Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

What I don't get is why Catholics would be opposed to this in the first place. Pope Francis has come out and said "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

He has said that the Church's teachings is that people of different backgrounds are not to be isolated, but they are our brothers (and sisters). Catholics teach that everyone has sin, and does "wrong" but that doesn't mean you turn away from them.

How does that philosophy equal not supporting Gay-Straight Alliances? Isn't clubs like this the philosophy that churches would want to support? I'm not christian so I don't know if I am way off on this, but it just seems logical to me.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

What I don't get is why Catholics would be opposed to this in the first place. Pope Francis has come out and said "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

He has said that the Church's teachings is that people of different backgrounds are not to be isolated, but they are our brothers (and sisters). Catholics teach that everyone has sin, and does "wrong" but that doesn't mean you turn away from them.

How does that philosophy equal not supporting Gay-Straight Alliances? Isn't clubs like this the philosophy that churches would want to support? I'm not christian so I don't know if I am way off on this, but it just seems logical to me.

A similar issue came up in Ontario a few years ago. This TorStar article addresses your points:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito..._thinking.html

The subject of GSAs being contrary to Catholic teaching raises the fact that the Catholic Church loves LGBTQ persons, but disapproves of non-heterosexual acts. If Catholic schools are unwilling to sponsor GSAs on this basis, then one must ask whether GSAs really promote sexual acts. If they did, they would certainly be contrary to church teaching. But these groups limit their scope to promoting peace and safety, providing emotional support, and resisting homophobia and bullying in the name of justice, all of which are in agreement with Catholic teachings on love and human dignity. Being LGBTQ is apparently not a problem in some Catholic schools, but organizing LGBTQ groups is.

So it appears that in some cases there is reluctance to admit the presence of LGBTQ persons because it would send a message that the school also approves of sex acts that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Instead, they are hidden under the heading “anti-bullying” (as is the case in Halton Catholic schools).

In these cases, probably the best argument that the pro-GSA students have at their disposal is to point to inconsistencies between their treatment and the way the school serves students who are pregnant and unmarried parents. The Catholic Church also disapproves of heterosexual acts outside marriage, but currently unmarried students who are pregnant or have children are openly welcomed in Catholic schools, and sometimes are even placed in programs specifically designed for them.

Their public presence is not denied, and any suggestion that the school approves of their sexual activity outside marriage is remarkably absent from public discussion. Priority is instead properly placed on helping these students and their children. Students who are hoping to establish GSAs might ask why their social and political effort to reduce homophobia and bullying fails, but a solidly Catholic reason exists to serve students who have (or are having) children outside marriage.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

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?

Except I'm not morally opposed, why do you need to create strawmen and label others to try and prove a point?

I never said the motion would cost anything, another made up strawman.

My point was, and is, when we balance the budget and cuts come down, what are the programs that are going to be cut? Will new programs have much of a chance to even get started in the face of the huge debts we will have to pay because of the current PC government?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't get that feeling at all actually. They weren't even smart enough to count up the fact that this vote was decided and have one or two members vote in favour just to say "see, its a free vote and we're just not convinced".

They did say it was a free vote, just none of them were for it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

My point was, and is, when we balance the budget and cuts come down, what are the programs that are going to be cut? Will new programs have much of a chance to even get started in the face of the huge debts we will have to pay because of the current PC government?

Could always just, you know, raise taxes....

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Except I'm not morally opposed, why do you need to create strawmen and label others to try and prove a point?

I never said the motion would cost anything, another made up strawman.

My point was, and is, when we balance the budget and cuts come down, what are the programs that are going to be cut? Will new programs have much of a chance to even get started in the face of the huge debts we will have to pay because of the current PC government?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If permitting students to set up and run GSA programs cost Alberta education nothing (that we have already established), then why or how would they get shut down for budgetary reasons?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If permitting students to set up and run GSA programs cost Alberta education nothing (that we have already established), then why or how would they get shut down for budgetary reasons?

In your opinion here and here alone you've decided unilaterally that they cost nothing. And that may be the case.

But there's no proof of such.

[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.

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?

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Except I'm not morally opposed, why do you need to create strawmen and label others to try and prove a point?

I never said the motion would cost anything, another made up strawman.

My point was, and is, when we balance the budget and cuts come down, what are the programs that are going to be cut? Will new programs have much of a chance to even get started in the face of the huge debts we will have to pay because of the current PC government?

I'm just going to leave this little collection here. You clearly tried to suggest that this was somehow going to cost money, and some things would have to be cut to balance the budget as a result.

