Bill 44 Guide for Teachers/Parents on Stupid Law Released.

According to news reports the guidelines for the application of the Bill 44 idiocy have finally been released.  I have not read them yet so I can't comment.  But based on the stupidity of the original enabling legislation that creates a capacity to persecute and prosecute teachers I can only imagine how angry this policy is going to make me once I read it.

Here is the link to the policy if you want to get at it before me.  Feel free to comment in advance of my review and thoughts.

What Messages Did Premier Ed Get From the Calgary Glenmore By Election?

It has been over a week since Premier Stelmach executed his much rumoured and much anticipated Cabinet shuffle. It was not much of a shuffle, more of a minor, one portfolio expansion of the Cabinet.

When former Deputy Premier Ron Stevens left politics for the Bench Premier Stelmach wisely assumed the International and Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio in his own office. Stelmach used to serve in that Ministry and knows the files. He also knows the IIA function is become essentially a glorified Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier's office. So it only makes sense governance wise and for fiscal prudence to reduce his cabinet by one and for the Premier to be the International and Intergovernmental face for the province.

So it is interesting that we saw the appointment of Len Webber as the new Minister. Len Webber is a good guy and I am sure he is capable of fulfilling the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier function of this Ministry. This appointment had nothing to do with good governance of fiscal prudence. It was pure regional appeasement politics that pushed this appointment. It is more Calgary appeasement by the Stelmach PCs who looking for love in all the wrong places.

WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE SENT FROM CALGARY GLENMORE?

The key messages gleaned from the PCs enormous loss of the Calgary Glenmore by election is the recession is hurting and Albertans are grumpy with the spending plans of the province. It had nothing to do with the perceptions of the leadership capacities of the Premier or his office whatsoever. It was the good folks of Calgary Glenmore send a fiscal message only.

I don't think the Stelmach government is reading all the signs. They are practicing and perfecting selective listening. We have experiences a relatively light recession in Alberta compared to Canada and the planet. We have cash to cover the deficit. We have the "luxury" of not having to raise taxes for at last 2 years. We have unemployment at about 7.2%. In "normal" times 6% unemployment is considered full employment by economists. So Alberta is in a recession but it is not a dire as many of the past.

We have a natural gas revenue hit caused by low commodity prices between $4 and $5B but that is not enough to account for the almost $15B swing from last years estimate of $8B surplus and a $7B deficit one year later. We Albertans have not been shown how that math really works. I hope it is not more political messaging to manipulate expectations instead of actual accountability and authentic transparency.

So what. The "official government" key message and speaking points response to the wildly successful Wildrose Alliance campaign slogan of "Send Ed a Message is the recession and there is too much government spending. So the question for the Premier and his brain trust is what to do? The answer is clear. Shift to the right, fiscally and socially. Spend less and a lot less, right now.

Go ahead a break trusts by clawing back prior social infrastructure promises, especially in the vulnerable social service sector. They don't vote and if they did, they don't vote Tory anyway. One thing for sure, in a perpetual appeasement to Calgary elites we can't risk alienating the energy industry millionaire masters of the universe types, especially in times of recession.

WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM CALGARY GLENMORE?

The real evidence of a fundamental (sic) social policy shift is in the other appointments made concurrently with Len Webber's ascending into Cabinet. Look at the rewards given to the social conservative gang that promoted and won the battle to pass their beloved Bill 44. This is even more disturbing and profound evidence of the social repositioning of the Stelmach government to the right. I suggest the far right. This is an exercise in social conservative appeasement but there is some overtones of more Calgary Appeasement as a beneficial by-election by product.

The elevation of rookie MLA Jonathan Denis to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy puts a socially conservative Calgary face on the portfolio. Jono and I are Facebook Friends and follow each other on Twitter. [We are @JonoMLA and @KenChapman46 on Twitter if you want to follow us.] I find him to be an intelligent and civil debater as we arm wrestle in the social media. He may prove to be a very capable guy and deserves the benefit of the doubt. But there is not doubt of is social conservative credentials as one of the front men on Bill 44.

Side note: Jono beat the ultra social conservative Craig Chandler who ran as an Independent in the 2008 election after winning the PC nomination but Stelmach refused to sign his paper. Mr. Chandler is now the power and behind Mark Dynholm's bid to lead the Wildrose Alliance Party.

Next is Broyce Jacobs as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Agriculture and Rural Development. Mr. Jacobs is and was the MLA from Cardston. He lost to Paul Hinman in 2004 but beat him in 2008. Remember it was Hinman who parachuted into Calgary Glenmore and trounced the local high profile PC candidate in the by election this month. Elevating him also sends a message to Albertans with a strong fundamentalist faith base that they have a voice right into the provincial political power structure.

Next we have the evidence of the social and fiscal shift to the right in the new appointments to key Cabinet committees. Adding Lindsay Blackett to Agenda and Priorities is a reward for a job well done on pushing through Bill 44 in the face of serious, vocal and broadly based public opposition.

There seems to be soap-opera around the selection of rookie Rob Anderson to the all powerful Treasury Board. Rob is apparently a fiscal hawk and was the face of Bill 44 to the social conservative element in the caucus and in the PC party. His appointment is clearly a reward for his Bill 44 efforts and success.

The soap opera element is the apparent political punishment of Kyle Fawcett, another social conservative Bill 44 caucus promoter. Kyle, a Calgary rookie MLA, had the temerity to say the equivalent of Premier had no clothes in his analysis of the messages coming out of the Calgary Glenmore by election. See the blog post of Don Braid, provincial affairs columnists for the Calgary Herald for details.

All of this is a symbolic sign to those former PC supporters who abandoned the party and voted Wildrose Alliance in Calgary Glenmore. The Premier is showing off his social conservative bench strength and trying to convince So-con swing voters that their concerns will be dealt with from now on by his government. He is trying to show those folks that he got that message. I think that message has come through loud and clear since the last election.

That puts the progressives in the PC party on notice that they are marginalized. I think it may prove that the progressives int eh PC party will be even more marginalized than in the darkest days of the Klein regime. Time will tell.

What's the Hold up - Proclaim Bill 44 Amendments into Law NOW!

So we are getting some Ministerial musings about the timing of the proclamation of the "new" Alberta Human Rights Act. We are hearing it is set for this October or November, well after school starts and up to 6 months after the new Act was passed.

I can't see any reason to not proclaim it now and lets get this litigation circus and abuse of teachers going right off the bat when school starts in September.

Surely this law was well enough thought out in the first place that all they have to do is proclaim it and get on with it. Or, is it the case that "the powers that be" don't have a frigging clue about what the real implications of this law will be and it is now just starting to sink in?

Could it be that there are wiser minds and some bigger brains in the back rooms of provincial power are having a serious second thought? Is Cabinet getting cold feet about proclaiming the opting out provisions in Section 9 of the new law? I don't think so.

This ill-conceived law was rammed through with a reckless "damn the torpedoes" attitude in a show of pure and raw political power at play. Nothing has changed in the meantime and to retreat from a folly is never seen as preferred political option.

Besides isn't the strategic political plan to just get past this public rage over Bill 44 so it will be forgotten by the next election. Further delay just gives more time for more events to happen that would just rekindle the public rage. I see nothing to indicate that the government has all of a sudden had an epiphany and received some enlightenment and would now decide to repeal Section 9 "opting out" provisions instead. That would be good government. It just seems too late for our policy makers and law makers to choose that good government road. Sadly , it is road that is much less travelled by in Alberta these days.

If this horrendous law is as benign as the government assures us, what's the hold up? Cabinet makes the proclamation and it meets in the summer. School starts in a few weeks. Give teachers, trustees and parents some certainty (sic) and proclaim the damn law now and lets see what happens sooner than later.

Will Bill 44 Be Debated at the Alberta PC Party AGM in November?

