More to the "Now I've heard everything file."?
Alberta, roundly known as Canada's version of Redneck USA, has decided to become known as anti-ejimakashun with the Inclusion of a Rider that puts Teachers into a precarious position. Bill 44, which after a decade of Activism by the Gay Community, enshrines Gay Rights into Alberta's Human Rights Act, included a contentious rider that allows parents to pull their children from class and have the teacher charged with a Human Rights Violation if they disagree with what is being taught if it relates to Human Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, or violates their Religious Beleifs. Please read the attached article (first link), and tell us all if you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.
The second link is for all results dealing with Bill 44 (for those wanting more background).
What I find particularily objectionable is that *anything* can be touted up as part of someone's Religious Beliefs - were I a teacher and taught about WWII, simply mentioning the organised slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals in class could see me Charged under the Alberta Human Rights Act as violating the Religious Views of at least half a dozen cults and several branches of Muslim beliefs, as could teaching my class that Women and Men are Equal in the eyes of the Law, and that the Girls have as much right to live how they wish as do the Boys...care to count how many cults and mainstream Religions I just insulted?
So...what do you think?
Yes Mike...I can. But I'm not an Albertan, so I won't offer unless asked.
Well...three answers - one opinionless idiot, a semi-off-topic opinion, and an "I think it's bad"... Anyone else want to add their 2% of a dollar?
Actually Andrew...the PC crowd did "win" this one...and that is not a Good Thing. Oh, by the way - were you a teacher in Alberta and you made that statement in front of my child, you would be facing the same Human Rights Violation risk from a Rationalist, Realist, or Athiest as someone teaching Science to the child of a close-minded Reactionary Religious Fundimentalist. Heck...teaching that pi=22/7 could see a Maths teacher facing those charges because the Catholic Church many centuries ago declared pi (π) to be 3... Oh, and also consider that the ONLY reason the bill passed with the rider on it was that the Premier required his party to vote for it, even after promising a free vote (had it been a free vote it would have failed, when you consider that the majority of the Members - even in the Premier's party - were against it!).
- ManitouLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
This is the proverbial one step forward, then three steps back and then two steps to the left. This is not unusual from a Conservative government in those parts. They have been "snubbing" the law of the land (Supreme Court) for more then a decade and when they are about to make it right, they add additional items so it would change the meaning.
The granting parents the right to pull their children out should have never been in this law or be part of the human rights ideal. If they wanted to do it right, it could have gone in the School Act or have it as it's own law.
I do believe in one of the letters that was written on this subject that it can create extreme bigotry or racism as the parent will be allowed to keep a child's mind "closed to the world's events" due to the parent's religious believe. As an example, the writer pointed out a case in Manitoba about a young child that is spouting racist comments that was taught by the parent. Agreed that this is a extreme case, but it is a possibility.
- roystonLv 43 years ago
the two that have not come forward are the two who signed confidentiality agreements ten to 12 years in the past, there is frequently a penalty written into such agreements. those women did what could be seen suited, they went to the enterprise on the time it got here approximately and pronounced the incidents. it quite is not common for a occupation woman to make that style of value. All too often, and as we've seen the lady is depicted as a **** or nut and torn aside. however the biggest right it quite is timing, it replaced into promptly and quietly dealt with, Cain left his settlement with them six months early. And the ladies left too. the entire concern hushed up and if Cain hadn't run he could have long gone directly to different enterprise's and no you will have widely used approximately his habit, which does seem to have been all at suitable to the comparable time, so it may desire to be a coarse time in his marriage, or midlife disaster. Or he discovered the thank you to act. Or, extra frighteningly, he had different episodes that we don't comprehend approximately. women are regrettably extra accustomed to sexual harassment than we prefer to correctly known, and the lady who spoke to him on the fundraiser did so in public, in a difficulty the place she's unlikely to leap up and yell, you sunofabitch to him. From her perspective it replaced into long over. Adults do not act out in public the two. Cain has a tin ear while it includes women, and curiously not a lot memory approximately them the two. there is not any objective in bringing him down until the guy have been given the nomination, except you're one in all his fighters interior the race to be the nominee. he's as carefull as any lawyer approximately what he's asserted, like that he'd take a polygraph, yet provided that he felt it mandatory. i'm guessing he won't be looking it mandatory any time quickly. And the settlements on his behalf between NRA and the ladies is on checklist, its not an unsubstaniated rumor. If their attorneys observed in high quality condition to payout quite than combat, with a level of immediacy, its a quite sturdy indicator they have been reducing their losses short and that they knew they had lose. It is going any incorrect way if Cain had fought a protracted criminal combat together with his very own money, then you definately could desire to declare it replaced into costing him too a lot. yet NRA has a team of attorneys so it does not value them anymore to combat this.
- 1 decade ago
I don't see what the problem is. People did not have religious freedoms for centuries but these have become well established in the last few hundred years.
Religious people should not ask "how high" just because some people who have fallen for the ridiculous theory of evolution tell them to "jump". I'm very pleased to hear that Albertans did not allow themselves to be steam-rollered by the politically correct crowd.
- 1 decade ago
Personally I agree with Manitobu. And I feel bad for all those teachers, You plan your class outline for the year , just to have some parents ***** and complain about things that could be usefully to the kids later on in life.
I am not a parent yet...I say yet because I am pregnant. I already know, as a soon to be mother that I would want my kid to have an open mind about everything,sex,religion, homosexuality anything.
How is a kid to learn what is out there if mom and dad pull them out of class?
I am happy (not at the time, I wasn't) that I had about 8 years of sex ed.
My mother never pulled me out of class and I learned alot of things, even things my mother thought were pointless for us to learn.
Oh, I have something to say to MikeGolf. What is your solution? You criticize him but yet you don't give your own solution...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- dadragonmannLv 41 decade ago
Manitou has it pretty much right. Parents always have had the right to remove their kids from a class if they chose to. I am hearing things from various parts of the world saying how according to group a event a didn't happen and so on. This is a continuance of the narrow mindedness that seems to be arising more and more. The form of the Government has nothing to do with it.
- 1 decade ago
Exactly why the founders of the U.S.A. included separation of Church and State. You cannot possibly teach facts without possibly offending some religious group and you cannot please them all.
- MikeGolfLv 71 decade ago
Instead of criticizing - can you come up with a better solution?