Hi Kris,

Again, sorry for the long delay in response. (Yes, we’re doing OK, thanks. We had a death in the extended family, coupled with a bunch of other things and bouts of sickness going around, has put me way behind.)

First, I should be really clear that I don’t like the kind of tribunals you speak of either. I admit I hadn’t taken that into account in my original article, as I assumed the normal court system. But, I think that THEY (the tribunals) are the actual problem, not the topic at hand. That some wording changes might make one more susceptible to these tribunals is a legitimate fear, but I’d rather see the tribunals gone after and changed or done away with. Also, if these tribunals operate the way they are portrayed in those articles (and I believe they do), you’re really not safe from them without the changed wording you are worried about. Either way, if you get in their cross-hairs, you’re in trouble. You’ll also win either way, despite the hardships you’ll endure.

I agree we should know who makes the decisions (and the criteria) over ‘informed’ decisions. Regarding the parent’s prior right, I’m not certain I agree in this situation. What about the rights of the child to be properly educated? It is really more about working out a compromise where the parents do have a good deal of choice, but where certain requirements are met (the state’s responsibility to protect the kids). Back to the original topic of my post, it would seem that the ERC curriculum, as far as I’ve been able to tell, would be a positive thing to have mandated in whatever kind of education environment (state, home, Catholic school, Islamic school, etc.).

I think this is increasingly important as the society becomes more secular. I think what religious parents often forget, is that a good portion of the population isn’t being exposed to moral teachings any longer. While the state’s version of morality probably doesn’t match any given religion’s list, having SOME kind of standard that kids are exposed to is probably a good thing. Then we can debate over what that standard is, and of course give correction to it on our own or in our churches. For example, one article I ran across recently estimated that teachers now spend 75% of their time disciplining kids (instead of teaching the core subject matter). That sounds high to me, but even if it were 25% (which is probably too low), how much might some ethics training help combat this (especially if the kids don’t get it anywhere else)? And worse, some fringe religious groups (or even mainstream ones) might be teaching their kids some ethics that run quite counter to behaving in a manner that the typical Canadian would find acceptable. Unless the parents say is overruled in this situation, the kids won’t be exposed to such instruction. For example, would you support a Muslim parent opting their kids out of such curriculum and instead training Shari law only? Also, if a parent chooses the Catholic faith, should that exclude the child from having to learn about Islam, Buddhism, Protestant Christianity, etc. in a ‘world religions’ type of course? (These last two points get back more to the main point of my article and that of Dr. Stackhouse’s articles.)

re: “allowing home schools to do whatever they like”

What I mean is in regard to the state’s imposition of a curriculum such as the ERC. When I’m talking about curriculum, I’m thinking a bit more high-level, I guess, than the exact lesson-plans or style in with the information is taught. In other words, so long as the home-schooling teacher can instruct in the basic tenants of what the ERC contains, than at least for me, it wouldn’t be an issue (I can’t speak for the state). For example, I’m imagining the home-schooler has to meet certain requirements in, say, teaching math, science, history, etc. They can’t just teach the kids whatever they please and not meet certain requirements in these subject areas.

re: “I don’t actually know of *anyone* who would avoid teaching their children this, or who would try to “shelter” their children from this reality.”

Isn’t that the point of the whole debate over parents trying to opt their kids out of the ERC material? I didn’t say you specifically.

re: “And respect for all people? *Of course* I teach them that. Why would you think that I don’t? Again, I find that troubling.”

Again, not you specifically. But then, what is the problem over the Alberta Human Rights Act? I don’t necessarily see it as saying any more than this. Of course, some GLBT person can ‘feel’ that in your not agreeing with them, that you aren’t adhering to it, but you can simply demonstrate that this is not the case. I don’t have to agree with someone to show them respect, or that same GLBT person is going to be guilty of not showing respect to my religion (which is also similarly protected).

re: “Unfortunately, the office of the Education Minister continues to offer contradictory statements on what “not respecting differences” would mean or not mean, with his Director of Communications refusing to even speculate, but instead saying it would be up to a human rights tribunal to decide. Comforting, that.”

I’m probably a bit out of the loop on this, as what I’ve been exposed to were the statements put forth in that LSN story. From that, the representative of the Education Minister did simply seem confused, so I don’t doubt you’re getting that kind of message. I’m not going to argue you shouldn’t seek clarity. And yes, if a human rights tribunal is going to decide, that sounds troubling. And again, there shouldn’t be such a thing, as it runs counter to the presumption of innocence (which is a right in Canada).

re: “… anyone, anywhere, for any reason (well, I guess they have to feel offended) will be able to bring a human rights complaint against someone if they think Section 16 of The Education Act is not being respected.”

