Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[19Yzerman19]

I take your point that bullying generally is a problem that hasn't been licked though this is another discussion, because in my view bullying issues simply aren't brought to the administration's attention.

But I'm talking about your example, where a bully is able to completely de-rail an attempt by student(s) and faculty at creating an inclusive group. If I'm a school administrator and I can't address that problem when I'm fully aware of it, I'm not very good at my job. The problem kids do not get to dictate how schools are run, and if they do, the schools are being run incorrectly.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I take your point that bullying generally is a problem that hasn't been licked though this is another discussion, because in my view bullying issues simply aren't brought to the administration's attention.

But I'm talking about your example, where a bully is able to completely de-rail an attempt by student(s) and faculty at creating an inclusive group. If I'm a school administrator and I can't address that problem when I'm fully aware of it, I'm not very good at my job. The problem kids do not get to dictate how schools are run, and if they do, the schools are being run incorrectly.

In a small school. When a bully represents 1/30th or 1/100th of the student body, it can be a challenge to deal with the situation. Sometimes, administrators are able to do something else, like set up a chess club, to get that student the inclusion he needs, as opposed to a GSA, which may work in a larger setting, but could just be trouble in a smaller one. It's not about the school being run "incorrectly", it's about deciding what correctly is for all situations, when that might not be the case.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It's not about the school being run "incorrectly", it's about deciding what correctly is for all situations, when that might not be the case.

Well this goes back to the initial point, which is that I'm not comfortable with a vague generalized answer in this instance. I was hoping for an example that would illustrate where a provincial mandate would be a bad idea, and the one you've given me isn't convincing I don't think.

Again, I think you're part of the problem as an administrator if your reaction is "we've got a couple of kids who are huge jerks, so instead of addressing that problem directly we'll capitulate and skirt around it". The fact that a school situation is challenging doesn't remove the obligation to address it. That not only sends a terrible message to the gay student but it impliedly creates an environment where bullying can flourish. Basically the bully just bullied the administration. That's not any kind of solution.

Not to mention it does the bully no good because his behaviour isn't corrected before he's no longer the big fish in a small pond.

EDIT: Also, a chess club? Really? "Sorry kid, in our view it's not really okay for you to be openly gay at this school, but here, play chess and you'll fell better about it."

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Well this goes back to the initial point, which is that I'm not comfortable with a vague generalized answer in this instance. I was hoping for an example that would illustrate where a provincial mandate would be a bad idea, and the one you've given me isn't convincing I don't think.

Again, I think if your reaction to that problem is "we've got a couple of kids who are huge jerks, so instead of addressing that problem directly we'll capitulate and skirt around it". The fact that a school situation is challenging doesn't remove the obligation to address it. That not only sends a terrible message to the gay student but it impliedly creates an environment where bullying can flourish. Basically the bully just bullied the administration. That's not any kind of solution.

Not to mention it does the bully no good because his behaviour isn't corrected before he's no longer the big fish in a small pond.

Ok, I wasn't trying to prove it is a "bad" idea. I was trying to prove that the legislation isn't always a good idea.

Besides, my reaction isn't so much "we've got a couple of kids who are jerks, lets' skirt the problem", it would be more "kids are reliably jerks. Let's not give them ammo while they figure out what it takes to be a decent human".

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

EDIT: Also, a chess club? Really? "Sorry kid, in our view it's not really okay for you to be openly gay at this school, but here, play chess and you'll fell better about it."

Chess club worked for my school, for a lot of the kids who didn't fit in with the jocks and the stoners.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Besides, my reaction isn't so much "we've got a couple of kids who are jerks, lets' skirt the problem", it would be more "kids are reliably jerks. Let's not give them ammo while they figure out what it takes to be a decent human".

Again, no expertise in children's education or psychology or whatever, but it still seems to me like actively, publicly and blatantly encouraging these clubs and inclusiveness generally, while not condoning (and in fact blatantly denouncing and punishing) discrimination, hate and bullying, is the best possible way to steer kids on the right path to being decent humans.

[LanceUppercut]

The government is making some changes to the marriage act. The cynic in me wonders a bit at the timing.

www.edmontonjournal.com/Thomson+Marriage+changes+fail+trap+Wildrose/9753359/story.html

On Thursday, Alberta government MLAs voted to support legislation to change the preamble to the province’s Marriage Act to fall in line with a 2005 federal law that recognizes same-sex unions. For the past nine years, the provincial government has been out of step with the Constitution, other provinces and a great deal of Albertans.

On Thursday, Wildrose leader Smith quickly and clearly said she will support the new bill.
“If you’ve got reasonable changes that make sense to ensure equality for all Albertans, you will absolutely get the support of the Wildrose MLAs on those changes,” said Smith. “I’m looking forward to debating the bill and I’ll encourage my caucus to look forward and support the changes.”

[jayswin]

Wait, am I the only one who had no idea Alberta's same sex marriage act wasn't in line with our national one?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Wait, am I the only one who had no idea Alberta's same sex marriage act wasn't in line with our national one?

I guess I always just sort of assumed...

[opendoor]

It's funny what a difference 10-15 years can make. The following preamble was added to the marriage act by the PCs in 2000 as a means to explicitly forbid same sex marriages:

Whereas marriage between a man and a woman has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions;

They also invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to protect the new bill from Charter of Rights and Freedoms based challenges.

Even in 2005 when the federal Bill C-38 was going to get passed which would legalize same-sex marriages throughout the country, the PCs were talking about ending the Province's involvement in marriages and switching to civil unions for everyone as a means to avoid having to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. Anyone who wanted to get married would've had to go to a church, but that had little chance of standing up to legal scrutiny.

I guess it makes sense when you look at the demographics from that time period. Seniors were something like 80 or 90% opposed while 18-35 years olds were 60% in support.