for mandatory parental notification and now he "softened" his stance to allow schools to notify.  He now claims students won't be outed.   Might fool the people who were going to vote for him anyway.  But for the rest, not so much.

Answer me this BB, what "expertise" does a principal have to determine whether a parent should be informed and on what basis would that decision be made?

A B.Ed. degree (at a minimum) plus several years experience as an educator.