I guess I’m missing two points here. 1) What is stopping them from doing this currently? 2) How would the proposed changes make an individual home-schooler a bigger target? Or, maybe a better way to say this is, if a home-schooler is teaching the kind of respect we’ve talked about above, how do they become a target in the first place? The articles you linked to were of high profile individuals individuals making particular public stands on the issues. I’m not saying this should have put them in that situation, but I’m wondering how home-schoolers are going to be ‘witch-hunted’ after such a change… so not so much technically, but practically.

re: “I find it interesting that you suggest that Christians caused this mess.”

Caused in the sense of allowed through inaction, both educationally and in engagement in the public square. Maybe I could have worded that better. The arguments against abortion and GLBT ‘marriage’ are easily put forth without even including religion. Adding religion, if there is agreement of religion, only make them stronger. If Christians had been able to make the case in the public square more like Scott Klusendorf or Greg Koukl (two well-known apologists on these issues), and less like the Westboro Baptists, I doubt the general public would have allowed such law changes in the first place.

re: “I would also point out that this is not merely a ‘homeschool’ issue”

Yes, I realize that (mostly thanks to Dr. Stackhouse). There are all kinds of Christian and other groups up in arms over this. The quote you included even pinpointed the problem… the human rights tribunals. So, why not put the energy into overturning those, rather than arguing over whether one should be subject to the Alberta Human Rights Act (which on its own, doesn’t seem to be problematic)? The tribunals seem to be clearly in opposition to rights Canadians have (i.e.: an easier target).

-Steve

o I’m sorry about the delay once again. I should just refrain from guessing when I will be able to respond.

Hi, Steve.
Not a problem. I hope and pray that everything is okay on your end of things.

Note that I have added a couple things to the ‘Update’ section at the end of the article.

Concerning the letter:

re: “Bill 2 would sweep aside fundamental freedoms (as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2a and 2b: freedom of conscience and religion; of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression) and replace those freedoms with a government mandated conscience policed by the Human Rights Tribunals where the burden of proof falls on the accused.”

Note that the Alberta Human Rights Act lists religion in the same sentence as other classes such as sexual orientation. Whatever respect that is going to be demanded would also have to be demanded for the religion in question. To me, this would indicated that a) the type of respect being talked about, is one of civil dialog and of one another as human beings (tolerance), or b) the religion would have equal legal grounds for holding their particular viewpoints.

As I noted in my article, I also don’t like these type of laws which try to police conscience. However, if they include religion, then a case brought against the religious person is going to fail. I’m not deeply familiar with the case of Bishop Henry, but I think the charges were dismissed, correct?

I will refer you to two papers regarding the actions of human rights tribunals that I believe are pertinent:

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2960

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/1/Kangaroo%20Courts.pdf

Yes, the charges against Bishop Henry were dismissed…after two years of time and expense on his part. He wrote a rather scathing letter to then-Premier Ed Stelmach about his experience. For Pastor Stephen Boisson of Red Deer, the charges were dismissed after SEVEN years of time and expense. For Ezra Levant, the charges were dropped after his legal fees topped $100,000.00!!!

Are you suggesting that because these charges were eventually overruled by an actual court, there is no problem here? Why are such charges even able to be brought forth in the first place? Why is there a presumption of guilt on the part of the defendant? Why does the defendant have to spend *his* time and *his* money to prove he is innocent, while the one who brings the complaint has all of his or her expenses covered by the taxpayer?

re: ‘prior’ and ‘informed’ – I can see where the argument is going with this, and I agree that such terms can be important. The ‘spirit’ of them seems to be right (who doesn’t want parents making informed decisions, rather than out of ignorance), but this person might be correct that they open some legal holes. I’m also not sure I agree that parents have absolute prior say on everything if we’re agreeing on public education standards. What good are education standards if people can opt-out?

The word “informed” is a new addition; it is not in the current School Act, nor was it in Bill 2’s previous incarnation, Bill 18. From what I understand, the use of the word “informed” in legalese denotes submission to a superior authority. No where in Bill 2 are Albertans told who will determine if the choice a parent makes is an “informed” one. I think that is a very important question, and one that demands an answer.

