Homeschoolers can't be taught that 'gay' sex is sinful

You know, I actually don't think gov't funds should be going to fund this curriculum, any more than I'd be happy to find out that homeschoolers were being given money to spend on materials that teach that whites are superior to blacks.

The Alberta school system has certain standards in place for their curriculum and one of those is teaching children that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or race. When you decide to take their money, that does give them the right to say how they want it used.

This in no way prevents parents from teaching their own religious values to their kids, in their own time, with materials they paid for themselves.

I seriously doubt anyone will be coming into homeschoolers homes to ask their kids if they think homosexuality is a sin. You're still allowed to hold that belief. You're still allowed to teach it to your children. You just can't claim it's part of your formal curriculum and bill the gov't for it.

 

But they could take it to the point that you cannot buy christian curriculum b/c it may mention these issues. Also it's the slide down the slippery slope. Do we want the gov reviewing all our textbooks and saying you can use this one but not the next?

 

I think as long as the gov't is paying for the curriculum, they get a say in what you can use. And as long as homeschoolers continue to have the right to buy their own curriculum and opt out of gov't run programs, I've got no issues with that.

Now, I'd be the first one to get up in arms if I thought the gov't was going to pass a law saying all homeschoolers *must* use gov't materials or they're not allowed to homeschool. That'd be like the bad old days in the US when independent homeschooling was illegal. But, realistically, I don't see that happening.

FWIW - I live in Ontario, where the gov't pays for nothing, and homeschooling is for all intents and purposes totally unregulated. All a parent has to do is provide their child with an "appropriate" education. And they're expect to do it out of their own pocket. The upside? No interference. The downside? No help, no guidance, no free curriculum. Sometimes I wouldn't have minded a bit of structure, if only to know I was doing good. But I sure appreciated not having to report to anyone!

 

But the question still is, CAN you opt out in Alberta? It sounds that these "standards" are in place, regardless of whether or not you accept government funding.

 

My understanding of the rule is that if you are teaching a student, any student, public, private, catholic or homeschool. You must adhere to the new standard. I don't believe it is a question of funding. It applies to any student in any schooling situation.

New wording of the act:
"All courses or programs of study offered and instructional materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act."

"This section is of extra concern to homeschoolers because the line between "school" life and home life is blurred. Homeschooling families incorporate learning into all of life and their values into everything that is taught. This section would require them to sterilize their teaching of all values that offended the Alberta Human Rights Act."
Quote from HSLDA

The problem is that once it's law, any member of the board of ed who is offended with you, can take this as far as they want to. It's pretty sketchy.

 

That's how I understand it, too. REGARDLESS of whether or not you are accepting any funding, you CANNOT teach that homosexuality is Biblically wrong. In other words, you CANNOT teach Bible as part of your curriculum, unless you only teach the Biblical principles dictated by the government. And that's a very dangerous precident.

 

Except, no one can stop parents from telling their children anything they want. So this is unenforceable. Even if they actually said the Bible can't be part of your school curriculum, there'd be no way to stop a family from teaching it on their own time. All the family would have to do is say, "This isn't school!" And no one could contradict them. It's not like they'll be seizing Christian homeschooling materials at the border.

I do agree that the wording of the act is entirely too fuzzy. The lawyers will likely have a field day defining "school" and "respect" and "heritage", etc. But I'm quite certain you can tell your kids any darn thing you like, and then send them to church to hear the same thing from their pastor. There are plenty of public school Christians in Alberta who do that every day.

FWIW, I can't imagine any immigrant getting through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen if they stood up and said they reject everything the Charter stands for, don't respect it, and have no intention of raising their children to respect it either.

 

Yes, they can enforce it. Laws can be twisted to mean whatever they want. Maybe not every child, but if a child makes ANY kind of comment to the wrong person, they can come after the parents. And I believe they will. It's going to get to the place where children are removed from the home because the parents are teaching them to "hate".

 

The only time that's ever happened was in the case of a couple white supremacists who sent their little girl to school covered in swastikas. And when she was interviewed she told the caseworker quite happily that black people should be tied to the backs of cars and dragged to their deaths. And even then, the authorities also had to prove physical neglect (of which there was plenty evidence). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/27/mb-custody-hearing-swastika.html

There are genuine reasons to get up in arms, but fearing that someone will take away your kid because they comment to a stranger that "being gay is a sin", is not really one of them, in my opinion.

Now, if you are raising your child in an environment of extreme hate, such as you see in the American Westboro Baptist Church, then yes... it's conceivable you may actually lose your child. Canada has a lot less tolerance for that kind of thing, and we don't have the same free speech protections. Hate speech, and inciting people to violence against any group, is illegal. I'm kind of happy about that, actually.