Now, hilariously, you are suggesting that I'm creating strawmen. You've really outdone yourself in this thread.

[corporatejay]

From Cusanelli's Facebook. Pulled out the old "singling out one group over another" card.

How does an MLA decide on how to vote? Here is one story about how I arrived at my decision to vote against motion 503.

Motion 503 states:
“Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to introduce legislation, like Manitoba’s and Ontario’s, requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations, using any name that is consistent with the promotions of a positive school environment that is inclusive, welcoming, and respectful for all students regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
It’s intention is to counter bullying and to ensure safe and inclusive school environments for students while respecting diversity.
The New Education Act Sec33 states:
(1) A board, as a partner in education, has the responsibility to...
(d) ensure that each student enrolled in a school operated by the board and each staff member employed by the board is provided with a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment that respects diversity and fosters a sense of belonging.

(2) A board shall establish, implement and maintain a policy respecting the board’s obligation (under the above) to provide a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment that includes the establishment of a code of conduct for students that addresses bullying behavior.
According to the feedback I received, there was a prevailing opinion from my constituents that this motion :
-Would single out a specific group and give the perception that other groups are less important (obese children, children with disabilities etc.)
-Interferes with the local autonomy of school Districts and local decision makers
-Is already enshrined in the current Education Act
As such, my vote against the motion was derived out of this information.
I personally believe in the spirit of the motion. Bullying and especially attacking an individual for how God created each of us is not something I accepted as a Catholic School Principal. As such, I referred to the former School Act which was always on my desk. It was dog eared and filled with notes and sticky tags. I used the law to ensure I upheld a safe and caring environment for all students. Suspension and expulsion were never happy conversations to have with parents but, my kids felt they were safe knowing that the authority figure in their school defended the victim of bullying. A message and tone is clearly sent that bullying of any kind will NOT be tolerated.
I have had the honor of participating not only in debate on the new Education Act, but also as a member of the Regulation Review Committee and so, I also used the feedback garnered through those experiences to offer a gauge as to how to cast my vote.

A motion is not the law nor is there any guarantee it ever moves from motion to law.
In my schools, I used the strength of law to guide my practices in creating atmospheres with the very spirit that Motion 503 inspires. That law has been further strengthened today and will be further solidified by the regulations soon to follow. As such, I am of the belief that we have current legislation that sets the expectation that boards and schools have a fiduciary duty to support students in establishing organizations and groups that are inclusive, welcoming and respectful.
As a Catholic School Principal, it would therefore be my duty by the law, to assist my students in creating a gay-straight alliance group if this is what they so choose. This, regardless of Motion 503 being passed or not. I feel I not only voted according to Currie constituents who relayed their feedback to me but, also using the knowledge I have about how principals MUST use the Education Act to combat bullying in schools.
A motion is meant to engage discussion surrounding issues pertinent to legislation. A motion passing or being defeated does not have immediate implications. Our Education Act does. Make no mistake, this Government says that an environment must be created to foster a culture of diversity and respect as well as a structure to hold individuals accountable when there is a breach in the code of conduct. That is the law in our province. It’s strength ensures that gay-straight alliances have the right to exist.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just going to leave this little collection here. You clearly tried to suggest that this was somehow going to cost money, and some things would have to be cut to balance the budget as a result.

Now, hilariously, you are suggesting that I'm creating strawmen. You've really outdone yourself in this thread.

My assertion is that finding new funding to start new programs will be nearly impossible. I understand many here feel there will be zero cost. Thanks for asking for clarification if you misunderstood!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

In your opinion here and here alone you've decided unilaterally that they cost nothing. And that may be the case.

But there's no proof of such.

AFAIK, none of the Wildrose MLAs who voted against the motion cited fiscal reasons for their opposition. In fact, nobody other than you is bringing the budget into this conversation because it's an absolute non-issue and a red herring.

There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the creation of GSAs at schools. I'm quite likely to strongly disagree with them, but I can acknowledge that viewpoints other than my own may have merit. Claiming that the government shouldn't allow students to create these clubs because it will cost the taxpayers money is just an indefensible and ridiculous viewpoint without any validity whatsoever, though.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

In your opinion here and here alone you've decided unilaterally that they cost nothing. And that may be the case.

But there's no proof of such.

If such clubs contribute the mental and social well being of Alberta's youth that is a return on the investment that should not be overlooked.

[V]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

From Cusanelli's Facebook. Pulled out the old "singling out one group over another" card.

It amazes me that a guy uses and spells fiduciary correctly, but doesn't know the difference between its and it's.