I found out that my suggestion to the Edmonton Glenora PC constituency association to submit a resolution to the Party AGM to repeal the classroom opting out provisions of the new Alberta Human Rights Act, best known as Bill 44, did not make the cut.

There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.

It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.

This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.

If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.

That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.

What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.

It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.

I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.

The Rocky Road to the Repeal of Bill 44 Provisions in The Alberta Human Rights Act.

What is Next for Bill 44 Provision in Alberta Human Rights Act?
The frequency and volume of political commentary about passing The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) that adopted the Bill 44 opting out provisions will diminish over the next few months. It is summer after all. The reality of the consequences of this ill-advised and ill-conceived law will come once the Act is proclaimed and becomes the actual law of the land.


There are some unrest and rumblings within the Progressive Conservative Party rank and file against Bill 44 provisions in the AHRA. I also hear some in the PC Party are trying to stifle and suppress any continuing talk about Bill 44, presuming it will be forgotten over time. I don't think that will be the case given the anger I have seen expressed over this bad politics and poor governance decision. That approached worked in a pre-Internet world but it will not work now.


There are a few moves afoot within some PC Party constituencies to submit a resolution for repeal of the opting out provisions for debate the AGM in November 2009. I am all for that and hope it happens but there are many hurdles to jump to make that a reality. Here is a sense of what it would take and what it would mean for the PC Party to debate the repeal of the opting out provisions of the AHRA at the next AGM.


The PC Party is not the PC Government.
First, if must be clearly understood that whatever the PC Party decides is not binding on the Stelmach government. The PC Party is just another political special interest group. It is not the government. I served on the PC Party Policy Committee for years but over a decade ago. I had a constant fight with the Reform/Alliance wing members who did not grasp the difference between the government and the policy proposals of the political party that supported it. Grassroots run deep with old-time Reformers.


Sometimes process is everything so here is how it works, as I understand it. I checked the process and it is essentially the same as in my day in dealing with Party Resolutions at AGMs. Here is a link to the PC Party website for the actual constituency resolution process, if you are interested.

The PC Party debates Resolutions at every AGM from submissions made by individual constituency organizations. Each constituency can submit two resolutions. The first one (the "A" Resolution) will always be debated. While the second one (the "B" Resolution) may not be debated because of time constraints. If there are duplicates of resolutions they are combined and only one is debated. Some resolutions are declined because the don't deal with provincial jurisdiction or they are too vague or too local in nature.


A group of Regional Directors and constituency level VPs of Policy, all as party volunteers, will do the vetting of the resolutions received. The A and B Resolutions are dealt with first come first served and up to 6 minutes of debate is provided for each one. Then any party member in the room can vote on the Resolution on a show of hands. Open transparent and fair to my mind.


Those Resolutions that get support from the membership are submitted to the government as information and advice. The government caucus then considers them and responds to the Party on each one, in writing. The government's responses range from agreement to disagreement and everything in between and often includes a reporting on the status and progress on resolutions and related issues.


Will the PC AGM Debate a Repeal Resolution?
So what will it take to get the AHRA provisions of Bill 44 to be debated as a Resolution at the November PC Party AGM? The first step is for a local party constituency organization to draft an appropriate proposed resolution and then decide as a local Board to submit it to the AGM.


That first step has already been done by the Edmonton Whitemud PC Constituency but there is a wrinkle. My information is the Bill 44 Repeal Resolution from Whitemud was a tie vote for second place - a "B" Resolution. The constituency apparently has decided to submit three resolutions rather than break the tie for the B resolution. It is an interesting development because the Repeal Resolution it will at best be a "B" Resolution and it risks not being debated due to time constraints. That has never happened in my experience in dealing with Party Resolutions, but it is a possibility, and in politics if it is possible anything can happen so nothing should surprise us.


Here are some interesting "What Ifs." What if in the initial Party vetting process they cull one of the two Whitemud B resolutions because only two Resolutions are allowed. Would the Bill 44 resolution be the one culled? The resolution vetting process could more likely send the two B resolutions back to Whitemud and require them to break the tie and will that happen or will they settle on only submitting an "A" Resolution?

If at the party organizational level, they decided to cull the only Repeal Resolution on such a technicality, I expect progressives in the PC Party would either revolt against the Party Executive or just leave the party. My money is on the Party going back to the Whitemud constituency and making them break the tie vote. So much uncertainty still prevails.


This could be avoided if another PC Constituency organization were to submit an "A" Resolution to recommend repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions. To date that has not happened but it might. I think it should happen for the sake of the PC Party itself but there appears to be some of nervous nellies who help run the party. They clearly want this to go away so all this Bill 44 controversy would just disappear somehow.


Some Serious Political Implications Around a Repeal Resolution
Here are some of the political implications for the PC Party, the PC government and progressive Albertans emerging from these various scenarios. If there is a Resolution for the Repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions debated at the AGM, and it passes, the Stelmach government can reconsider its policy and move to repeal the provisions. It can also say no, that is a done deal and they can refuse to reconsider. That is their option as our government but there will be repercussions in the PC Party and the PC government either way.


If such a Resolution is defeated by the PC Party membership then there will be soul searching in the progressive membership ranks of the PC Party considering if this party is still viable as their political "home." Who knows if or when that will happen. The party progressives I have talked to about Bill 44 know there is no other political party for them to go where they feel comfortable and believe they could be effective. The question then is will they join the other 60% of disengaged Albertans or pursue something different to express their political philosophy and aspirations for Alberta? Will the "Alberta Citizen Cynicism" party gets thousands more non-voters?


There are Implication for Progressives.
There is another more subtle but even more significant potential implication coming out of how the PC Party handles a Resolution to repeal AHRA opting out provisions. If they never received such a resolution from a constituency then local constituency ennui or angst against "rocking the boat" gets the Party off the hook. But that does not resolve the larger political issue, namely the anger amongst all the progressive Albertans who are still angry over the unnecessary Bill 44 optioning out provisions in the AHRA.

If no PC constituency organization has the courage and conviction to submit a repeal resolution for debate at the AGM I expect most progressive PC members will drift away from the party and be missing in action in the next election. The non-partisan Alberta progressives will decide to actively campaign against the PC Party in preparation for the next election. We are seeing the tip of that iceberg as evidenced in the wave of social media and traditional media commentary on the appropriateness of some recent personal comments made in public by Iris Evans and Doug Elniski. The PC Party and the PC government can expect more of this kind of scrutiny and aggressive response from now on - regardless of any AGM debate or its outcome.


If the Party receives a submission but tries to subvert the AGM debate of a repeal resolution I will expect to see progressive party members getting more vocal and deciding in droves to be no shows at the November AGM meeting. I can't see that subversion happening but it is politics and anything can happen. If it did happen I would be more disappointed than surprised. The likely unintended consequences are that the majority of PC party members who will "show up" at the AGM (and who will likely be encouraged to show up) will be those social conservatives on the far right of the party who tend to support Ted Morton.

There are Potential Implications for the Stelmach Leadership too.
Under those circumstances, a really significant political turn of events from the Bill 44 fiasco, that could happen at this November AGM. That is a potential threat to Premier Stelmach's continuing leadership of the PC Party. The PC Party Constitution requires that the Leader to face a confidence vote at the first AGM following an election - win or lose. That is how the Party sent a message to Ralph Klein that it was time for him to go a few years back. Ralph lingered as Leader, but the Party told him, in a vote of no uncertain terms, that he was past his best before date. He was gone!

PC Party Leader Ed Stelmach has to face a similar leadership confidence vote of party members at the November AGM.


