This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at a pair of events last week which expose the Alberta government's rhetoric on Bill 44:
In the recent debate over Alberta’s Bill 44, the government’s sales pitch often appeared contrived and haphazard.
Last week, two completely unrelated events would seem to have confirmed the emptiness of the government’s line of defence.
I refer not to the non-existent defence of the decision to leave untouched the censorship clause of the human rights legislation, but rather the arguments put forth to buttress the case for a parental opt-out clause in education.
Specifically, we saw the government hastily claim for itself the mantle of the Great Defender of Parental Rights in order to sell the opt-out clause.
It seemed an odd mantle to don, given that there was little clamour for such a defender and that the government itself had given no indication it was inclined to position itself thusly.
In defending the need to enshrine the opt-out clause into the human rights legislation the argument boiled down to this: parents will always act in the best interests of their children and the state has no business overruling them.
Further to that was the contention that the government was keenly interested in what was and what wasn’t being taught in Alberta schools, and that curriculum would not be affected negatively by Bill 44.
As to the latter, a national report released last week on the teaching of Canadian history proved to be rather embarrassing for Alberta, and certainly exposed any pretense the government had of standing up for education.
The Dominion Institute’s report card surveyed all provinces on how well they are teaching Canadian history – Alberta shamefully scored an ‘F’.
This is a blight that lands solely in the lap of the Alberta government, and while we’ve all been distracted by the question of whether schools should acknowledge the existence of homosexuals, we’re missing some much bigger questions.
This would also seem to confirm one of the fears of Bill 44: that rather than parents opting their kids out of certain subjects, the subjects themselves will be watered-down so as to avoid any controversy in the first place.
That may explain why Canadian history has been slowly disappearing from schools: it can be awfully politically incorrect and so rather than risk offending anyone maybe it’s just safer to minimize the exposure.
We recently saw a school in New Brunswick drop O Canada for apparently that very reason.
Sometimes the curriculum has to be the curriculum; wishy-washy sensibilities be damned.
As to the broader point surrounding parental rights, the controversy surrounding Finance Minister Iris Evans proved to be quite illustrative.
Evans opined that it is in the best interests of children for one parent to stay home, that “when you’re raising children you don’t both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise”.
Granted, the Minister was speaking for herself, but her comments on parenting were certainly embraced by social conservatives – no doubt including those social conservatives in caucus who had pushed for Bill 44’s opt-out clause.
But suddenly we’ve gone from “parents always know best and the state should butt out” to “parents don’t always know best and the state should butt in”.
I think in fairness to Evans – and those defending her position – it probably is best for kids to be raised by one at-home parent, but as everyone has acknowledged through this kerfuffle, that’s not realistic for many families.
But if Evans meant to imply that sometimes parents make selfish choices rather than decisions that are in the best interests of their children, then sadly she’s probably right.
That’s not “parent bashing” – a term we heard during the Bill 44 debate – that’s a tragic reality.
Whether it’s career-related or something more derivative of a fundamentalist religious agenda, the fact is that parents don’t always act in the best interest of their children. While state interference is not usually an advisable response, we should avoid pandering to such instincts.
Unfortunately, pandering turned out to be an undeclared but key ingredient of the government’s Bill 44 strategy.
If the Alberta government is truly interested in protecting parental choice and protecting education there are clearly ways in which that desire could be demonstrated.
Hollow rhetoric doesn’t cut it.
Last week, two completely unrelated events would seem to have confirmed the emptiness of the government’s line of defence.
I refer not to the non-existent defence of the decision to leave untouched the censorship clause of the human rights legislation, but rather the arguments put forth to buttress the case for a parental opt-out clause in education.
Specifically, we saw the government hastily claim for itself the mantle of the Great Defender of Parental Rights in order to sell the opt-out clause.
It seemed an odd mantle to don, given that there was little clamour for such a defender and that the government itself had given no indication it was inclined to position itself thusly.
In defending the need to enshrine the opt-out clause into the human rights legislation the argument boiled down to this: parents will always act in the best interests of their children and the state has no business overruling them.
Further to that was the contention that the government was keenly interested in what was and what wasn’t being taught in Alberta schools, and that curriculum would not be affected negatively by Bill 44.
As to the latter, a national report released last week on the teaching of Canadian history proved to be rather embarrassing for Alberta, and certainly exposed any pretense the government had of standing up for education.
The Dominion Institute’s report card surveyed all provinces on how well they are teaching Canadian history – Alberta shamefully scored an ‘F’.
This is a blight that lands solely in the lap of the Alberta government, and while we’ve all been distracted by the question of whether schools should acknowledge the existence of homosexuals, we’re missing some much bigger questions.
This would also seem to confirm one of the fears of Bill 44: that rather than parents opting their kids out of certain subjects, the subjects themselves will be watered-down so as to avoid any controversy in the first place.
That may explain why Canadian history has been slowly disappearing from schools: it can be awfully politically incorrect and so rather than risk offending anyone maybe it’s just safer to minimize the exposure.
We recently saw a school in New Brunswick drop O Canada for apparently that very reason.
Sometimes the curriculum has to be the curriculum; wishy-washy sensibilities be damned.
As to the broader point surrounding parental rights, the controversy surrounding Finance Minister Iris Evans proved to be quite illustrative.
Evans opined that it is in the best interests of children for one parent to stay home, that “when you’re raising children you don’t both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise”.
Granted, the Minister was speaking for herself, but her comments on parenting were certainly embraced by social conservatives – no doubt including those social conservatives in caucus who had pushed for Bill 44’s opt-out clause.
But suddenly we’ve gone from “parents always know best and the state should butt out” to “parents don’t always know best and the state should butt in”.
I think in fairness to Evans – and those defending her position – it probably is best for kids to be raised by one at-home parent, but as everyone has acknowledged through this kerfuffle, that’s not realistic for many families.
But if Evans meant to imply that sometimes parents make selfish choices rather than decisions that are in the best interests of their children, then sadly she’s probably right.
That’s not “parent bashing” – a term we heard during the Bill 44 debate – that’s a tragic reality.
Whether it’s career-related or something more derivative of a fundamentalist religious agenda, the fact is that parents don’t always act in the best interest of their children. While state interference is not usually an advisable response, we should avoid pandering to such instincts.
Unfortunately, pandering turned out to be an undeclared but key ingredient of the government’s Bill 44 strategy.
If the Alberta government is truly interested in protecting parental choice and protecting education there are clearly ways in which that desire could be demonstrated.
Hollow rhetoric doesn’t cut it.
