Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You can count me among those who can't understand why, particularly with a non-binding motion, the Wildrose didn't take a free chance to look more moderate. Instead they decided to reinforce what the 55-60% of the population who will likely never vote for them already believes. If the political answer is "don't offend the base", I always find that argument incredibly bizarre for a right wing party. The Wildrose base is voting for the Wildrose no matter what. There is absolutely no scenario where they won't (well there is...a more right wing party comes along). If the Wildrose supported this, their base isn't voting PC or Liberal all of a sudden. They need more moderate votes. So given the chance to possibly make it seem like they aren't social regressive, they pass on that chance the appease the base. I really don't get it.

Why did members of the PC party not vote for it then? Of any party that needs to shore up their voter base its them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's not answering my question, though. How many applications to boards, which boards and how many denials.

The stats that are being posted in the clip go more to individual services within the school the approving alliances.

Anyways, I can see where I'm going to very soon be clipped with the bad guy role here.

But lets seperate the items.

Can school environments be terrible on gay students? Absolutely, we know there is bullying in schools we know that there is mistreatment of gays. But the repair of that goes to school actions, discipline, educational opportunities.

Are boards rejecting Gay/Straight Alliances? is it systemic with certain boards? do we need to have a body to oversea schoolboards to audit them on rejections vs approvals. Nothing was presented with this bill that points in that direction. I'm not asking for those answers to be a jerk, but to understand if boards are going out of the way to reject these alliances then yeah how do we fix it and does the government need to be involved?

That's the question and that's why the vote went the way it probably did, not because these people are lake of fire gay hating gun toting #######s, but because the bill presented in its current fashion was long on hope and balloons and short on ay factual backup.

The question is irrelevant, it's just a distraction to what the intent is. They want all schools to do it, not 40, some schools might not even be aware this is a thing. Regardless of whether schools are getting turned down for it (which I assume they're likely not), they want it to be mandatory.

[nik-]

I guess another question would be (perhaps as irrelevant) considering, left to their own devices, we have 80% of 10 through 12 schools in Alberta who don't have this type of program, which it seems clear significantly decreases suicide attempts and thoughts, what is your object to making a program like this mandatory?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why did members of the PC party not vote for it then? Of any party that needs to shore up their voter base its them.

Because there isn't a perception that the PCs are socially regressive and might be Tea Party north. If there were that'd be different. But fair or not it is the perception of the Wildrose by non-Wildrose supporters. Voting against this simply reinforces it.

As to shoring up their base, I think we all know the PCs chances of winning the next election hinge on people voting against the Wildrose more than they are voting for the PCs. If the Wildrose appeared more moderate, people wouldn't have the excuses to vote against them. When they do things like this, again, it reinforces what people who won't vote for them already believe. Fair? Maybe not. Politics? You bet.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

I guess another question would be (perhaps as irrelevant) considering, left to their own devices, we have 80% of 10 through 12 schools in Alberta who don't have this type of program, which it seems clear significantly decreases suicide attempts and thoughts, what is your object to making a program like this mandatory?

Are we arguing this from a governmental and administrative standpoint or personal standpoint?

[nik-]

That's a tough question because I don't want to drag personal beliefs into this. Do you feel that if this program is as effective as this study suggests, it's not for the benefit of a large number of people for the government to make it mandatory in schools? Taking into account the low adoption rate to this point.

It would be nice if the government didn't need to get involved in it, but a 20% adoption rate shows the schools aren't doing it on their own. That's way too many kids who aren't getting this support network.

Again, I think sometimes people need to be dragged into the right decisions.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by nik-

Do you personally think a program that shows those types of result is a bad thing to make mandatory? It would be nice if the government didn't need to get involved in it, but a 20% adoption rate shows the schools aren't doing it on their own. That's way too many kids who aren't getting this support network.

How has it affected suicide rates in the schools?

[nik-]

I edited my post because I want to address it from a policy standpoint as opposed to a beliefs standpoint. Knowing that these are often entwined.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's a tough question because I don't want to drag personal beliefs into this. Do you feel that if this program is as effective as this study suggests, it's not for the benefit of a large number of people for the government to make it mandatory in schools? Taking into account the low adoption rate to this point.

Like I said, this study isn't really being used to prop the bill, this bill is more about administration then anything, and the role of boards and government.

Originally Posted by nik-

It would be nice if the government didn't need to get involved in it, but a 20% adoption rate shows the schools aren't doing it on their own. That's way too many kids who aren't getting this support network.

Sure, but saying its a 20% adoption rate isn't getting to the heart of this bill. The government should absolutely get involved if we have massive numbers of boards rejecting these. As it stands we don't know how many have been rejected, nor do we know if its systemic to the different school systems. At this point are we talking about rejection vs education at a school level. Maybe its the job of the school administrators and Councillors to encourage this and get the motions going as they support the gay students in their school, and work with them on the application to the board.

