[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Come on BB, you're a smart guy. You can't be this obtuse unless it's purposeful.

Also, I guess as the "children" age the slogan has gone from "won't someone think of the children" to "won't someone think of the parents"

[crazy canuck]

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.

Ok, they have a credential to teach.  Now answer the question about the skill set they have to determine if reporting to parents will put the child at risk. 

What knowledge do they have of that family's history, views about homosexuality, likelihood of reacting negatively or adversely to the child etc etc etc.

I will answer for you since it is so plain and obvious - little to none.

[Oexmelin]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Then, are there sex councilors/educators in schools in Alberta? Are parents notified if their kids are inquiring about contraception? In Quebec, school nurse can hand out, say, the morning after pill to students without notifying the parents.

In any case, it seems obvious that people who clamor for mandatory notifications are precisely the kinds of people who want it because they would oppose their kids' participation in it. Because, quite frankly, parents who want to be supportive usually don't advocate for coercive means and government policy in order to be more supportive. 

[Camerus]

Gunter is right that it was a trap - but wrong that the UCP response did anything other than get caught by it.

[Barrister]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

[Grey Fox]

It occurs to me that these people see the GSA hidden agenda to be Sex Ed the same way I see them being anti-women apologist.

[Jacob]

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

... and the UCP position appears to be that parents should be able to opt out of their kids having social support networks for coming to terms with their own sexuality if they're not straight.

It's straight up pandering to social conservative homophobes under the guise of parental rights.

[garbon]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

Well those parents are idiots. Their children will be exposed to that material anyway.

[Barrister]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

Well those parents are idiots. Their children will be exposed to that material anyway.

I know - what would be worse - the kid being taught about objectionable material (but then being told at home what their parents think about it), or to very publicly have their kids be taken out of the classroom in front of their peers?

That being said - I defend the parents right to do so.

[crazy canuck]

I know - what would be worse - the kid being taught about objectionable material (but then being told at home what their parents think about it), or to very publicly have their kids be taken out of the classroom in front of their peers?

"Objectionable" - now that is an interesting use of word and gives some emphasis to Oex's comment that the parents who wish to make this mandatory are the very parents who would act adversely to their child being outed by the school. 

As a matter of first principles there is absolutely nothing wrong with a school teaching a child something that is different from what their parents may know or think.  In fact, for a large number of topics we depend on schools to do exactly that.  The only thing that makes this different for social conservatives is this topic involves sexual behavior.

[garbon]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

Well those parents are idiots. Their children will be exposed to that material anyway.

I know - what would be worse - the kid being taught about objectionable material (but then being told at home what their parents think about it), or to very publicly have their kids be taken out of the classroom in front of their peers?

That being said - I defend the parents right to do so.

So would it be okay if a group of parents decided that they found math or history to be objectionable, to have a demand met that their children aren't taught such subjects?

[Barrister]

Am I reading this correctly that parents have to be notified that their kids have sex ed. classes? Is the nature of that notification different from simply knowing that kids are being taught history, or math, or any other topic? If so, why?

Yes it's different.  As I understand it parents can have their children opt-out of sex ed class.  It's different because while some parents do not wish their children to learn that kind of material, I've never heard of parents not wishing their children to be exposed to math.

Well those parents are idiots. Their children will be exposed to that material anyway.

I know - what would be worse - the kid being taught about objectionable material (but then being told at home what their parents think about it), or to very publicly have their kids be taken out of the classroom in front of their peers?

That being said - I defend the parents right to do so.

So would it be okay if a group of parents decided that they found math or history to be objectionable, to have a demand met that their children aren't taught such subjects?

I think it would depend on exactly what was being objected to, and on what basis:

-"I want my female child to be illiterate so don't teach her to read.  That way she will be more willing to obey her future husband" is wildly objectionable.

-"please excuse my child from today's unit on the Syrian civil war.  We are Syrian refugees and it will almost certainly trigger my child's PTSD" is entirely appropriate.

with a million shades of grey inbetween

As I understand it in Alberta (and of course I'm a prosecutor, not a lawyer) there is a core common curriculum that every school must teach, even private and religious schools.  But beyond that school boards can adjust what they teach as they see fit.

Because human sexuality has been controversial for thousands of years, it's always been treated specially.  My understanding is that it is part of the common curriculum, but has always been an opt out.

[crazy canuck]

Because human sexuality has been controversial for thousands of years, it's always been treated specially.  My understanding is that it is part of the common curriculum, but has always been an opt out.

The opt out is on religious grounds.  The subject matter is very straight forward and well understood. The only thing that makes it controversial is that, for religious reasons, some parents choose to keep their kids ignorant about how their body's sexual organs work and the risks associated with that function. 

[Oexmelin]

That being said - I defend the parents right to do so.

Do you defend it too when it comes to science?

[HVC]

Because human sexuality has been controversial for thousands of years, it's always been treated specially.  My understanding is that it is part of the common curriculum, but has always been an opt out.

The opt out is on religious grounds.  The subject matter is very straight forward and well understood. The only thing that makes it controversial is that, for religious reasons, some parents choose to keep their kids ignorant about how their body's sexual organs work and the risks associated with that function. 

hey, it's not religious schools, it's protestants. the catholic elementary and high schools I went to covered sex ed pretty in depth.

in closing, literalists are the worst.