As well, no one is arguing that parents have an “’absolute’ prior say on everything.” Rather, we are requesting that the government recognize a parent’s prior right to make decisions regarding the type of education his or her child will receive. This is not revolutionary thinking; it’s the wording of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, Section 26(3). In other words, the parent’s right comes BEFORE the state’s right. If a parent chooses to use public education for his or her child, then of course there are expectations that go along with that choice. If a parent chooses Catholic school for his or her child, then that parent (hopefully) understands that the Catholic faith will be taught and promoted in the education of that child. But the point is this: The parent is the one who does the choosing of how his or her child will be educated, NOT the state. For some reason, the Alberta government appears to be remarkably resistant to writing this recognition into Bill 2. Why?

re: “The requirement to conform to the Alberta Human Rights Act would also apply to all schools, and would require a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to faith, despite the government’s stated aim of ‘respecting differences’.”

As they should. Respecting differences doesn’t mean allowing home schools to do whatever they like. Respecting differences would look more like allowing home schoolers to include their own curriculum ALONG WITH or IN ALIGNMENT WITH the state curriculum and requirements.

Perhaps you could define what you mean when you refer to “allowing home schools to do whatever they like”?

Most home schools do not use state curriculum simply on account of the nature of homeschooling, and the nature of state curriculum. (This is a bit of a side issue, I think, and I apologize for the tangent.) State curricula are designed to teach a large group of students of varying ability all at the same time. Homeschooling, by and large, consists of one-on-one tutorial learning, and some families even go so far as to use NO set curriculum, but rather use books, books, books, field trips, other one-on-one or group lessons and life itself to guide their learning. Homeschoolers are free to use the state/provincial curriculum, of course, but many (perhaps most?) do not, having found that doing so in a tutorial setting is neither the ideal way to develop their children’s love for learning nor maximize their use of time.

I would have no problem teaching my son that the state law currently allows for people of the same-sex to be married in secular legal terms (should’t I expect the state to require I teach this, as it ACTUALLY IS the current law?). I don’t have a problem teaching him to respect such people (I already do, and as a Christian, I must!) I don’t see how this is imposing anything on my religious beliefs. What would be ‘not respecting differences’ would be if they said I can’t teach my son what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. I’ll watch out for that, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this is the case (despite all the insinuations flying around on the Internet).

Okay, this made me smile. I have no problem teaching my children that same-sex marriage is the law of the land either. It’s a fact, after all. I must admit to being a bit troubled, though, if you thought that I would have a problem doing so? I don’t actually know of *anyone* who would avoid teaching their children this, or who would try to “shelter” their children from this reality. The fact that Canada has no abortion law is also a fact, and I do not try to pretend otherwise with my kids. I certainly don’t shelter them from it. I don’t agree with that aspect of Canadian society, but it is the way it is.

In terms of evidence, you’re quite right. The bill isn’t even law yet, so I wouldn’t expect that there would be much in the way of evidence yet. I would very much prefer that it didn’t get to that point. I will refer you again to the above two papers for “evidence” of how HRT have been used to diminish freedoms of expression, religion and conscience. And please remember that it isn’t simply a matter of the government “checking up” on schools or home educating families to ensure that what is being taught is “kosher” – anyone, anywhere, for any reason (well, I guess they have to feel offended) will be able to bring a human rights complaint against someone if they think Section 16 of The Education Act is not being respected.

My big problem with this whole issue (apart from unfounded accusations), as an apologist, is the tendency to separate and shield, rather than to actually deal with the situation at hand. If Christians had engaged culture better in the first place, we wouldn’t be dealing with these issues. But now that we are, separatism, IMO, isn’t the way to go. We need to engage at an even deeper level. We should want to be dealing with and interacting with the most common curriculum and materials the rest of our young people are being taught as our children need to be prepared to do so. -Steve

I find it unfortunate that you believe that “separating and shielding” is what you think this is about, or that this is why people homeschool their children. It’s not, and it’s not…at least not among the people I know. You are right that we are NOT called to separatism – amen and preach it, brother!!! But neither are we called to complacency in the face of error. Unfortunately, you’re right that among God’s people, we tend to see a great deal of complacency, or by some on the other end, a lack of love for those who do not yet know Jesus. I would suggest that the answer is somewhere in the middle, but somehow that doesn’t seem qutie accurate either. We need passion for the truth AND consuming love for the lost all at once.

