Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[peter12]

There are a lot of reasons that a centre-right party might vote against this bill that would have nothing to do with bigotry.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

I am a little confused here about the reporting on the bill. The Edmonton Journal is saying the bill is non-binding which to me means the school boards can ignore it. Your quotes suggests that it would be a requirement to support. If it is an actual requirement that the schools would have to support groups if students request them then I absolutely agree with it and my above posts are completely incorrect and Hehr did a good job. If this bill would have forced school boards to do nothing then I stand by my stance.

Real Legislation would fail, but at least it would fail on its merits and not parties using loopholes to say why they are voting against it. It would make a real statement.

If this was a non binding bill for school boards to support groups that are against tobacco and drug use in schools it would be just as useless. If it was a non binding bill to promote birth control use in schools it would be just as useless. Useless legislation is still useless regardless of what issue it addresses. Create real bills that have real affects. Again if this bill would actually force the school boards to do something I withdraw all my comments.

Despite my comments I am still concerned with the Socially conservative bigoted ideas that still exist in the wild rose and PC ranks however this bill is not the way to go about exposing it.

I think to believe that people who voted against this bill because it was 'redundant' or because of 'loopholes', you have to want to believe it, binding legislation or not. You're already alluding to knowing that MLAs are hiding behind 'loopholes' on this issue, why can't you connect these things?

What's the argument here, that there are too many protections for minorities in schools?

Seems like a ton of work to talk around the issue.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by peter12

There are a lot of reasons that a centre-right party might vote against this bill that would have nothing to do with bigotry.

This tells me nothing. I have yet to hear any of these alleged "many reasons" that are convincing. The closest was "this is best left to local boards" but I'm not convinced by that either as I said.

[peter12]

I am not sure how much is served by these student-led organizations. Sentimentality often leads to brutality. Once you give someone a mandated righteous cause, you have created a situation that is ripe for abuse. These organizations are often nothing more than an excuse for group-think, and I am not sure how much they actually do to help gay teenagers.

[19Yzerman19]

You're being incredibly vague... Can you elaborate? How is it "ripe for abuse"? It sounds like your argument is that this would produce bullying in reverse - i.e., all kids are required to support their LGBT schoolmates, and those who don't are shunned / bullied?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

This tells me nothing. I have yet to hear any of these alleged "many reasons" that are convincing. The closest was "this is best left to local boards" but I'm not convinced by that either as I said.

Just because they don't convince you doesn't mean they haven't convinced others.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am not sure how much is served by these student-led organizations. Sentimentality often leads to brutality. Once you give someone a mandated righteous cause, you have created a situation that is ripe for abuse. These organizations are often nothing more than an excuse for group-think, and I am not sure how much they actually do to help gay teenagers.

Are you sure "I'm not sure how much" doesn't mean, "I am inclined to believe"?

Canadian schools with explicit anti-homophobia interventions such as gay-straight alliances (GSAs) may reduce the odds of suicidal thoughts and attempts among both sexual minority and straight students, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers.

Gay-straight alliances are student-led clubs that aim to make the school community a safer place for all students regardless of their sexual orientation. Their members include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ) youth and their straight allies.

“We know that LGBTQ students are at higher risk for suicide, in part because they are more often targeted for bullying and discrimination,” says Elizabeth Saewyc, lead author of the study and professor with the UBC School of Nursing. “But heterosexual students can also be the target of homophobic bullying. When policies and supportive programs like GSAs are in place long enough to change the environment of the school, it’s better for students’ mental health, no matter what their orientation.”

LGBTQ youth and heterosexual students in schools with anti-homophobia policies and GSAs had lower odds of discrimination, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, primarily when both strategies were enacted, or when the polices and GSAs had been in place for three years or more.

Published in the International Journal of Child, Youth, and Family Studies and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the study drew on data from the British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey to test the link between school policies and programs, discrimination due to perceived sexual orientation, and suicidal thoughts and attempts.

The researchers previously found that Canadian high schools with GSAs in place for three years or more have a positive effect on both gay and straight students’ problem alcohol use.