/grammarnazi

I, along with many it seems, am very surprised that the WR didn't use this completely non-binding, nothing bill to demonstrate the fact that they're less radically socially right than they have been in the past. It would have been so easy to use this symbolic bill to improve their image through strictly symbolic means, and yet they decide to further entrench themselves as being against anything gay, at least optically. Hehr pulled a fast one on them and made them look pretty silly and antiquated, if you ask me.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the creation of GSAs at schools. I'm quite likely to strongly disagree with them, but I can acknowledge that viewpoints other than my own may have merit. Claiming that the government shouldn't allow students to create these clubs because it will cost the taxpayers money is just an indefensible and ridiculous viewpoint without any validity whatsoever, though.

I totally agree with you here! Now if only there was someone alleging the government should stop these clubs we could really get 'em!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

No way, that doesn't sound like a politician.

[DuffMan]

Isn't making a student lead, gay oriented club, just an excuse for arranging gay orgies? I mean why not, everyone is there. Maybe they could rent out the basement of Chicken on the way on say, Tuesdays, to have their meetings.

[Flash Walken]

The mother says her son proposed a GSA at his high school in 2012, one
year after he came out as gay.

“The school was actually very receptive; they met with us right away, and for the next maybe month and a half, we kind of went back and forth on what was important to have in the GSA,” she told CTV Edmonton.

But the proposal was shot down by the school board.

“It’s simply philosophically not who we are, or how we come to be as a community that is in solidarity with everybody’s need at the same time,” David Keohane, superintendent of Greater St. Albert Catholic Schools, told CTV Edmonton.

“We simply don’t believe that a person feels whole and feels that they can be completely embraced in society for who they are by addressing that student in isolation,” he said.

Education Minister Jeff Johnson, who voted against the motion, told CTV News he isn’t aware of the boy’s attempt to start a GSA at his school.

“I’m not aware of that at all, but I think if any of those situations exist, certainly I’d like to be made aware of them,” he said.

But in an email to the Edmonton mother obtained by CTV News, Johnson refers to the boy’s situation, and says he feels the issue of gay-straight alliances should be decided by school boards.

Meanwhile, Calgary-Liberal MLA Kent Hehr, who brought the motion forward, pointed to the difference between public and Catholic boards.

“We have 40 GSAs in this province, and they’re all at public schools,” he told reporters.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/alberta...nces-1.1769763

The Alberta Teachers’ Association has long been a vocal supporter of the importance of gay-straight alliances (GSAs) in our schools and passed policy in 2005 encouraging all school boards to support their creation and to actively work to sustain their vital educational role in schools. Teachers know what kids need and that’s a safe space in their school where they can be unconditionally supported to be themselves without fear of violence, bullying, or religious condemnation.

GSAs are one of the fastest growing social movements in schools today. There are now over 4,000 GSAs in the United States, with approximately one in every 10 high schools. Here in Alberta, there are more than 40 GSAs, yet not one in a Catholic school, and that’s not because students haven’t wanted or tried to create them.

This religious resistance is exactly the reason governments in both Manitoba and Ontario have legislated that all schools must support any student who wants to start a GSA and name it as such. Alberta must follow suit. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If we fail to act, we will do nothing more than allow discrimination to flourish and we will continue to build an apartheid system of education in our province where LGBTQ students are treated as second-class citizens in their own schools. This is not the kind of Alberta that I want to build.

Rather than let our differences divide us, they should be a source of inspiration that unites us together in common vision and purpose. After all, GSAs are about gay and straight students coming together to hold hands united against homophobia. Sometimes, we as adults are the ones who need to get out of the way and let our students become our teachers.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...428/story.html

Some PCs still aren’t sure if they should be taking credit for Alison Redford’s resignation, or apologizing for it. There’s a lingering seediness that has those involved feeling like they need a shower, even though they still believe she had to be pushed out.

Most of all, they aren’t sure how the forced resignation plays with the public. Redford was unpopular with the voters, but the PC party may have hurt itself as badly as it wounded her.

To this day, Caesar is admired; Brutus is not.

Such calculations propel Wildrose to press its fierce attack on everything about the PCs — their government, caucus, cabinet and party.

On Tuesday, Wildrose segued straight from the spectacular consulting fees paid by Alberta Health Services — $250 million in 18 months — to allegations about useless government communications staff sucking up money.

Health Minister Fred Horne was puzzled at the peculiar overlap.

He shouldn’t be. It’s all part of this Wildrose effort to fry every aspect of PC culture on the same public griddle.

Of course, Wildrose brings its own vulnerabilities to the fight.