I would also point out that this is not merely a “homeschool” issue; as demonstrated (ugh, no pun intended) by the groups respresented at the protest rally at the Legislature two days ago, there are many groups who are concerned, including the Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association (www.acsta.ab.ca) and the group Citizens for Diversity in Education (albertacde.org). You may want to examine what they have to say as well. Most pertinent, perhaps, is this statement from the CDE spokesperson:

In all my years as an educator I have worked under the terms of a School Act that was responsible to the Minister and the elected legislature. Bill 2 changes a very important aspect of this. Section 16 places the determination of acceptability of all content, teaching resources and by extension, verbal instruction, under the Alberta Human Rights Act. Thus, subsequent to the passing of Bill 2, interpretation and enforcement will no longer fall under the purview of the Minister and his Department, or even under the authority of the elected legislature, but rather into the hands of the non-elected Alberta Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. This is an organization that more than once has been censured by the courts for blatantly wrong interpretations and convictions of a most biased and, some would say, extremist nature. Is this how Alberta schools are to be monitored?

I would also like to respond to Dr. Stackhouse’s points (although I’m not sure when exactly), but I will do so in another post, as I think this one is probably quite long enough already. 😉

Blessings,
Kris

Hi Kris,

I’m sorry about the delay once again. I should just refrain from guessing when I will be able to respond.

Note that I have added a couple things to the ‘Update’ section at the end of the article.

Concerning the letter:

re: “Bill 2 would sweep aside fundamental freedoms (as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2a and 2b: freedom of conscience and religion; of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression) and replace those freedoms with a government mandated conscience policed by the Human Rights Tribunals where the burden of proof falls on the accused.”

Note that the Alberta Human Rights Act lists religion in the same sentence as other classes such as sexual orientation. Whatever respect that is going to be demanded would also have to be demanded for the religion in question. To me, this would indicated that a) the type of respect being talked about, is one of civil dialog and of one another as human beings (tolerance), or b) the religion would have equal legal grounds for holding their particular viewpoints.

As I noted in my article, I also don’t like these type of laws which try to police conscience. However, if they include religion, then a case brought against the religious person is going to fail. I’m not deeply familiar with the case of Bishop Henry, but I think the charges were dismissed, correct?

re: ‘prior’ and ‘informed’ – I can see where the argument is going with this, and I agree that such terms can be important. The ‘spirit’ of them seems to be right (who doesn’t want parents making informed decisions, rather than out of ignorance), but this person might be correct that they open some legal holes. I’m also not sure I agree that parents have absolute prior say on everything if we’re agreeing on public education standards. What good are education standards if people can opt-out?

re: “The requirement to conform to the Alberta Human Rights Act would also apply to all schools, and would require a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to faith, despite the government’s stated aim of ‘respecting differences’.”

As they should. Respecting differences doesn’t mean allowing home schools to do whatever they like. Respecting differences would look more like allowing home schoolers to include their own curriculum ALONG WITH or IN ALIGNMENT WITH the state curriculum and requirements.

I would have no problem teaching my son that the state law currently allows for people of the same-sex to be married in secular legal terms (should’t I expect the state to require I teach this, as it ACTUALLY IS the current law?). I don’t have a problem teaching him to respect such people (I already do, and as a Christian, I must!) I don’t see how this is imposing anything on my religious beliefs. What would be ‘not respecting differences’ would be if they said I can’t teach my son what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. I’ll watch out for that, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this is the case (despite all the insinuations flying around on the Internet).

My big problem with this whole issue (apart from unfounded accusations), as an apologist, is the tendency to separate and shield, rather than to actually deal with the situation at hand. If Christians had engaged culture better in the first place, we wouldn’t be dealing with these issues. But now that we are, separatism, IMO, isn’t the way to go. We need to engage at an even deeper level. We should want to be dealing with and interacting with the most common curriculum and materials the rest of our young people are being taught as our children need to be prepared to do so. -Steve

Actually, the “Thank you. Please reply at your earliest convenience.” were a part of my friend’s letter. I apologize for not making that more clear.

For my part, there’s no rush. Respond as you have time.

Kris

Kris, thank you for responding to this article and posting this letter. While I think a good part of what is being said is addressed by my article, other points may not be, or may need more clarification. Please forgive me for not responding more quickly, but I’m in the midst of preparing for the Apologetics Canada conference (this weekend), as well as dealing with a family emergency. I will certainly respond early next week. -Steve

Kris

Dear Mr. Lukaszuk,

I know you have heard from many constituents who are concerned about some of the sections of Bill 2 (The Education Act): home educators, parents, and people of different faiths.