What if the party "faithful" who show up at the AGM are predominantly social conservatives because they are emboldened by Bill 44? What if the the progressives stay home because the are discouraged by Bill 44? Could this be the "perfect storm" for the far right to give Premier Stelmach a low vote of support? What level of low support would seriously undermine his continuing leadership? What if his support is low enough, like Klein's 55% support? Will he have a backbench revolt of social conservatives that demand another leadership race? Will we be into a PC leadership contest for a new Alberta Premier sooner than we thought or even wished for? What will such uncertainty do to the Alberta economy and any recovery from the recession?


This is what can happen when internal partisan political expediency is preferred over good governance - like in the case of the Bill 44 fiasco. Bill 44 issues will be quiet over the summer but they will be front and centre again in the fall. Stay tuned. It promises to be interesting, unnerving, disappointing and even devastating, depending on your perspective.

Will the PC Party Pursue the Repeal of Bill 44 Opting-Out Provisions?

It is a dreary rainy Friday afternoon in Edmonton but a ray of public policy sunshine is coming through. Yesterday there was the start of a move within the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta to repeal the opting-out portions of what was Bill 44. It is now the Alberta Human Rights Act since Third Reading early Tuesday morning and it received Royal Assent on June 4th. It is not law until it is Proclaimed but that can happen at any Cabinet Meeting.

The political fallout of the Progressive Conservative government passing this ill-conceived poorly drafted and socially destructive law has not gone unnoticed, including by some other progressives in the Progressive Conservative Party - at least at the local constituency level. The Whitemud Constituency Executive are taking a recommendation to the Board in mid June seeking approval that they present a Resolution to the PC Party AGM in November to deal with the offensive provisions of Bill 44, now the Alberta Human Rights Act.

I understand the Resolution will be intended to deal with the parental opting out provisions of the Human Right Act that focus on education and teaching issues religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. This Bill was a solution looking for a problem. The School Act had opting out provisions that worked well for 20 years. These options did not need to be expanded and extended into the Human Rights complaint and litigation process against teachers and school trustees. But the Stelmach government in its "wisdom" has done just that...and without any consultation or even advanced notice to anyone involved. Breathtakingly bad governance in a modern and mature representative democracy.

I was at the Edmonton Glenora PC Constituency meeting last night and they decided to do a Policy Resolution to the November AGM as well. I suggested a repeal of the opting out provisions. What will happen in Glenora is three proposed resolutions will be presented to the Board and the one receiving the most votes will go forward for consideration at the AGM. That will be an interesting exercise in local level political party democracy. I will keep you posted.

These Resolutions from the Progressive Conservative Party membership are not binding on the government. They are merely advice and input just like any other special interest group. Sometimes the advice is the result of a collective wisdom. Sometimes it is just pooled Ignorance. One thing for sure the Bill 44 fiasco has legs and it is not going away!

I ran into a former Party President at lunch who has been asked to supervise the PC Party Leadership Confidence vote at the November AGM too. This vote is a Party constitutional provision and happens after every election. It was how the PC Party dumped Premier Klein when he hung on too long after the 2004 election.

Bill 44 is far from over. The political fallout is just beginning to be felt. The Letters to the Editor in the newspapers and the editorial commentary is still coming in. The legal fallout will have to wait for the Human Rights Act to be Proclaimed and who knows when that will happen. Time for citizens, and especially political party members, to take back their political power and to once again participate in the public policy culture of their society.

Opting out of citizenship due to cynicism and skepticism is creating a "silent majority" in the minds of certain politicians. They are hiding behind this veneer of presumed public will and support for Bill 44 by presuming silence entitles them to legalize ignorance and intolerance around religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation.

The world is run by those who show up - not by those who opt out.

Alberta School Trustees Seething Mad About Bill 44

I spent yesterday with over 250 Alberta School Trustees discussing matters of governance in public education. It was more than a might ironic given the government of Alberta imposed closure the night before on Bill 44 in the face of enormous opposition from teachers, trustees, superintendents, parents and students.


My message to Schools Trustees was that they lost political power a long time ago. What they have now is political influence, just like the rest of us. Since they are still elected they have more political authority than the rest of us. The role they play in promoting, protecting and preserving our public education system gives school trustees a real reason and a duty to reach out to the disengaged and cynical citizenry on public education issues. It is hard not to see how public education does not have a connection to just about any issue in society today.


School Trustees are the lowest order of elected governance we have. They are the Rodney Dangerfields of Alberta democracy. They are also persons elected by local communities and we entrust the education of our kids and future generations to their care. They are elected as individuals and not hampered by partisanship. People can relate to them easier and more openly but the problem is nobody knows who they are.


We have a serious and growing democratic deficit in Alberta. It will only get worse unless citizens take back their responsibility to participate in the political life of our province. My message to School Trustees was they are the closest to the people in their communities BUT they have to reach out and join the communities, not wait for them to come or expect them to come to the school system.

As a practical example of what I am talking about, here is a link to one of Sue Huff's blog posts on the passing of Bill 44. Sue is a first term Trustee in the Edmonton Public School Board. She was not in Red Deer this week but I will be sure she get a copy of my remarks.

The way to do this is by engaging in conversations in real life and on the Internet, using social media. I showed them some social media sites and put them in some context about how to use them to create and participate in personal and group conversations about meaningful issues to citizens. This it their role to help get Albertans to return and take up the role of citizen at the centre of our "democratic" society.

Bill 44 is the catalyst to regain the energy for public policy and political participation in Alberta. School Trustees are the best positioned to help influence individuals and communities to re-engage in civic life and to take back the political power that is at the core of our democratic system. I hope they earn the respect of their constituents, friends and neighbours. They deserve it but it will not come to them. They have to go out and get it and show the rest of us what a responsible, resilient and respectful democracy is again.

As Red Green would say "Get your stick on the ice. I am pulling for you."

Bill 44: Bad Policy Becomes Bad Law in the Name of Human Rights

As Bill 44 goes into Third Reading, it is being framed by its proponents as a law that is needed to protect and promote parents “rights” to be primarily responsible for the education of their children. Those who oppose Bill 44 are somehow presumed to be in opposition to that principle. That is not true. I think those who are promoting this Bill are intentional mis-framing the core issues of Bill 44. They are doing this to deflect attention from the serious shortcomings and legitimate concerns about Bill 44.

Bill 44 is not all bad. It proposes to specifically identify legal protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation. No one I know who opposes Bill 44 does so for that reason. Disallowing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the law of the land. Alberta is finally getting around to writing in that reality in this proposed Alberta Human Rights Act. No one in know who opposes Bill 44 does so for reasons relating to the appropriate roles and responsibility of parents in the education of their children in the Alberta public education system.

There has always been a home and school partnership relationship in Alberta’s public education system It is well recognized in the Alberta School Act. The Preamble of the School Act says: “WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children.” That covers the parental side of the public education partnership. This part of the Preamble covers the education community side of the partnership. It says: “WHEREAS the education community in making decision should consider the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta within the context of its common values and beliefs.”

Here is why the opting out provision of Bill 44 is unnecessary. Section 50 of the School Act put the discretion in a School Board to prescribe religious instruction, religious exercises, patriotic instruction, and patriotic exercises. The Act provides for a written request from a parent to exclude their children from any or all of these discretionary instructions or exercises. Sexuality exclusions are not in the Act but are dealt with effectively in Department of Education policy and procedures.

Given this historical, successful and practical partnership approach inherent in the School Act, why does the Government of Alberta feel the need to set up another quasi-judicial legalistic and possibly adversarial process? Bill 44 proposes provisions that are not about discretionary religious instruction and exercises. The new parental opt-out provisions are not about religious instruction or exercises, but about religion itself. That is a much broader and more imprecise concept than “religious instruction and exercises” provided in the School Act.

