Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[nik-]

For the motion: 19

Bilous
Blakeman
Brown
Calahasen
Dallas
DeLong
Eggen
Fawcett
Hehr
Hughes
Jansen
Klimchuk
Luan
Lukaszuk
Notley
Scott
Sherman
Swann
Woo-Paw


Against the motion: 31

Amery
Anderson
Barnes
Bikman
Campbell
Casey
Cusanelli
Donovan
Dorward
Drysdale
Fenske
Fraser
Fritz
Goudreau
Johnson (Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater)
Johnson (Calgary-Glenmore)
Kubinec
Leskiw
McAllister
McDonald
McQueen
Oberle
Pastoor
Rodney
Rowe
Saskiw
Starke
Strankman
Towle
VanderBurg
Weadick

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The real sad thing is how many 'left' leaning voters supported the PC's, who also don't support this bill. It's the PC's 22 votes against this bill that really killed it, more than double the votes against it than the Wildrose.

Now not only is it voted down by them, but there much more difficulty finding a way to finance it along with so many other initiatives in the future because of our growing debt burden.

Sure, and like I mentioned some of those are pretty shocking to me. When you look at the votes in general, its a pretty clear rural/urban divide and that is probably the most concerning. Its exacerbated in the parties because the Wildrose has mostly rural seats.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In your estimation, how much would it cost the Albertan taxpayers if there was a provincial mandate that schools must say "Yes" when students ask if they can form a GSA club?

No idea.

In your estimation what would be the first programs to be cut in order to bring our budget under control? Or how many new programs will be started during such cuts?

[Flash Walken]

Because so many government MLAs voted with the Wildrose, the motion failed. The story immediately became national news with headlines such as, “Gay-straight alliance bill for schools voted down in Alberta.”

That particular headline got an important fact wrong. Hehr didn’t introduce a bill, merely a motion, which is akin to a suggestion which in this case urged the government to introduce legislation requiring school boards to “support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations.”

This wasn’t a bill forcing boards to set up gay-straight alliance groups in every school. This was a motion urging the government to support students who want to set up gay-straight alliances in their particular school.

It was a symbolic move to support gay and lesbian students — and even then a majority of Alberta MLAs voted against it.

Hehr insisted his motion was simply aimed at “taking action to counter homophobic bullying in our schools,” and that he wasn’t trying paint any MLAs as intolerant. But in the end, that’s what he managed to do.

Or, more correctly, 31 MLAs managed to make themselves look intolerant.

Hehr had forced MLAs to take a controversial stance on an issue that really should not have been controversial. I mean, what’s contentious about urging the government to support students who voluntarily want to set up organizations to fight homophobic bullying?

But plenty of MLAs tied themselves up in knots trying to explain that while they’re against bullying, they were also against an anti-bullying motion.

Wildrose MLA Bruce McAllister said that while “bullying is completely unacceptable,” school boards — not the legislature — “are best suited to deal with the bullying issue.”

McAllister said it would be wrong for the legislature to force school boards to sanction any organization that “might teach or promote concepts that contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Education Minister Jeff Johnson agreed, saying decisions about starting gay-straight alliances are best made by the local school authority.

Their arguments, though, were neatly eviscerated by Alberta’s “anti-bullying minister,” Sandra Jansen, the associate minister of family and community safety.

“We know that all schools in the province may not want a gay-straight alliance, but that need isn’t a board’s to determine; it’s a student’s to determine,” said Jansen. “This is not a question of religious rights and it’s not a question of sexuality as much as it is a question of the right to free speech and free assembly.”

What we have here are echoes of the 2012 provincial election where the Wildrose defended the infamous “Lake of Fire” homophobic rant by candidate Allan Hunsperger that helped sink the party’s chance at forming government.

It’s also a reminder that until it modified its party policies late last year, the Wildrose wanted to scrap the human rights commission and allow marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

It’s also a reminder that this is a government that passed Bill 44 four years ago, giving parents the option of pulling their children out of class when lessons on sex, religion or sexual orientation are taught. It’s a government that erased mention of the province’s Human Rights Act in the Education Act as a sop to home-schooling parents who were afraid any reference to human rights would somehow have children ratting out their parents over supposed violations of the law.

In the end, it’s a reminder that given a free vote, a majority of MLAs — government and Wildrose — will demonstrate they haven’t grown very far from their roots.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Thoms...734/story.html

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

No idea.

In your estimation what would be the first programs to be cut in order to bring our budget under control? Or how many new programs will be started during such cuts?

This isn't a "new program" and it will cost the province literally NOTHING. Don't try to hide behind the budget deficit because the GSA issue is completely unrelated.

[corporatejay]

Cusanelli (my MLA) is in an inner city riding and voted against it. I've asked her to explain why....I can't imagine this is in-line with the general sentiment of her constituents.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Cusanelli (my MLA) is in an inner city riding and voted against it. I've asked her to explain why....I can't imagine this is in-line with the general sentiment of her constituents.

I'm interested to hear what kind of response you get.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This isn't a "new program" and it will cost the province literally NOTHING. Don't try to hide behind the budget deficit because the GSA issue is completely unrelated.

So the alliances are all free? Teachers and administrators donate their time voluntarily? Meeting spaces are outside public space? That might well be the case but can you show some evidence?

Unfortunately, the mountain of debt accumulated under this government means EVERYTHING will be subject to cost analysis. That's what happens when you spend beyond your means.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Cusanelli (my MLA) is in an inner city riding and voted against it. I've asked her to explain why....I can't imagine this is in-line with the general sentiment of her constituents.