I send you this email not to repeat but to make clear that there are concerns that stretch beyond the home education community and also to make clear which sections of the bill are of concern and why they concern us, along with concrete suggestions as to ways to correct this bill.

With second reading of this bill due this Monday March 5th, changes/amendments are needed now.

I write to you today not to represent the views of any particular organization but simply as a parent and concerned citizen of Alberta.

I feel especially burdened because our deepest concerns are not being heard.

In emails and letters from you and from other government MLAs, the questions put forward by parents like myself are going unanswered or unaddressed.

In the simplest terms, Bill 2 undermines the rights of parents over the education of their children.

While governments may wish to partner with parents on the education of children – as a letter from one of your fellow MLAs stated: ‘determining what is in a child’s best interest is a shared responsibility involving parents and government’ – the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and judicial decisions based on the Charter) have always recognized the prior rights of
parents in this partnership.

This prior right of parents has been consistently upheld, even in the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Quebec ethics and religion course (which was decided on the burden of evidence and not on the principles involved).

But the wording of some sections of Bill 2 undermines that prior right.

Bill 2 would sweep aside fundamental freedoms (as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2a and 2b: freedom of conscience and religion; of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression) and replace those freedoms with a government mandated conscience policed by the Human Rights Tribunals where the burden of proof falls on the accused.

Here are the four key areas of concern in Bill 2:

1 – Section 16 states that “all courses or programs of study offered and instructional materials used in a school must . honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.”

The words from Section 16 in italics above replace these words from the current School Act: “honour and respect the common values and beliefs of Albertans”.

I have read letters from your fellow MLAs stating that this change uses ‘slightly different terms but with the same meaning; in other words, there is no change in the effect of the legislation.’

But there is a clear change and it is more than a slight difference.

Human Rights Tribunals have repeatedly used the Alberta Human Rights Act to restrict and diminish religious beliefs and expressions (as in the complaint brought against Calgary Bishop Fred Henry in 2005 simply for writing about Catholic teaching).

The requirement to make education conform to the Alberta Human Rights Act needs to be removed from Section 16 of Bill 2.

2 – The Preamble to the new act moves the rights of parents from the second founding principle (in the current School Act) to an eighth principle (following several other considerations which include the “shared responsibility [that] requires empowerment of all partners in the education system”).

The prior right of parents over the education of their children is thereby undermined and makes the government an equal partner.

The prior right of a parent is set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and judicial decisions based on the Charter.

The order of the Preamble needs to be changed and the word ‘prior’ (not ‘paramount’ but ‘prior’) inserted to make the rights of parents clear.

3 – The Preamble to the new act also changes the wording from “parents have the right to make decisions” to “parents have the right to make informed decisions”.

The definition of ‘informed’ is left open and so is the question of who would define it: the parent or the government.

Since parents have the right to make decisions even when information is not available to them, ‘informed’ is an adjective that may impose unreasonable limits on the authority of parents and this word needs to be removed.

4 – Section 1 (1) (x) defines home education as ‘a school’ so that all parts of the bill – and any future regulations affecting schools – would affect home educators too.

I know, from your letters and statements from MLAs, that the Home Education Regulation ‘will also not change’ and that ‘regulatory and policy reviews will take place’.

But that is akin to saying “don’t worry, we’ll fix things later”.

The time to fix these errors is now.

And, based on those same letters and statements, these reviews will only take place ‘to ensure that all of the regulations align with it (with Bill 2)’, so the Home Education Regulation would therefore provide no protection and may very well be changed.

The wording needs to be changed to recognize that ‘home education’ and ‘attending a school’ are very different.

This might be done through wording requiring that students (up to a certain age) ‘attend school OR participate in a home education program’.

The wording of these sections of Bill 2 will undermine the authority of all parents over the education of their children, including parents with children in private and charter schools, faith-based schools, public and separate schools, as well as home educating parents.

The requirement to conform to the Alberta Human Rights Act would also apply to all schools, and would require a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to faith, despite the government’s stated aim of ‘respecting differences’.

I am the parent of seven children.

My wife and I have taught those children to listen to others, to try to understand others, and to be respectful to others.

We did that because of our Roman Catholic faith.

I ask the government to change Bill 2 so that it respects us as parents and respects the exercise of our faith.

We simply want you to truly live up to your own words, issued in a press release yesterday praising charter schools: “Choice is a great strength of Alberta’s education system”.

Thank you. Please reply at your earliest convenience.