Sexuality is specifically added into the proposed Human Rights Act and recent amendments clarified that to mean “human sexuality” for purposes of clarity. Interestingly, “sexual orientation,” is a new parental opt-out option being added in the new Human Rights Act. One would think that human sexuality would include sexual orientation, but it has been singled out as a distinctly offensive opting out issue for parents. Any fair-minded and progressive Albertans has to ask themselves why sexual orientation has been singled out. There is not obvious positive public policy answer.

Nobody disputes that Alberta parents have a say and can participate in the education of their child in our public education system. Educators only wish more of them took up this as an obligation. That said, what is the advantage of elevating this parental privilege to opt-out their children’s from religious and patriotic instruction and exercise to the level of creating a human rights claim? Bill 44 elevates parental participation and provides a litigation process for remedying alleged breaches of law that can be used against their child’s teacher and perhaps, school trustees. No legislator has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this is being done.

The School Act Preamble also says: “WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act.” That “authority” rightly rests jointly with the schools and the parents. To replace such a sound concept of collaborative common cause between home and school with an adversarial and litigious process based on seeking damages for alleged breaches does not serve “…the best educational interests of the student.” Bill 44 undermines the very spirit and intent of public education in Alberta.

There are other damaging elements in enabling a legal process to replace a common cause approaches in our public education system. The language in Bill 44 is extremely vague and difficult to define given the shared learning context of a typical classroom discussion. In trying to clarify the intent of the new opting out provisions on religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation the law makers introduced some amendments. Something they said they would not do only a week earlier. The language has moved from “subject-matter that deals explicitly” to “subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly” with religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. And we are told this amendment is for purposes of clarity? As a lawyer and as a public policy consultant, I think these amendments fail miserably at providing clarity. It looks effective on its face, but how will it work and what does it mean in real life?

What is the standard test to use by a teacher to determine when they are at the stage of “primarily and explicitly” when class discussions start dealing with “subject- matter that deals” with “religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation?” It is this kind of intentional obfuscation in law making that drives these issues to the courts, often because of a politically intentional lack of clarity. We need the laws to say what they mean and our lawmakers to mean what they say in our statutes. We need our politicians to make laws for our greater good that are as clear, precise and in language as plain as possible.

How does a teacher know where to draw the line in a vibrant learning atmosphere with curious and engaged students who are exploring, learning and asking probing questions? When does the classroom discussion become “explicitly” about religion, human sexuality and/or sexual orientation? When does a classroom discussion reach the point of being “primarily” about those topics? Is it when more than half the class time is spent on the explicit subject? Or is it when more than half the students participate in the explicit discussion? These are questions a Human Rights Tribunal or a Court will ask when dealing with a complaint. The only safe course of action for a teacher is to avoid any such topics and classroom discussion altogether if for no other purposes than self-preservation. What does that do to the quality of our public education system Mr. and Ms. Alberta lawmaker?

We then see an attempt by the Government of Alberta to grapple with this dilemma in a further amendment also offered as “clarification.” These further amendment says teachers need not only worry about “primarily and explicitly” so long as the classroom events and student discourse was only in terms of “incidental or indirect” references. That is hardly reassuring because teacher still don’t know what test to apply in evaluating what constitutes incidental or indirect references. So it’s acceptable to incidentally or indirectly talk about religion and human sexuality in the classroom. What does that mean and doesn’t that depend on how any individual student perceives the discussion or the intent of the individual student’s comments or questions? What may be an incidental or indirect reference to one person may well be a primary and explicit reference in the mind of another.

What will be the legal test applied to alleged breaches? Will it be objective, or subjective and what about context? How will context be proven and based on what kind of evidence? These Human rights Tribunals are quasi-judicial. They are not like a parent-teacher meeting. Consider context, look at the incident this past week in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister used the phrase “tar baby” with reference to the Alberta oil sands in Parliament. Others in the House immediately took it to be a racial slur and asked for an apology, which the Parliamentary Secretary refused by the way. This is a perfect example of what can go wrong when we draft laws with intentionally vague language as in Bill 44. Politicians don’t have to worry about liability for comments in legislature or in Parliament because they have a wonderful protection called Parliamentary Privilege. That means they can say anything they want about anybody they want, provided they use Parliamentary language, and they are immune from prosecution. Too bad teachers don’t have the same protection as the lawmakers.

Here is what I see happening with the ill-conceived, ill-defined and poorly drafted Bill 44, even as amended. It will cause certain social conservative zealots and advocates to be emboldened. They will pursue incidences of alleged breaches of the new and ironically entitled, Alberta Human Rights Act just to make political points and settle scores. They will do this because they want things like teaching creationism accepted in the public school curriculum. They will focus on getting political retribution on the back of Alberta’s teachers and public education system because of homosexuality and gay marriages are now not just “legal” but are becoming normalized in Canadian law and society. Innocent teachers will be caught in the cross fire. Bill 44 gives these people access to the Alberta Human Rights complaint process and an avenue of appeal to the Courts so they can pursue and promote their political agendas.

Wait, it gets worse. Besides the vagueness of the legal tests of what would be a breach of the Act, what would the evidence look like and where would it come from? Bill 44 provisions will put a student between his parents and his teacher in a “he said – she said” standoff. The only objective evidence available would have to come from other student in the classroom at the time of the alleged breaches. Besides the pressure on children being interviewed and potentially having to testify in a tribunal and in a court, how likely will those children know how to evaluate the so-called “offensive” classroom comments? How will they determine, in their own minds, if alleged comments were in any way “primarily and explicitly” or “incidental or indirect related to religion, religious themes, human sexuality and sexual orientation”? What weight ought to be given to such evidence from other children, who are also caught in this political crossfire now? What other means of gathering independent evidence will there be to assist the Trier of fact in making a finding in such circumstances? This is not only harmful to these children who will have to endure such a process, it is also highly inappropriate.

We are told by the government politicians promoting this new law that the chances of any of this complaint process actually happening is small. They use past statistics of Human Rights complaints to reassure us. Unfortunately this is far from reassuring. We can’t use past statistics to predict the future impact of a new law that effectively creates a new parental human right. If even one political motivated aggressive social conservative advocate on a mission filed a complaint and pursued it, we are into a full blown, time consuming and expensive quasi-judicial review. If one of the parties is unhappy with the result at first instance, there is a potential appeal to the courts. This could be an even more time consuming and expensive judicial process. That threat from Bill 44, however small, will still send a chill through the teachers in the entire Alberta public education system.

There are other serious question on the process of Bill 44, beyond it merits. Where was the public consultation around this new law? Where are the legal opinions that support this Bill 44 that outline the social problem that is intends to solve and advised how it does so within the law? Where was the public debate about moving from a joint home and school partnership in public education to a scheme that is a one-way parental rights based litigious model? And where is the sound and reasoned public policy judgment and indication of the wisdom of our government’s lawmakers? What studies have they done to determine if there even is a governance or social problem that needs to be solved in the first place? All of this background material is needed to show citizens that Bill 44 is necessary to resolve an identified public policy problem. It is also needed to show citizens that Bill 44 is a justifiable law as a solution to the identified public policy.

This information has been asked for by the Opposition but none has been provided by the Government of Alberta to substantiate why Bill 44 is a necessary new law for Albertans.
The political spin originally put on Bill 44 is that it is “symbolic” and “just the same as the current School Act.” It clearly is not. We are now being told this is about preserving the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children. This too is factually inaccurate given all the sources that children learn from these days. We are being told that those who oppose Bill 44 want the “nanny state” to replace parental rights regarding their children. This is also unfounded because we already have the School Act to deal with the real issues of curriculum opting-out. We are being told that frivolous and vexatious Human Rights claims arising from Bill 44 provisions will not happen because Albertans are educated and reasonable people.

The Government lays out assurance that even if some Albertans did file complaints for alleged breaches “good teachers” have nothing to fear under this new law. If the government is so confident in those “nothing to fear” representations why do they consistently refuse agree to indemnify teachers who face such accusations? Why has the government refused to cover a teacher’s legal costs and damages in the event of any such claims? Could it be the Government of Alberta doesn’t actually believe its own assurances to teacher that this is no big threat?