This emerged Monday, when MLAs voted on Liberal Kent Hehr’s call for the government to require all school boards to allow gay-straight alliances, if local students want them.

Ontario and Manitoba already do this, in the belief that such alliances combat bullying.

A good many Alberta MLAs agree, it turns out. Every Liberal and New Democrat in the house supported Hehr’s motion. Surprisingly, 12 PCs also voted in favour.

But all the Wildrose MLAs turned thumbs down, helping defeat the motion by a count of 31 to 19.

Once again we caught a whiff of brimstone — the old Lake of Fire fiasco that helped Wildrose lose the 2012 election, after a party candidate said practising gays would boil in his apocalyptic lake.

In the legislature, NDP Leader Brian Mason was quick to blast Danielle Smith’s party. “The unanimous ‘no’ vote by the Wildrose caucus shows that the Lake of Fire is still their resort of choice,” he said Tuesday.

Wildrose now has a human-rights policy that promises to protect far more groups against discrimination — including gays — than anything the PCs have ever offered. But votes like that tend to stick around through election campaigns.

For the moment, though, the PCs are the ones on the ropes — uncertain, dazed, even remorseful, as they pick through the debris of the Redford collapse, wondering how it will all play out.

Will more bad news about her help them or hurt them? If her reputation revives, will the party’s be further damaged? Do people really mean it when they say they’ll never vote Tory again?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...150/story.html

[Knalus]

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

I'll bite, even though I probably shouldn't.

Most people here are thinking about the school they went to, or the school their kids go to. Most schools are larger ones in Calgary, over 300 students, often in one grade. Many of these schools have multiple homosexual or bisexual leaning students. And a large student body that is virtually guaranteed to contain a significant number of sympathetic students.

But not all schools are built that way. Many schools are smaller, with far fewer students. Athabasca county school, for example has 13 students. Olds Career High School has 74.

So lets think about a hypothetical. Lets say one school has only one gay student in grade 12, who is feeling isolated. The student is also a bit of a rebel. Decides to set up a GSA in his school, in solidarity with other homosexuals across the province, and because the student really wants to fit in better with the other classmates. The principal is sympathetic to the problems with this student, but sees that there are a few issues - notably a bully that will cause trouble for anyone who identifies as gay. The principal is doing what he can within the law to mitigate the bully's actions, but the situation is not perfect.
The principal sees that this GSA, in this specific situation, would give the bully a target for his aggression, namely any other student that chooses to join this GSA. The principal tries to convince the student that is setting up the GSA that this may not be the best idea in this situation. Perhaps in a perfect world, but not this specific one. The student, on the other hand, armed with legislation, chooses to go ahead with the club, against the better judgement of a principal who has this kids best interests at heart. Due to the bully, no one joins. Any one that is thinking of joining, becomes the target of the bully.
The principal ends up punishing the bully, who gets out of control. The gay student feels even more isolated from his peers. The rest of the student body has an unwelcome and uncomfortable complication in the school year. No one wins.

This is not so far fetched in smaller schools. A school similar to the one I attended in High School. Especially in rural, or private schools, with limited funds and limited resources to deal with situations like this. One size does not always fit all.

To be honest, I would have voted for the bill, but only because it was non-binding. I am not a fan of binding legislation that doesn't work in nearly all situations. The best part of the legislation being brought forward, is that it brings this potential for GSA's forward to students that might not have known it was an option for them, while allowing principals and school boards the flexibility they should have. The worst part of the bill is it makes some people who are not bigots look like they are.

[19Yzerman19]

Sorry, you see it as a realistic situation that a school is completely unable to control the actions of a bully? I.e. this bully effectively dictates school policy? Seriously? I have never been a school administrator but my intuitive reaction is that the kid should be warned, suspended, and expelled in successive order if his behaviour isn't ameliorated.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Sorry, you see it as a realistic situation that a school is completely unable to control the actions of a bully? I.e. this bully effectively dictates school policy? Seriously? I have never been a school administrator but my intuitive reaction is that the kid should be warned, suspended, and expelled in successive order if his behaviour isn't ameliorated.

Have you ever been bullied? Have you noticed that schools don't seem to have that problem licked? Have you ever noticed that it sometimes doesn't matter what the school policy is, that bullies sometimes dictate the student body's reaction to school policy? And, so what if the bully is "warned, and suspended". In my experience, that never changes the bully's attitude, actions, nor does it magically make the rest of the student body all of a sudden feel totally great with the kid being bullied. As for expelled, expelled where? To another school where he can continue the same behaviour? Sometimes preventing a problem is better than punitively punishing someone because the situation doesn't fit with a utopian view of how things should happen.