Back in April 2009 I wrote a column about Bill 44 granting parents the right to disallow their children to be taught about religion, sexuality and sexual orientation if what was being taught contravened the parents’ own views.

In it I pointed out what we had here was a conflict of rights:  The rights of parents to decide what values their offspring will be exposed to and the rights of non-Christian and GLBTQ folk to not be demonized by allowing for open and honest discussion of, admittedly, sensitive topics in a classroom setting under, hopefully, the enlightened guidance of a teacher.  I tried to strike a fair balance between the expressions of those often opposing rights.

However, those who take the position of supporting Bill 44, and therefore opposed to what they suspect will be an affirming approach to non-Christian religious beliefs, sexuality, and sexual orientation, appear to have fallen into the trap social conservatives always seem to fall into.  Namely, pre-judging just what the curricula will be, and the effect it will have on their children.

As of September 1st, the start of the 2010/2011 school year, parents will have increased authority to remove their children from classes on religion, sexual orientation issues, and sexuality.  On the surface, it would seem reasonable that parents would have such authority.  These are, after all, their kids.  However, if one examines all this a bit deeper it becomes clear, or so I would argue, that what is actually going on is that some (not all) the parents in favour of Bill 44 want to indoctrinate their children exclusively with their own set of values and are not at all willing to allow the child to be exposed to a wider interpretation of the issues, or be exposed to alternative ideas than what the parents themselves hold.  It’s like the parents believe a child is a blank canvas upon which only they should be allowed to write, and that schools should restrict themselves to the Three R’s ¬- Readin’, ‘Ritin’, and ‘Rithmetic.  Schools are about preparing young minds for the world beyond, and that preparation must extend past the old style basics of grammar, literature, arithmetic and mathematics.  Schools have a responsibility to instill critical thinking in the pupils for which they are responsible for 12 years.  That involves exposure to new and, yes, sometimes challenging ideas, supplying the student with the tools to analyze those concepts and come to some sort of intelligent and thoughtful conclusion.  What the child learns at home in regard to ethics and morals and values will also play a part in that analysis, as it should.  What is learned in the home and what is learned in school should complement each other, even if what is being taught seems to be at odds or contradicting each other.  Having a monolithic approach whereby what one learns in school is just what mom and dad teach at home is unrealistic and, quite honestly, serves no one any good.

One of the issues surrounding the introduction of Bill 44 and the so-called “Parental Rights” measure is what effect it will have on discussion in the classroom or upon teachers themselves.  There is a valid concern that Bill 44 will have a chilling effect due to the option of parents going to the Alberta Human Rights Commission if they feel they were not properly notified about a particular lesson, and that the lesson contravened or was not in support of their own beliefs and values.  Clearly what is not being taught is the fine art of irony.  Social conservatives have long railed against the “quasi-judicial” powers of various human rights commissions, especially in cases where minorities have sued conservative or right wing individuals for discriminatory or prejudicial remarks.  Quite often, although certainly not exclusively, it has been GLBTQ folk versus anti-gay right wing types or social conservative types.  The conservative press (which of course constantly goes on and on about the ”left-lib media bias” in Canada, which doesn’t exist with the possible exception of CBC) predictably has conniption fits over these ‘attacks’ against freedom of speech or how the rights of social conservatives are being trampled upon in the name of political correctness.  Hooey!

In a reasonable world, of course, parents would not go trotting off to the human rights commission because little Johnny or little Susie heard about non-Christian expressions of faith, or learned about sexuality and sex (not the same thing, by the way; one is the expression and the other deals with the mechanics) or - gasp - learned that yes gay, lesbian, bisexual and even transsexual and trangendered people exist and, yes, such folk are all part of the continuum of human sexual and gender expression and are therefore quite normal.

By the same token, in a reasonable world GLBTQ people or those of other minorities would likewise not need to go trotting off to human rights commissions because, in a reasonable world, they would not be exposed to ignorant, hurtful, damaging, sometimes dangerous actions and comments from those who despise them.  Unfortunately, we do not seem to live in a very reasonable world.

Ideally, and setting aside the whole issue of notification to begin with, if a parent had an issue over a particular class or the notification process of that class, he or she should attempt to resolve it directly with the child’s teacher.  If that didn’t work, the next appropriate step - and one that was used by thousands and thousands of parents for many many decades - would be to go to the principal with their concerns.  That usually resulted in some sort of accommodation or compromise that everyone could live with.  If it didn’t, there was always the School Board, but that was often seen as a rather drastic step and used only in extreme cases.  The world has changed and as part and parcel of the sense of entitlement that so many people seem to be infested with, the first step is too often to go to court or to some sort of tribunal, like a human rights commission.

It’s not like parental rights weren’t already pretty well protected.  Schools are required to advise parents in advance of sex-education classes and parents have the option of withdrawing their child from that class.

It’s been a few decades since I attended public school and I remember when we had religious class (later it became “comparative religion” and not just Christian) and one or two kids were always off in study hall during the class.  I can’t speak for others, but it never really fazed me.  I realize now, those kids were likely Jewish or maybe from an atheist family (not that atheist families were much in the habit of declaring their atheism back in “my day”) and that was why they were exempt.  I certainly don’t recall them being teased or ostracized because they weren’t in the class learning about the Apostles or Hinduism or Islam or what have you.  I don’t even really remember what the class discussed or what we were taught, to be honest.  The only class I remember was a Comparative Religion class in Grade 11 and I remember that because I took issue with how the teacher presented her subject matter as if any faith other than Christianity was...well...just not quite as good, you know.  Poor things...ugh.  I certainly did not have my parents get up in arms and attempt to have her tarred and feathered.  The lesson I came away with from that experience has lasted until this day, and that was the lesson of tolerance.  Not just tolerance of other religions, which was the goal of the class, but a tolerance of those with whom I take issue, even as I may well condemn their views.  While I sometimes slip up, it is a lesson I at least try to remember.