There is not a single good governance reason to make these changes to the new Human Rights Act. There is every likelihood that this unnecessary and ill-conceived law will only serve to erode and destabilize our quality public education system and intimidate teachers and school trustees. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw as to why this is happening is that it is for internal political appeasement purposes. It is being proposed to satisfy demands of a social conservative faction in the governing Progressive Conservative Caucus. This fact has already been “explicitly” stated by at least one Alberta Cabinet Minister to be the reason for these proposed amendments. Nobody has clarified or denied that assertion as to the reasons for Bill 44 opting out provisions.

This is a public policy travesty that is turning into a statutory tragedy at Third Reading of Bill 44 this Monday night June 1, 2009. Alberta’s excellent public education system will be sacrificed and Alberta’s children will suffer in the service of noting more than some contemptuous political appeasement within the governing Progressive Conservative Caucus.

Premier Stelmach Say Bill 44 is a Free Vote and I Believe Him!

The smart money seems to believe that Bill44, as amended, will go through Third Reading tomorrow and become law. It will not be enforceable law until it gets signed by the Lieutenant Governor.

There have been some changes to Bill 44 presented by the government as a result of the political pressure and particularly from by teachers, school trustees and parent groups. More on that late, but the other significant change around Bill 44 was Premier Stelmach’s announcement yesterday that it would be subject open to a free vote in the Legislature. This is a dramatic turnaround from the staunch position of a few days ago that Bill 44 was going to proceed as a government bill and “as is.”

Premier Stelmach’s surprise pronouncement yesterday that Bill 44 would be subject to a free vote is very significant, shows enlightened leadership and needs to be acknowledged. There are many who don’t believe Bill 44 will be a free vote but I do. I think a free vote is only important at Third and final reading that makes the Bill the law of the land. Every vote beforehand is process and a free vote has no real meaning there. Liberal Opposition Leader has also said his caucus will have a free vote on Bill 44 as well, and given the small size of the NDP caucus every vote is essentially a free vote.

A free vote means that every MLA will be able to vote their conscience on Bill 44 without having to support party lines. I don’t know if the House voted on the government amendments last night or not but let’s not confuse the matter with parliamentary process. Let’s stay with the personal, political and leadership importance of a free vote.

A free vote shows the Premier recognizes the fundamental morality concerns and the personal values-based nature of what Bill 44 is all about. This shows Premier Stelmach is prepared to lose the vote and the passing Bill 44 into law. That is unlikely, but with a true free vote, why would anyone not take the Premier at his word on that?

Are there enough Progressives in the Stelmach government who do not doubt the Premier’s word and who will vote against Bill 44 as a matter of personal conscience regardless of partisanship? Are there some in the PC Caucus who realize that the opting out provisions are flawed? Do they see that the recent government amendments do nothing to fix the flaws, and may even make them worse? Will they exercise the free vote opportunity and declare their distaste for the unfortunate elements in this Bill and vote against it?

Or will the MLAs in the Progressive Conservative Caucus not believe the Premier when he said Bill 44 is a free vote? Are they afraid there will be consequences if they vote their conscience and oppose a government Bill regardless of what the Premier said about a free vote? That would be sad at so many levels and in so many ways, including the further erosion of our democracy. It would also show a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Premier if PC MLAs somehow felt they could not take him at his word that Bill 44 is a free vote for his Caucus.

I believe this proposed Alberta Human Rights law does not elevate Alberta society, or in any way, serve the greater good. It is supposed to be a law about what we believe in and reflect positively on us as a fair-minded, inclusive, diverse and respectful society. But it is so defective in serving those core Alberta principles, rather than make us proud to be Albertan; Bill 44 makes us want to cringe.

I don’t think there will be enough freely exercised Progressive Conservative MLA who will vote their personal conscience and defeat Bill 44. I also know not every PC MLA is enamoured with Bill 44 but they may think the “hard fought” amendments fix the problems so they can exercise their free vote and support the amended Bill. On a clear reading of the implication of the amendments, even by a mediocre legal mind, it is obvious that the hastily constructed parsing of words in the amendments only add process complexity instead of clarity. The changes simply don’t fix the fundamental flaws in Bill 44. For those who are not regular readers of this Blog just go back to archive entries for 2 weeks or so to get a sense of just how dreadful this Bill is.

If there are no dissenting votes from the PC side at third reading, as a Progressive Conservative Party member, I will be more disappointed than surprised. I will not know if that unanimity happened because the PC Caucus did not believe or trust the word of the Premier, their leader, when he gave his free vote directive on Bill 44. I will not know if that unanimous support of the amended Bill 44 was a character flaw or a judgment shortcoming of individual MLAs because they would not or could not see the serious social consequences of making such an ill-conceived law. I will not know if the Caucus membership is so timid or intimidated that some members who beg to differ, but rather choose to defer. I will suspect that if they all act like sheep they will at least have the integrity to be sheepish about it. Time will tell.

There is a great democratic force emerging on the political scene. It is an budding wave of voter energy and civic engagement that Bill 44 has created amongst networked and tech-savvy Influentials. I predict that nascent opinionated personal energy will become an on-going political force that will grow and gather momentum in Alberta. I smell democracy in the air and I sense a change coming. A few short hours ago hundreds of Influential tech-savvy and politically engaged Albertans from all over our province got on their computers and found each other online because of opposition to Bill 44. They eagerly explored their differences and enjoyed their like-mindedness too. The focus was all about what Bill 44 would do to offend their shared values and pride as Albertans.

A small group of people with the personal empowerment and communal potential got together on line, in Alberta, until very late last night. They engaged in common cause last night and that they may be the start of creating some big political changes that they want to see in their Alberta.

Margaret Meade is often quoted about cautioning to never underestimating the power of a small group of people to change the world - because that is the way it is always done. Margaret would have been proud of what she saw last night in Alberta. She would have enjoyed watch us struggle to find any rational reason, other than pettiness and pure power politics, for certain devastating, destructive and discriminatory changes being introduced into our Alberta Human Rights Act.

Late last night, online, a lot of Albertans got together, found each other, and started to wake up as they deliberately dusted off their citizenship. If Bill 44 is not a real free vote, there will be a political cost for Alberta Conservatives.

Alberta Government Says Bill 44 Will be Amended

So the Stelmach government announced today in Question Period we can expect amendments to Bill 44 parental opting out provisions around issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation in Alberta classrooms. The public pressure has been mounting against Bill 44 and Minister Blackett admitted as much today.

Our government might have gotten the message from the majority of Albertans want an inclusive, diverse and respectful society. Our government might have come to realize that it is unacceptable to institutionalize bigotry against homosexuals and put teachers and school trustees at risk to prosecution by rights reactionaries. None of this undermines the current law and public policy that preserves a parent’s right to have their family views on religious beliefs and the reality of how they see their values on human sexuality prevail. That is still to be respected and preserved but not elevated to a right.

The bottom line is there is no compromise on recognizing sexual orientation in Alberta Human Rights laws, because it is the law of the land. Sexual orientation is part of human sexuality and when those matters are scheduled for classroom discussion as part of the curriculum prior notice should still be given and parental exemption wishes honoured.

It is also not appropriate for public education to provide religious instruction to those who do not wish it. The current provisions and practices under the School Act deal very effectively with that legitimate concern as well. Note that religious instruction is not the same as religion. Religion has to be an integral pat of any modern and forward thinking course of study in the Alberta public school system. There is Separate and other religious affiliated private schools in Alberta that are able to serve those faith based wishes around providing religious instruction.