 

What about the guy who was stripped-searched because his kid drew a picture of a gun? Wasn't that in Canada?

 

Yes, I do remember that. It was very, very weird... A massive over-reaction on the part of the cops!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...at-school-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun

Everyone was shocked. This is a highly unusual story, and got a lot of press because of that. I'm personally hoping the family forces an internal investigation, even if they have to launch a lawsuit to achieve that end. ETA: It seems the cops have started an internal investigation. But personally, I think the real fault lies with the director of Family and Children's services, Alison Scott. She very much needs to review her "policies and procedures" if they lead to the police being called without even an interview with the family first. (http://www.therecord.com/news/local...s-from-reporting-a-child-at-risk-agency-fears)

The way these sorts of school/social services interactions usually plays out is more like this: My friend's 6yo son told his teacher he wanted to kill himself. And he definitely meant it - he had plans how to achieve this end. The teacher, being a mandated reporter, called child services. A social worker was waiting for my friend when she got to school. My friend (a single mum) explained that all three of her children suffer from inherited mental health issues (anxiety, OCD, etc...) and that they were all being followed closely by a psychiatrist and doctors. The social worker arranged to come to her house with my friend to interview her children and see the environment in which they lived. Then she contacted the psychiatrist. Finally, satisfied that the children were being well cared for, she closed the file, permanently.

 

I'm not denying that sometimes someone needs to step in. Obviously, if a child is suicidal, something needs to be done. My cousin is currently in a similar situation, but the important thing is that she's now getting the help she needs.

But with the gun incident, last I heard, both the school officials and the police/social service people felt they had done NOTHING wrong, that they had reason to respond as they did. My point is, if this new law goes into place, it can and will be blown out of proportion just as easily. Teaching "hate" would in their minds be a valid reason to remove the children from the home.

 

The director of family services has entrenched herself, defending the actions of her people. The police, on the other hand, have apologized and launched an internal investigation to find out how things went as far as they did. Various politicians have made this their cause celebre as well. It's not over.

In case you're interested, this is the Alberta Human Rights Act: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=A25P5.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779744060

It is illegal to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of race, religious belief, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.

Most importantly: Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

Given that conservative values are very strong in Alberta, and that religious belief systems are protected under the same Human Rights Act, any attempt to persecute a Christian family for teaching that being gay is a sin would fail. It's got no legs.

P.S. Also enshrined in the Act is the right of any parent to withdraw their child from religious or sex education instruction.

 

You don't see the contradiction of that, Meg? It is illegal to "expose" our children to "hatred". That is a very vague term. Sure, it's wrong to teach people to hate others because of their religion, sexual orientation, or whatever. But saying that this behavior is WRONG is NOT "hatred". But the government is considering it that. Yet, they say "free expression" is OK. Free expression, as long as it's not "hatred". And perhaps Alberta was chosen just BECAUSE it was so conservative. If they manage to get away with it there, they know they can do it anywhere.

 

Exactly, saying you believe that something (or someone) is wrong is not Hate, and the gov't does not consider it such.

And no - Alberta wasn't "chosen". Here's some more reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada All of our provinces have human rights protections, including for all religious people and all sexual orientations.

Hate speech is FAR more extreme than simply "The Bible says being gay is a sin." And, for what it's worth, every recent case that's come up in Alberta has been dismissed by the courts (see the wiki article).

 

That may be true NOW, but I don't trust leaders in the long run. For example, in the United States, RICO (I think that's it's name...?) was passed dealing with racketeering. It allowed for the seizure of properties/assets of raceteers, etc. Yet it has been used in the past to seize the assets of those who legally picket abortion clinics. This was NOT the original intent, and there was a public outcry among the pro-life faction, but the pro-choice people felt it was quite fine. And the courts are forever changing.

When I was a single teacher, they tried to get a law passed that all teachers had to be certified in the area in which they taught. Now, that makes sense, doesn't it? It was supposedly aimed at private schools that had uncertified people teaching, and some of these schools were pretty bad. A legislator wanted to add a clause, excluding homeschoolers from that. AND THAT CLAUSE WAS TURNED DOWN. Of course, HSLDA had something to say about that, hs'ers called their legislators, and the bill went down. But I was in the classroom at the time. I read the article in the Union magazine, about how these hs'ers, who the bill wasn't even aimed at, had gotten their knickers in a knot over nothing. Yeah? If it really didn't involve them, then why was the clause that specifically said so defeated? If it had passed, regardless of the intent, it would require hs'ers to be certified in EVERY AREA in which they taught. Can you imagine the nightmare trying to teach high school?

 

Who can trust any political leadership, long run?

In any case, it's awesome that bill went down. It's good to see the system working.