Originally Posted by nik-

Again, I think sometimes people need to be dragged into the right decisions.

Is adding another government department, which is in effect what would happen really going to drag people to a right decision.

Personally for me, I think the alliances are a great idea. I think this bill was terribly presented and no real good reason from a government standpoint was presented on why the government should be doing it. I do understand why people voted against it, and I can say pretty confidentially that its not about evil Wild Rose wanting to exterminate the gay community.



I think that the Liberal's sometimes forget that even in government there has to be a good reason presented to get something passed.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nik-

I guess another question would be (perhaps as irrelevant) considering, left to their own devices, we have 80% of 10 through 12 schools in Alberta who don't have this type of program, which it seems clear significantly decreases suicide attempts and thoughts, what is your object to making a program like this mandatory?

Worth noting here that even had the motion passed (and as a mandatory thing), it wouldn't mean 100% of school would have gay-straight alliances - you'd still need students who are interested in creating them.

I agree with this too. There's no point in having a club with no members.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the Liberal's sometimes forget that even in government there has to be a good reason presented to get something passed.

Even if the bill (edit: motion, not bill) is merely symbolic, isn't that a good enough reason?

I'd be curious to know if the Wildrosers shoot down all non-binding resolutions, or just the ones they don't like.

[CaptainCrunch]

On the first, I guess, I'm not a fan of symbolic bills.

On the second, don't know, its likely to be tough to discern due to the voting structure in the house.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

According to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ols_in_Alberta), there are hundreds and hundreds of high schools in Alberta. All of them have some combination of gay and straight students. 40 gay-straight alliances would seem to be appallingly low.

From Kent Hehr: 40 GSAs in public schools, 0 in Catholic schools, 0 in private religious schools.

Kent Hehr also says that we will likely hear about a high-school student whose request to form a GSA was rejected in tomorrow's news.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Can you show me where any applications have been denied? And which school boards have denied an application?

Does a place with no murders not need a law against it? Why must we be reactive? Can't we be proactive instead?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Does a place with no murders not need a law against it? Why must we be reactive? Can't we be proactive instead?

This isn't a criminal thing, its administrative.

The closest equivalent would be if the government tried to pass a bill encouraging cops to meet an arrest quota for murders.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

From Kent Hehr: 40 GSAs in public schools, 0 in Catholic schools, 0 in private religious schools.

Kent Hehr also says that we will likely hear about a high-school student whose request to form a GSA was rejected in tomorrow's news.

Good that's all I'm really asking for.

[ae118]

I'm not sure statistics on rejections would be accurate though. Lots of things influence whether a student would apply to create a club, one of them being how they foresee their application will be received. If I thought my school administration was unaccepting, I might not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

From Kent Hehr: 40 GSAs in public schools, 0 in Catholic schools, 0 in private religious schools.

Kent Hehr also says that we will likely hear about a high-school student whose request to form a GSA was rejected in tomorrow's news.

I suspect that this was one hot potato that the CP's would not want to have to deal with, with respect to the Catholic school boards. The Catholic boards would probably fight this tooth and nail.... and there's a lot of Catholic voters out there (26% of Albertans)... which probably explains why such a significant number of CP's voted against the bill.

I doubt Hehr was at all surprised at the result of the vote. In fact he probably hoped for it as this was a bill that was designed to do just that.. fail and thus embarrass the Cons and the WR.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This isn't a criminal thing, its administrative.

The closest equivalent would be if the government tried to pass a bill encouraging cops to meet an arrest quota for murders.

Say what?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's not answering my question, though. How many applications to boards, which boards and how many denials.

The stats that are being posted in the clip go more to individual services within the school the approving alliances.

Anyways, I can see where I'm going to very soon be clipped with the bad guy role here.

But lets seperate the items.

Can school environments be terrible on gay students? Absolutely, we know there is bullying in schools we know that there is mistreatment of gays. But the repair of that goes to school actions, discipline, educational opportunities.

Are boards rejecting Gay/Straight Alliances? is it systemic with certain boards? do we need to have a body to oversea schoolboards to audit them on rejections vs approvals. Nothing was presented with this bill that points in that direction. I'm not asking for those answers to be a jerk, but to understand if boards are going out of the way to reject these alliances then yeah how do we fix it and does the government need to be involved?

That's the question and that's why the vote went the way it probably did, not because these people are lake of fire gay hating gun toting #######s, but because the bill presented in its current fashion was long on hope and balloons and short on ay factual backup.

I have never set up a student club/alliance, I have no idea how to set one up for that matter, but the question that immediately needs to be addressed is do we really want to be putting the onus onto children to start the clubs if that is how they are started (by student demand). I don't really see the harm in them saying that you need to institute these clubs, the cost will be minimal at most and it could potentially have positive impacts on people's lives.

It was obviously a trap that the Wildrose walked right into though.