The amendments to Bill 44 that are acceptable are the elimination of section 11.1 that created all these problems. I hope the Alberta government also revisits and eliminates Section 3 on hate speech too. Those provisions are not necessary either in Alberta’s updated human rights legislation.

Then teachers can continue to teach and school districts can provide the proper notice when required, as is the case today without Bill 44 “fixes.” Human sexuality includes sexual orientation so discussions can proceed with children of those parents who accept and respect differences. We can use public education as a means to expand our understanding of our differences without demonizing anyone.

The most appropriate amendments must eliminate any reference to sexual orientation as distinct from human sexuality and retain the latter as an option to opt out but only from pre-scheduled curriculum based class time. It must eliminate any reference to religion as a subject of opting out and stay with religious instruction only. Religious instruction is not part of the Alberta curriculum as far as I know. Catholic schools and other denominational schools can teach religious instruction but students in those schools whose parents wish them to be excused from participating can do so and still attend the school for all other purposes. That is the current reality and it should stay.

Am I optimistic this will be the amendments we will see tomorrow? I expect something less based on an incremental retreat from a very faulty public policy and governance stance articulated in Bill 44. This is about foundational social values and principles. It is not the stuff of compromise. A compromise on faulty principles will not fix the fault. It will perpetuate it. This is not the time to put forward the Canadian propensity for compromise by allowing incidental an incremental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is the law of the land that no level of discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable and therefore any compromise on that principle is also unacceptable.

This is not the time to ease any public pressure to get this matter totally and appropriately resolved. I am waiting to see what happens tomorrow and will decide then if I am optimistic or not about the amendments.

Alberta's Bill 44 Embarassment Broadens.

UPDATE May 25 @ 2:15 pm: Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, Lindsay Blackett said in Question Period today that the GOA has been listening and Bill 44 is being amended. We can expect that will happen tomorrow. Hoping the matter stays in the School Act and we define the terms and conditions that create an opt-out in language that offers more clarity than in the current version of Bill 44. STAY TUNED!!!

The controversy around the opting-out provisions proposed in the draft Alberta Human Rights Act is not going away and now the rest of Canada is getting involved - and not just watching as we institutionalize bigotry in our proposed human rights legislation.

The Globe and Mail reports today that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written to the Progressive Conservative Alberta government about the folly of this proposed legislation. They say "no valid public interest is gained" by extending a parental rights clause. They also say if Alberta proceeds in this way it will "become a counterproductive precedent" for other provinces.

Here is the quote I love. "You should be able to exclude your kids from indoctrination but not from knowledge." That is the core ethical issue at stake here. Parental choice and role is vitally important and they already have all the respect and protection they need in the current Alberta School Act to ensure no school will provide unwanted religious instruction and human sexuality instruction. Those exclusions ensure parents who want to exclude their children from school courses involving those topics are free to do so. That is an acceptable, effective and working current policy that does not need changing. It sure does not need fixing.

The motives behind the proposed changed to require a parental right elevate the exclusions to a human right, not a personal parental privilege, is admitted to be a sop to bigotry in a quote attributed to the Minister ironically responsible for "Culture and Community Spirit." The ultra-right elements in the "Progressive (sic) Conservative government are insisting that opting out be elevated to a human right and expanded and extended "..as an olive branch to religious groups and conservative voters who might be offended by the provinces move to recognize gay rights.

This political pandering masquerading as public policy pragmatism is offensive to the vast majority of Albertans. The mainstream of Alberta society what an inclusive, diverse and respectful society that thrives on differences and doesn't fear them. Gay rights are not negotiable. They are the law of the land. Legislators make those laws and they ought to be the first to respect them. It is a fundamental character flaw of politicians to even presume to negotiate institutionalizing bigotry on the basis of sexual orientation. To accept this into law to merely appease some ultra-right religious fundamentalists who dogmatically refuse to accept the fact of diverse sexual orientations as a reality is appalling.

Parents legitimately have the option to exclude their children from instruction on matters of instruction in areas of religion and human sexuality as is the case today in the Alberta School Act. That privilege protects their children from indoctrination. What Bill 44 does is say the opting out extends to the general topic of religion and sexual orientation. That crosses the line from protecting children from indoctrination to keeping them ignorant and excluded from access to useful knowledge. That is not acceptable in our modern Canadian and Albertan societal values.

Of course parents have a vital role to play in the education of their children and in teaching and transmitting social values to them. That parental privilege does not extend to the promotion of prejudice and potential persecution of teachers and school trustees as Bill 44 will empower them to do. Kill the opting out provisions of Bill 44 and leave the School Act as it is - that is protection enough for parents - and for the right reasons too.

Bill 44 is a Human Rights Disaster

I am running into all these bright minds grounded in sound principles writing in the mainstream media. Here is a piece on what a disaster Bill 44 amending Alberta Human Rights legislation for the worse. It is by Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation on Ethics and Leadership. Janet and I participate in a monthly column in Alberta Venture magazine on business ethics along with Fil Fraser, the former head of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Janet's approach is to show how badly Bill 44 deals with real human rights issues and serious but ignored HRC conflict issues. My take is that parents rights around the education of their kids belongs in the School Act and there are protections there already. This is about quality, inclusion and relevancy in public education and not about extending exiting parental consent to instruction on religion and human sexuality to a human right.

The narrow mindedness of the Progressive Conservative caucus demonstrated by Bill 44 opting out provisions shows the world that Alberta is not the kind of place open hearted, creative, innovative and accepting people will want to work, live and invest in. It shows us to be just the opposite. may as well save what is left of the $25M branding budget. Nobody is going to believe the rhetoric with this shabby display of retrograde public policy by our government.

Time for the PC caucus to read some of the writings of Richard Florida and get up to speed what a successful society looks like in the 21st century.

Does Bill 44 Opting Out Provisions Make You Proud to be an Albertan?

Are you still proud to be an Albertan? For me that is the core values question coming out of Bill 44 - Alberta's Human Rights Act and section 11.1 parental opting out amendments. Parents are given a legal rights and remedies to have advanced notice so they can exempt their children if topics of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation happen in the classroom. It is impossible to tell when and how such topics may come up in a classroom discussion - especially if you what to foster curious and thinking students.

Aiding and abetting such institutionalized ignorance and encouraging it to be embedded in our pluralistic public education system is bad politics and is even worse governance. It begs the question: "Are you still proud to be an Albertan?"

These proposed parental exemptions are too broad and extremely offensive to Albertan core values of equality, fairness, inclusiveness and respect. It has been over a decade since the Alberta government took the decision on discrimination based on sexual orientation to the Supreme Court of Canada - and lost. It was the nationally embarrassing Vriend case.

Bill 44 takes the bold step of making a virtue out of the necessity that requires Alberta to finally follow the law of the land and incorporate protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in our provincial human rights legislation. It is the right thing to do but it is not something to be proud about given it took us over 10 years to do the right thing. Does that long a delay in doing the right thing make you proud to be an Albertan?

Next thing we do is undermine our good intentions of being accepting, inclusive and respectful of different sexual orientations. We do this by passing another amendment in the very same Bill 44 saying that if there are educational materials and classroom discussions about sexual orientation, the public education system has to give notice to parents so they can exempt their child. Beyond being impossible to enforce it will allow reactionaries to victimize teachers and perhaps school trustees and administrators. Why on earth would we want such a law in our public education system in the first place? Does that possibility make you proud to be an Albertan?

The government's political talking points we are supposed to swallow is that section 11.1 says it only applies when subject matter is "explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation." Black's Law Dictionary defines explicit as "Not obscure or ambiguous, having no disguised meaning or reservation." The Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines explicit to include being "definite, clear, expressing views unreservedly; outspoken." So how do you define and determine explicit when as the amendment says in"...courses of study...include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation"? Is the innuendo, metaphor and inference in Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, or in Pope's "The Rape of the Lock"explicit enough to offend the proposed law? I'm betting we are going to find out if this law is passed.