However, with Bill 44 the notification and opt-out options will be expanded from sex-ed classes to courses that primarily and explicitly deal with religion as well as sexual orientation.  Alberta Education has identified nine courses requiring parental notification.  These include religious ethics, parenting, and aboriginal spirituality.  The teaching of evolution, oddly enough given its own controversies, will not require notification.  At least somebody somewhere in the bureaucracy had their head on straight for that one.

What disturbs me, in part, is we as a community and as activists struggled for so many years to have sexual orientation if not “taught” then at least discussed in the public schools (the separate schools were a lost cause right from the get-go since homosexuality is, according to the Roman Catholic Church, already in contravention of solid Catholic values).  As attitudes and approaches evolved over the years it was a cause for relief, even celebration I suppose, that sexual orientation was finally coming out of the closet, as it were, in our public education system.  And our kids - I refer to them as “ours” because, in a sense, they are all our kids; certainly our future - could be exposed to the not so terribly radical idea that, gosh, lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are not some weird, icky, predatory perverts lurking in the gloom waiting to turn fine upstanding heterosexual youngsters into homos and lezzies; but rather, real, feeling people deserving of respect and safety.  Sadly, a similar process regarding gender orientation and identity is only just beginning.  To then have something like Bill 44 come along and threaten, with the stroke of a pen, to undo all that is disheartening.

At least for now, “incidental or indirect references” to religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation do not require any sort of notification.  Small consolation.  So, if Johnny or Susie bring it up in a classroom discussion, and those issues happen to get discussed (assuming a paranoid teacher doesn’t immediately shut the discussion down), the theory is no one will be penalized.

“It’s important that teachers don’t walk into their classrooms in September and find themselves guided by an irrational fear of what this bill might mean,” Alberta Teachers’ Association representative, Dennis Theobald, has been quoted as saying. How can they not?  And the fear is not irrational.  It’s actually quite a rational fear.  Just as social conservatives have been saying for years, there is a chilling effect which occurs when there is even the suggestion of a threat of being sued or hauled before a tribunal.  Even as a supporter of human rights, and human rights commissions, for many years and as one who supported complainants going to human rights around issues of sexual orientation discrimination, I understood the point those diametrically opposed to my position were making.  I didn’t always agree with the extent of their concerns and often did not, in fact, see human rights rulings as infringements on free speech or the open exchange of ideas, which is what education should be about, but I do here.  I suppose now that the shoe is on the other foot...

So, if I as a former activist and supporter of just about all things commission-related can realize what the effects of Bill 44 will have, how is it that the very groups that previously raised a hue and cry over what they perceived as attacks on their freedom of speech and freedom of expression now don’t seem to think there is anything to be concerned about with Bill 44?  I suppose we are all guilty of filtering concerns through the prism of our own agenda, but this is a direct attack on speech and ideas and not at all about allowing speech that is discriminatory and harmful to specific groups.

At least the Canada Family Action Committee (CFAC), long a thorn in the side of equal marriage and GLBTQ rights activists, has raised concerns as they long have, about further broadening the mandate of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.  There, at least, is some consistency and in this case, ironically enough, I support CFAC’s view as stated by their spokesperson Nathan Cooper that “[parents] dragging [teachers and principals] before the Human Rights Commission is [hardly] an ideal scenario by any stretch of the imagination.”

Bill 44, however, is in effect as of September 1st and the directly affected courses are: Aboriginal Studies 10, Theme II: Aboriginal World Views, Career and Life Management (CALM), Career and Technology Studies which includes reproduction and preparing for parenthood as well as Developing Maturity and Independence, Health (Grades 4, 5, and 6), Health and Life Skills (Grades 7, 8, and 9), Religious Ethics 20, Religious Meanings 20, and World Religions 30.

Teachers will be required to determine whether their lesson plans in other courses will require notification in accordance with the provincial Human Rights Act.  So Bill 44 isn’t just restricted to the nine subjects outlined above, but will in fact, apply to all subjects in the curricula such as Social Studies, literature, even art and music.  Heaven forbid a teacher inform his or her students about how Carravagio’s homosexuality and hedonism informed his art and subject matter, that writers such as Andre Gide, Genet, Proust or Oscar Wilde were homosexual and their writing can be read as cryptic acknowledgments of the homoerotic in life and art, or that the stirring passion of a Tchaikovsky symphony was often tied to his passion for some working class youth and his lifelong struggle with his homosexuality.

Whether or not Bill 44 is, as Edmonton activist Rob Wells (for whom I have enormous respect) describes it, “Tory gay bashing”, remains to be seen.  I don’t happen to think it is.  Not specifically.  I do happen to think it is a particularly odious piece of small-mindedness and parochialism, further rendering our education system into something less than grand, something less than an introduction to the wonders of the mind, of learning and exploring, and into something trite and trivial and focused on easy, not on anything challenging.

Education should be about challenge and about challenging our assumptions and what we take for granted.  It should be about expanding our horizons, not contracting them.  It should be about showing us powerful and provocative ideas, of throwing open a window to the vast previously unimaginable worlds of ideas and thought and perception.  It should be about freeing our minds and intellects so that they can potentially soar to greater and greater heights, not tie them down in the prosaic boggle of daily prejudices and ignorance.  Education should be the antithesis of ignorance, not subject to it.

Bill 44 is a bad law and a bad law that will have consequences on the ability of our children to grow into all that they could be.