The study used data from the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey conducted by the McCreary Centre Society for grades 8 through 12, which involved 21,708 students. Participating school districts represent 92 per cent of enrolled students across the province. One in five students attended school in districts with anti-homophobic bullying policies and one in three attended schools with GSAs. Sixty per cent of students were in schools with neither.

Key findings:

In schools with gay-straight alliances implemented three or more years ago:

• The odds of homophobic discrimination and suicidal thoughts were reduced by more than half among lesbian, gay, bisexual boys and girls compared to schools with no GSA.
• There were also significantly lower odds of sexual orientation discrimination for heterosexual boys and girls.
• Heterosexual boys were half as likely to attempt suicide as those in schools without GSAs.

In schools where anti-homophobic policies have been in place for more than three years:

• The odds of suicidal thoughts and attempts for gay and bisexual boys were more than 70 per cent lower. Suicide attempts among lesbian and bisexual girls were two-thirds lower.
• Heterosexual boys had 27 per cent lower odds of suicidal thoughts than heterosexual boys in schools without such policies.

http://news.ubc.ca/2014/01/20/gay-st...-all-students/

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Just because they don't convince you doesn't mean they haven't convinced others.

Okay. But I'm me, so I have a stake in being convinced. Also, no one has actually expressed these "many arguments" for why this should be rejected that don't involve bigotry. To the extent arguments have been advanced, they haven't been actually spelled out, just vaguely alluded to. Here are the ones I've heard:

1. The measure was redundant. This isn't enough information - why is it redundant? If it is redundant, why is that reason enough on its own to vote against it? Doesn't that mean it can't hurt and simply acts as a reaffirmation of principled support?

2. The measure sets some sort of worrying precedent. This isn't enough information - what is the worrying precedent it sets, and how can this come back to haunt us in the future? Further, if you're also saying it's redundant, then isn't the precedent set already? It seems to me that #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.

3. This should be left to local school boards to decide. This isn't enough information - why is this a matter that is best dealt with locally? In what circumstances would it be reasonable for a local school board to not support this measure?

If you've been convinced by any of the above, I'd say you aren't actually inquiring as to whether this is the right / wrong decision, but are instead willing to just go along with anything your party of choice does. If there are other arguments, I would like to hear what they are - in full, not just vague, ill-defined crap.

[troutman]

I can't say whether individual members of WR are socially conservative. I believe that Danielle Smith personally leans more Liberal on these issues.

I do think that many of the people that would support WR are extremely socially conservative. To hear my Dad's friends talk around the campfire, is to go back in time 50 years.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by troutman

I can't say whether individual members of WR are socially conservative. I believe that Danielle Smith personally leans more Liberal on these issues.

I do think that many of the people that would support WR are extremely socially conservative. To hear my Dad's friends talk around the campfire, is to go back in time 50 years.

The WR is socially libertarian meaning they accept all viewpoints within the party umbrella and would let majority decisions guide policy.

Of course last election they were skewered for not standing up against extreme viewpoints enough so you can be sure there is definitely a limit on what viewpoints will be considered acceptable presently.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The WR is socially libertarian meaning they accept all viewpoints within the party umbrella and would let majority decisions guide policy.

Of course last election they were skewered for not standing up against extreme viewpoints enough so you can be sure there is definitely a limit on what viewpoints will be considered acceptable presently.

And while that sounds good, the problem is having majority rule to support minorities is hard in practice. That's why we see arguments like 'it's redundant' as opposed to actual progress on issues like this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Okay. But I'm me, so I have a stake in being convinced. Also, no one has actually expressed these "many arguments" for why this should be rejected that don't involve bigotry. To the extent arguments have been advanced, they haven't been actually spelled out, just vaguely alluded to. Here are the ones I've heard:

1. The measure was redundant. This isn't enough information - why is it redundant? If it is redundant, why is that reason enough on its own to vote against it? Doesn't that mean it can't hurt and simply acts as a reaffirmation of principled support?

2. The measure sets some sort of worrying precedent. This isn't enough information - what is the worrying precedent it sets, and how can this come back to haunt us in the future? Further, if you're also saying it's redundant, then isn't the precedent set already? It seems to me that #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.

3. This should be left to local school boards to decide. This isn't enough information - why is this a matter that is best dealt with locally? In what circumstances would it be reasonable for a local school board to not support this measure?