Will teachers feel a chill, avoid subject content and stifle classroom discussions that could provide teachable moments and serve to overcome ignorance and intolerance for fear of being a test case? You bet they will, and who can blame them. How does this deplorable proposal improve public education and better prepare our youth for the interdependent globalized complex world they are inheriting? Does that consequent decline in the quality of public education make you proud to be an Albertan?

Every incident that turns into a complaint to the Human Rights Commission will turn on its own facts on a case by case basis. The government may think their new law is very clear but facts will not be clear. They never are. Nor will the matter be settled easily. The evidence surrounding an alleged breach of the law will undoubtedly have to come from other students in the class who will most likely be the only other witnesses to the alleged breach. How inappropriate is that? Having children testify in a legal process against their teacher, now that has to make you proud to be an Albertan.

You can rest assured that an aggrieved and offended parent who takes offence at some alleged explicit and offensive event in a classroom, somewhere sometime soon in Alberta, can find the ways and means to file and push a human rights complaint against a teacher If they are pursuing a complaint as a matter of "principle" it will not likely settle in advance through mediation and it will then go to a Human Rights Tribunal. If the principled parent is unsatisfied at the Tribunal stage, they can go on to appeal the Tribunal decision to the Courts. Why can this happen, because that is the law already extant in Alberta. What Bill 44 is doing is providing this kind of legal process to parents who wish to pursue it for political purposes as much as anything else. That is a new power afforded to them by the proposed opting out amendment in Bill 44.

This amendment serves no necessary educational purpose nor does it enhance any enlightened greater public good. The School Act and current government policy already allows for notice and exemption from "religious instruction and patriotic instruction" and matters of teaching sexuality. It has worked well for over 20 years and does not need fixing. Does the fact that we are ignoring that success and allowing teachers and trustees to be victimized make you proud to be an Albertan?

What is our government thinking? They are not only allowing this to happen but actively promoting it politically! Is this willful blindness to the consequences of normalizing and institutionalizing ignorance that is inherent in the proposed law? How can such a maladaptive view of progress be promulgated by our government? How can Albertans accept it when it demonstrates such an obvious indifference to social justice and Charter Rights that are at the core of our citizenship?

Why do our legislators have such a naive and misplaced trust that there will be no consequences in passing such a law? Are they that gullible to think human rights legislation is merely "symbolic"? If they are right that it is only "symbolic," then why pass it as a law at all. Leave it the realm of personal conviction and preference. Leave it alone and stay with current government policy. Why create new legal remedies for those who may take offense and invoke these new legal remedies and rights for no other reason than to test their legal limits. This attitude has already been expressed by the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition who are quoted to believe the new parental rights being granted in Bill 44 "can be more widely interpreted" and "...it's up to the parent to make (the legislation) as broad or as narrow and they want." Does that possibility of Bill 44 being a test case over legalizing institutionalized ignorance in our public education system make you proud to be an Albertan?

Institutionalizing such ignorance and intolerance in our public education system is reprehensible. Ignorance is the adversary here, not people of faith. I define ignorance as the absence of that which if learned that would be helpful to know. It is mostly by a default to ignorance that leads me to believe that certain of our democratically elected representatives in our government are obviously fearing change and diversity. They appear to be looking for a quick internal partisan and parochial political fix that is a solution looking for a problem by allowing these opting out provisions. In the process they are sacrificing teachers, school trustees, children and obviously scapegoating gays and lesbians. Are you still proud to be an Albertan?

I have to weep at the political posturing that is going on and trying to reassure us that all of this is merely "symbolic" and changes nothing. If that were true then why change it in the first place. Human Rights laws are not symbolic. They create, clarify and assert rights and protections as a matter of law. Passing a law that makes the Bull Trout the "Official Fish" of Alberta is symbolic. Bill 44 is amending the Alberta Human Rights Act. That is not even close to being classified as "symbolic." To hear that our Human Rights laws in Alberta are being reduced to mere symbolism must make you proud to be an Albertan.

Invoking such an intolerable and invidious amendment into Alberta's Human Rights Act exposes an underdeveloped understanding and appreciation for Albertan and Canadian values. Persisting in being tone deaf to the dissonance it is causing is pure authoritarianism. It is disrespectful of Albertans intelligence and also disrespects other social virtues like compassion, empathy, inclusion, diversity and justice. Considering how this is being handled politically, doesn't that make you proud to be an Albertan?

It was Edmund Burke who said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And for my fellow like-minded Albertans, Burke also said, "Never despair; but if you do, work on in despair." I post this and past blogs about the shortcomings of Bill 44 in the spirit of Edmund Burke's advice.

I encourage you to resist and protest this proposed opting out provisions in the "new" Alberta Human Rights Act. This is the week to email and call your MLA and tell them to pull section 11.1 out of Bill 44. Your MLA is home in the constituency this week so take the time to find them and tell them to stop this unnecessary and destructive amendment. Restore your pride in being Albertan and stop this unnecessary and divisive opting out amendment from becoming law.

Is Bill 44 to Stelmach What 500 Dead Ducks Were to Oil Sands?

Here is a wonderfully illustrative and instructive Letter to the Editor in today's Edmonton Journal. It captures the concern behind the expanded and extended opting-out provisions in Bill 44 eloquently and almost poetically.

Here is another that is equally as insightful about what we should allow and expect of our public education system. This letter it totally aligned with the recent research finding we did for the Edmonton Public School Board on what the citizens of Edmonton what from their public education system.

There was a comment in the Edmonton Journal Venting column today that said to the effect if evolution were real then why are there still apes? If a comedian said that, I would have context enough to laugh. Without that context this comment is also enough to make one weep.

By not exposing our children to the full array of thought and inquiry, be it science or faith, past, present and potential, we stifle human curiosity and exploration. We rob our youth of the means to develop their own minds and to find their own meanings. Mankind, like nature, thrives on diversity.

This is not the stuff of the law or legal processes like Bill44 enables. The law is too blunt an instrument to decide such things.

The fallout for Bill 44 is to the integrity of the Stelmach government like 500 dead ducks were to the oil sands industry. It is time to put away these "fundamentalist principles" Premier Stelmach and do the right thing for Alberta's children and our society.

Taking Your Calls on CBC Radio May 11 on Bill 44

I am doing the open line portion of Wildrose on CBC Radio One Monday May 11th from 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm all on Bill 44 - Alberta's proposed new Human Rights Act. It promises to be interesting so tune in and call in. Let me know your thoughts to the program by comments on this blog post starting Monday.

Bill 44 Amendments on Parental Exemption is Bad Law and a Political Sop to So-Cons

There is a significant and growing citizen's resistance movement to the so-called “parental exemption” proposed in the new Alberta Human Rights Act. I have been mulling this situation for a few days and my concerns have growen the more I reflect on the implications of this Bill 44 amendment. I also simply fail to see neither the need nor the wisdom in passing such a law.


It is pretty obvious that most of the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus is "going along to get along" with the social conservative element. They are hoping that by being quiet this ill-conceived parental exemption amendment will pass unnoticed. By being benign they are reneging on their duty to Albertans as our political representatives. They are actually doing serious harm to many citizens, including children, parents, teachers and school board trustees – just to name a few.

This will be bad law. It will cause more problems for individual teachers and school boards trustees than they deserve. They should never be asked to shoulder such a burden because of such inept legislation. The PC caucus is setting up those hard working and innocent public servants for personal pain and anguish - just for doing their jobs.

There will be the inevitable accusation of a violation of this new parental exemption head of human right our government is creating in Bill 44. This will be done by filing of formal human rights complaints against teachers and likely school boards, perhaps even against individual Trustees. It will be championed by some dogmatic zealot who will set out to make a name for themselves on the issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. This will put some poor teacher right in the middle of the controversy and a nation-wide media feeding frenzy. Talk about unintended secondary consequences of political ineptness and poor governance.


