Here is a link to Fusedlogic, a smart social media strategy company. This is a blog post showing some of the topical traffic issues in and around the Government of Alberta for the last week. It has not been a good week for the strategically incoherent Stelmach government. These numbers show that cyberspace has been engaged.
Let me know what you think about the barring of opposition MLAs from a new conference on a new pharmacy policy, or the misleading beach picture from England in the $25m ALBERTA branding campaign or the weird amendments on Human Rights legislation to make it a human rights violation for a teacher to allow discussion on things like evolution or human sexuality where parents of kids in the class might object.
Parents now receive advanced notice when such topics are scheduled to be taught as part of the provincial course content. They can legitimately keep their kids out of those classes and that is fine. But what will religious fundamentalists do if thees issues come up spontanously in unscheduled classroom discussion. Dangerous to make this a human rights offence. Parents can teach their religious beliefs at home and in chosen places of worship. They should not be entitled to stifle free speech and expression for the rest of us.
What do you think?
I think that getting kids together in a safe and facilitated environment to learn about, debate and view an issue from all sides is what school is about.
ReplyDeletePart of school is learning to tolerate all viewpoints, and stifling or hiding your kid from that kind of thoughtful discussion and debate would be harmful to their full social development.
Our schools should be free of any pro or anti-religious sentiment, and allow discussion of the concepts with children so they can learn tolerance and build the tools to form their own opinions.
But I am one of those nuts who think that a child should be taught how to form religious opinions on their own, without a parent forming them for them.
Kind of funny that the left is suddenly upset at human rights legislation when it is not in their favour.
ReplyDeleteTolerance goes both ways - even if you don't agree with what another person is saying. We live in a democracy and parental rights is a big step forward. It's up to the parents to set the parameters for their children.
Chris, unfortunately I disagree with one aspect of your comment. Ultimately, it is up to the child, but when they're old enough to understand. Until then it's most definitely up to the parents to guide their children and I don't think enough of that is present in today's society. I agree that school is for learning and being tolerant of many view points. Having said that, in my childhood if there was something that my family found went against our wishes, then I would just sit that one out. That was my parents choice and now that of myself and my wife. I also agree with Ken, my choice for my daughter is one thing, imposing my values on an entire classroom with a large legislative stick is another. There's always one idiot who will take this way too far because they can...
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 11:33 I don't think you understand the issue. It is not about tolerence going both ways. It is now! The School Act provides for parents to exempt their children from participating in certain topics that they may find contrary to their values. When those topics are scheduled in class, parent get notice and can act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThere are religious based, private and charter schools that are available and provide quality education. Tolerence abounds and it is a shared community value.
The issue is conflating educational accommodation for parents wishes and making those wishes a human right of the parent. We need an inclusive, diverse, open, curious, adaptable, progressive, effective, caring resourceful, responsive and responsible public education system founded in community and the common good.
How does this amendment to Bill 44 serve those needs?
Better yet, how does it not?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - please explain yourself!
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to include our $4 billion deficit. Three years ago with $50 oil, we were racking up $4 billion surpluses. This government is rudderless and incoherent.
ReplyDeleteKevin
The whole tourism photo affair was frustrating on a number of levels... not just for the failure to feature one of the thousands and thousands of scenic vistas in the province that would have looked better, but also because they missed an opportunity to showcase an Albertan Photographer's work.... this one should have been a no-brainer.
ReplyDeleteAs we head into an increasingly complex world, it pains me that smug contrarian commentary like Anonymous @11:33/4:33 holds so much currency in our province. It's basically the same old dumb-as-we-wanna-be all over again.....the stupidification of Alberta's youth takes yet another step towards the sweet ever-after.
David Hancock and the PC government have done us a big favour here. Parental rights should have been inshrined in the human rights code decades ago. Bravo to Hancock for supporting this important issue.
ReplyDeleteParental rights accomplish the end goal of an inclusive, diverse, open, curious, adaptable, progressive, effective, caring resourceful, responsive and responsible public education system founded in community and the common good.
It is just this kind of double speak from Anon @ 4:40 that proves the real intent behind those advocating to exclude students from studying evolution and understanding diversity in our society. Parent already have the remedy they need in section 50 of the School Act.
ReplyDeleteAll this Human Rights amendment does is ensure that some radical fundamentalists will put Alberta teachers through the same silliness Ezra Levant went through for republishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammad.
If you support Ezra Levant, you should also support removing section three of the Human Rights Act or whatever it's called, should you not?
ReplyDeleteFrankly the legislation is a suave to the cons, I think, for sounding too much like them left leaning types lately. A little Viagra to harden up the base support. "Lets show them lefties that this parents rights" thingy is important and codify the right to ignorance. The practice and right is already in place. Yes to parents rights and power to choose on behalf of their children. However and lest we forget, education is about the ability to debate and discuss and test your thinking against all that stuff out there of which is one of the ways we discover and dare I say learn from the breadth of exposure to ideas. But Anon I think you missed the point.
ReplyDeleteAs for the sad and wrong headed decisions to use a non Alberta picture informs me and others that there is a deficit in the ranks. The scariest part was when the our "leaders" defended it. What does that say about the intellectual capital we have to draw on?
Every child has the right to the best education they can receive. Science is a fundamental area of knowledge that is necessary and basic for people to understand the world and to be good citizens. Evolution is science, it is not the study of religion.
ReplyDeleteChildren need to be protected against parents who would deny their rights to a world class education and handicap them in the future.
Programs like the International Baccalaureate, which provide excellence and international standards, would now appear to be at risk (ironically schools like Old Scona often have the highest averages in North America)for students who would be yanked out by their parents.
Where are the rights of the child in this case...enough of the parents.
More like children need to be protected against governments and teachers unions who would deny their rights to a world class education and tell their parents how to raise them.
ReplyDeleteWhere aer the rights of the child when the government tells everyone how to raise children?
Parental rights are a great idea.
ReplyDeleteChildren need to be protected against governments who would deny their parents rights to raise them as they see fit, as the first and best of their teachers.
ReplyDeleteNotice that the comments that question the wisdom of elevating parental rights are detailed with depth and usually withy a name attatched while those in favour are without argument or evidence and always anonymous.
ReplyDeleteProgressive citizens who believe in tolerant, INCLUSIVE, free and open society need to stand up to those hiding in the shadows of anonymous ignorance.
If the blogger doesn't like anonymous postings, why does he allow them? Talk about duplicity.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 8:35 - duplicity??? You post anonymously and accuse me of duplicity? Let me be kind and suggest at best you are ironic, at worst hypocritical for posting this comment anonymously. Get real and participate in the conversation with your real name. What are you afraid of?
ReplyDelete