Cusanelli was a Catholic school principal so her personal beliefs were likely part of it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm interested to hear what kind of response you get.

She got into twitter war with someone who was being hostile, she called it a form of bullying by the tweeter. Anyway, I just wanted a clear answer. It was a twitter message so we'll see what, if anything, she writes back.

I think she's catholic, so that probably has something to do with it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So the alliances are all free? Teachers and administrators donate their time voluntarily? Meeting spaces are outside public space? That might well be the case but can you show some evidence?

Unfortunately, the mountain of debt accumulated under this government means EVERYTHING will be subject to cost analysis. That's what happens when you spend beyond your means.

Should we cancel things like basketball and football for the schools? I mean the teachers time isn't free and we could use that to fund something else I'm sure

[nik-]

My MLA is Swann (who, to be honest, I totally forgot got elected last election).

Shockingly, he was in support of this motion. I'll let you guys regain your composure.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Should we cancel things like basketball and football for the schools? I mean the teachers time isn't free and we could use that to fund something else I'm sure

Exactly, when the budget cuts come, what would be your first program to go?

Sports? Music? GSA?

We can't go into debt forever and evermore.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Cusanelli (my MLA) is in an inner city riding and voted against it. I've asked her to explain why....I can't imagine this is in-line with the general sentiment of her constituents.

She posted a rationale for her decision on facebook. I read it and what I gleaned from it (perhaps mistakenly) was that she is catholic and felt like this backed by her constituents. She talked about the school act and all kinds of stuff in the post, but most of that seemed largely irrelevant and like a giant red herring.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Exactly, when the budget cuts come, what would be your first program to go?

Sports? Music? GSA?

We can't go into debt forever and evermore.

Hahaha. This is hilarious. I always thought that Wildrose supporters were stuck in the past, but the next thing you know you'll be advocating the one room school house again because it has less maintenance costs and kids can all write on slate.

You're just being completely ridiculous here though. The motion would cost absolutely nothing to anyone. You can surely find something else to pin this on? How about a simple "I'm morally opposed" and be done with it?

[nik-]

First cut would be the gay propaganda!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So the alliances are all free? Teachers and administrators donate their time voluntarily? Meeting spaces are outside public space? That might well be the case but can you show some evidence?

Unfortunately, the mountain of debt accumulated under this government means EVERYTHING will be subject to cost analysis. That's what happens when you spend beyond your means.

With the caveat that it's been nearly two decades since I was in high school, so perhaps things have changed in that time, I feel relatively confident in saying that student clubs typically have no cost to the taxpayers. Meetings take place in unused classrooms either during lunch break or after school hours, and if the clubs do require any money, it's provided by the student council (which in turn is raises money through private fund-raising activities), not the Department of Education.

To cite one specific example, I know that Christian Fellowship clubs are permitted at secular public schools because they do not receive any funding from the government. I don't see why Gay-Straight Alliances would be any different

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Exactly, when the budget cuts come, what would be your first program to go?

Sports? Music? GSA?

We can't go into debt forever and evermore.

This isn't a fiscal issue at all.

How much do you think it could possibly cost for students to create a club and run it by themselves and have it permitted by the school?

Seriously at worst we're talking maybe some minor teacher support, office supplies, and maybe some space allocated to them once a week for meetings or something (Probably at lunch hour or after school when the space isn't used anyway!).

I have voted wildrose in the past and even from that lens the only legitimatge arguement against the motion was the question of 'Is this really an issue the provincial government has to weigh in on?' I initially thought no and supported those who voted against it. Then it came out that there actually is opposition at the school board level to something that costs nothing, but yet helps students. So I changed my perspective.

All other arguements that have been made are a smoke-screen to hide uneasyness to support LGBT issues, and religion-sponsored bigotry.

[Cowboy89]

I'd like to elaborate on the issue here too. Some like to pull out the 'libertatrian' card to defend the Wildrose here on this.

What's more 'Libertarian':

- Students asking to establish Gay-Striaght Alliance clubs in schools, that require minimal to zero resources getting shut down by some school boards

- A government motion that suggests school boards permit student-led and initiated requests to establish said clubs. (Notice how it's a non-binding motion that doesn't mandate anything, and also notice how it doesn't suggest that the school boards have to actively set these clubs up themselves). The motion only recommends that school boards be receptive to grassroots student initiatives of this nature. In the world according to this motion there will be GSR clubs where they are demanded, and no GSR clubs where they are not.

Which stance is more 'live and let live' and which one is more draconian?

[MarchHare]

I wonder if some people (including the legislators who voted against the motion) really have no knowledge about what these GSAs are and how they're started up.

Let's say I'm a high school student, and I want to start a chess club that meets once a week at lunch hour to play games and discuss strategy. To get the club started, I first have to ask permission from the school administration to a) give their blessing to my proposed club and b) allow us to meet in an unused classroom during lunch break. If my club requires money, say to buy a few chess sets, I would then c) take my proposal to the student council and ask for funding. Note that this money does not come from the province's taxpayers but rather from private funds raised by the student body and/or their parents (i.e. those school chocolate bar sales you see every fall).

The reason for a) is because schools, quite rightly, cannot allow just any student group to form. For example, it's pretty obvious why a school's administration would put the kibosh on a student group that wanted to start an Aryan Guard club. What Kent Hehr's motion was asking was that schools would have to give their blessing to student-initiated Gay-Straight Alliances. As noted above, this isn't a fiscal matter because there is ZERO taxpayer money required for these groups. The motion was deemed necessary because -- as we saw from the CTV video linked earlier -- some schools are denying students the ability to start these clubs.