If you've been convinced by any of the above, I'd say you aren't actually inquiring as to whether this is the right / wrong decision, but are instead willing to just go along with anything your party of choice does. If there are other arguments, I would like to hear what they are - in full, not just vague, ill-defined crap.

My argument has nothing to do with the content of the bill. It is very simply that if a bill has not authority to compell anyone to do anything then that bill should not be written, discussed, voted on, or passed. The government should not waste its limited time on platitudes.

Do I believe the Wild Rose are voting this way because of this arguement, Absolutely Not, I think they see a pro-gay bill and vote against it. However that is based on my personal bias and the wild roses past behaviour rather than any evidence.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by troutman

I do think that many of the people that would support WR are extremely socially conservative. To hear my Dad's friends talk around the campfire, is to go back in time 50 years.

Let me guess - it's the "I don't know what you do in your private life behind closed doors, but I don't trust you and I don't like whatever it is you're doing. Therefore, it should be illegal" mentality!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The WR is socially libertarian meaning they accept all viewpoints within the party umbrella and would let majority decisions guide policy.

Something something two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The WR is socially libertarian meaning they accept all viewpoints within the party umbrella and would let majority decisions guide policy.

I'm pretty sure you can't apply libertarian ideals to a social construct, unless it is literally "we don't give a #### about anyone".

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by GGG

My argument has nothing to do with the content of the bill. It is very simply that if a bill has not authority to compell anyone to do anything then that bill should not be written, discussed, voted on, or passed. The government should not waste its limited time on platitudes.

That is legitimate. However, if your sole objection (I'm assuming it's your sole objection) is that this doesn't compel anyone to do anything, isn't the logical result that the measure should be binding instead? I.e., some sort of education amendment act or whatever mandating all Alberta schools to develop policies etc etc etc? In other words, the only problem is that Hehr didn't go far enough!

Doubt you get much WR support for that view... So I'd say it's not just a stretch that your argument isn't the WR argument, it's basically a certainty.

[Dion]

Smith's explanation for voting against

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith defended her caucus Tuesday, saying they were persuaded by arguments put forward by Education Minister Jeff Johnson, who said local school boards already have the ability to deal with bullying.

“I would have voted against the motion as well, because I see this as very much an issue of local control, local autonomy for our school boards,” Smith said. “It’s very clear that our school boards are taking seriously the issue of bullying across the board, including gay and lesbian students.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...306/story.html

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know, I look at this as what it is, its a non binding motion to encourage school boards to support students to set up gay straight alliances and activities.

So it was a bill with no concepts to it, no real mandates, it doesn't change what's happening now to any extent.

On one hand to me it looks like a politically cynical move by the Cons to get attention off of themselves and their scandals by bringing back the booga booga Wildrose is bad concept.

Even some cons weren't on board because it looks like what it is a bill that is about nothing it changes nothing, but because of its nature means that its an umbrella bill where the government takes over something that really should be mandated to the individual school boards.

To me and if it makes me sound bad so be it, but its a bill about nothing that means nothing and its in a sense a waste of a vote.

Its a feel good strategy piece that most likely needs to nothing because its non binding.

Its a smoke screen put forward by the Cons that was probably cooked up at midnight over a cup of foamy latte.

I guess the Wildrose could have voted for it, but it basically is a pretty nebulous thing that once passed could be changed and modified by the Cons without further votes.

I guess a key question should be is was there surprise that the Cons didn't fully support this bill? I mean they have a pretty large majority, if they vote for it, it doesn't matter what the Wildrose does.

Are we accusing the members of the Cons of being gay burning evil? Or is it just the Wildrose.

Its a bit of a blunder by Smith, I guess she could have whipped her party into voting for it, and that would have left the cons looking more fractured.

But a bill to encourage? Really, its a bill that means nothing now but could dramatically change when it gets voted in.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Wait...

Are you saying that a party the draws the majority of its support from rural areas is socially conservative?!

Have we confirmed this with NASA?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Something something two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.

As opposed to the lamb telling two wolves to eat salad because it knows better? (ie: Nanny Redford?)

The elitist stance isn't always correct either. Democracy might be the worst form of government, except compared to all the others, right?