This Bill 44 amendment also has all the markings of a court challenge written all over it. If is passed and applied it is undoubtedly on its way to the courts or its legality. My guess is it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Alberta government forced the Constitutional issue of french language education rights all the way to the Supreme Court in the more enlightened days of the Lougheed government. This Bill 44 stuff is going to be much more controversial.

The lawyer in me asks why we need this legislated change and this new legal status for a parental exemption right at all. What is the actual social mischief or mistake it is trying to solve? The School Act has already resolved the parental exemption issue quite satisfactorily and it has been working for years. The Preamble of the School Act also “explicitly” recognizes the role of parents in the education of their children. Here is the relevant parts of the Preamble and the key section of the School Act.

WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act;
WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children;

Section 50 of the School Act already provides both the provision of religious and patriotic instruction and for the parental exemption from such religious and patriotic instruction. This provision has been working well since 1988. It reads as follows:


50 - Religious and patriotic instruction
(1) A board may
(a) prescribe religious instruction to be offered to its students;
(b) prescribe religious exercises for its students;
(c) prescribe patriotic instruction to be offered to its students;
(d) prescribe patriotic exercises for its students;
(e) permit persons other than teachers to provide religious instruction to its students.


(2) Where a teacher or other person providing religious or patriotic instruction receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from religious or patriotic instruction or exercises, or both, the teacher or other person shall permit the student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction or exercises are taking place for the duration of the instruction or exercises, or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction or exercises.


Bill 44 makes Alberta the last province in the country to “explicitly” acknowledge, in statute, sexual orientation as a human right. Concurrently with this late coming enlightenment, Bill 44 also proposes the following amendment to extend and expand the power of parental exemption from the Alberta school curriculum:


Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.


What is actually proposed in Bill 44 is much more disturbing and expansive than anything covered in Section 50 of the School Act. The official government line is Bill 44 is not proposing anything different that Section 50 of the School Act. If that is the truth, why amend Bill 44 at all. The matter has been well under control for over 20 years.

The real problem here is bad politics not good governance. The majority of the PC caucus appears to be pandering to the minority social conservative elements in their midst. It looks to me that the choosing-to-be-silent majority in the PC caucus are attempting to appease the social conservative with this over-reaching and unnecessary “parental exemption” provision. They are self-delusional if they believe it to be merely a symbolic gesture. Laws are more than mere symbolism. If your purpose is mere symbolism, please don't use the law as your symbolic vehicle.

The truth is the Bill 44 proposals go dangerously beyond mere symbolism. We already have a Charter giving citizens freedom of religion. That also means we have freedom from religion in Canada. Those are the two sides of religious freedom are handled in the current parental exemptions from religious instruction in the School Act. That is very different from the proposed Bill 44 parental exemptions contained in section 11.1 of Bill 44.

Bill 44 is not about an appropriate and respectful accommodation of an exemption from religious instruction as provided in the School Act. Bill 44 is about providing an explicit exempting option whereby a child can be removed from teachings about religion itself as a subject matter. This is hardly symbolic and very different from the School Act exemption. What's more that extended exemption in Bill 44 appears to be elevated in status. It is to become a legally enforceable right of the parent, who can then complain to the Alberta Human Rights Commission about any preceive breach, as they wish. Is that the stuff of symbolism?

If I am right about Bill 44 creates an exemption from instruction about religion, well there goes a good portion of the history curriculum. How can you exclude the impact and influence of religion from the Crusades or the Reformation, or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? They all relate to religion in one way or another. While we are at this, what qualifies as a religion to justify the exemption? How about aboriginal spiritualism? How about ancient and emerging alternative religious belief? How about Wicca? How ironic and idiotic this all becomes.

Wait, it gets worse. We have finally included sexual orientation as a protected status under the proposed new Alberta Human Rights Act. While Bill 44 now says sexual orientation is to be a protected human right in Alberta, just as it has been in every other province for some time now. It is also written into our proposed "human rights" law that sexual orientation is somehow not an acceptable topic for discussion in Alberta schools. So much for any evidence of an authentic effort by the Stelmach government at inclusion, acceptance and tolerance of differences when it comes to the sexual orientations of our citizens.


Here we go again feeding the Neanderthal stereotype of the socially backward Albertan yet again. We are the last province in all of Canada to put sexual orientation in our so-called Human Rights Act and then, right in the same legislation, we effectively legalize disdain for those Albertans with a “different” sexual orientation. Ironic yes, but it more like a shameful tragedy to my mind.


Looking at the specifics of the Bill 44 amendment we see it is not about School Act provisions about “religious instruction.” It is about exempting instruction about “religion” (a.k.a. evolution?) “sexuality” (a.k.a. homosexuality?) and “sexual orientation” (a.k.a. gay marriage?). Why are the so-cons being appeased by the deafening silence and insouciance of the PC Caucus? Do they actually agree with these provisions?

Please don’t tell me the appeasement is a quid pro quo for the insertion of sexual orientation in Bill 44 in the first place. That is not a negotiable item. It is the established and accepted law of the land. Alberta is finally catching up the rest of the country by explicitly including it in our Human Rights law. There is nothing to negotiate here. It is settled law.

Let’s call a spade a spade. This so-called “religion” and “sexual orientation” exemption is all about certain social conservative and religious creationists continuing to fight over our public schools teaching evolution and not creationism. I suggest it is also about the intolerant religious angst from some So-con over losing the battle for sexual orientation to be finally included as a legislated human right in Alberta. It is a thinly veiled effort to elevate an acceptable School Act parental exemption over “religious instruction” into a faux and ersatz human right enforceable by complaints and hearings before Human Rights Tribunals in Alberta.

Bill 44 section 11.1 is bad law because it is not only unnecessary but it will embolden social conservatives and religious fundamentalists to take a page out of the playbook of those radical Muslims who filed an ill founded human rights complaint against Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was accused of encouraging discrimination, hate and contempt by virtue of his republishing the famous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. He was the victim of fundamentalist zealots using human rights provisions inappropriately. So it can and will happen if the opportunity is there.

Mr. Levant’s issue was with section 3 of the human rights legislation not the effects of the proposed section 11.1. He had a point, but his solution was not to eliminate section 3, an argument which has some merit, but to throw out all Human Rights Commissions in total. Mr. Levant offered a non-starter solution but he had a sound principle worth fighting for. In the end he won but it was no doubt an expensive, exasperating and exhaustive process.

Social Conservatives fundamentally detest and deplore what they perceive as judicial activism by the courts. They often accuse judges of making law and not just interpreting law. That happens, but it only happens when we have politicians passing vague, weasel-worded and ill-conceived laws in the first place.

Those bad laws are usually motivated by the blatant ideological attitudes of marginal, not main stream, politicians. As a result they are found to be contrary to the law of the land, most often due to a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill 44 section 11.1 is a perfect example of such an ideologically motivated failure to provide good governance.

If Bill 44 is passed as is, it's shortcomings will inevitably and expensively remedied by the courts.
This would not be judicial activism. It would be the courts fulfilling its role as the ultimate protector for citizens from abuse by the state. This abuse by the state happens when our duly elected democratic representatives fail to show courage of their convictions, exercise sound judgment, display real wisdom and demonstrate the strength of character needed to do their duty as public servants for the greater good of our society.

Citizens of Alberta are upset with these parental exemption provisions of Bill 44. Their public response is effectively serving notice on their government and their duly elected political representative that the Bill 44 amendments on parental exemptions are unnecessary, dangerous and ill-conceived and contrary to the greater public good. I trust they will all reassess their passivity on the matter, govern themselves accordingly, and delete section 11.1 of Bill 44 at Third Reading.