Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Creationists Score Big In Alberta Human Rights Overhaul

A provincial document says the government needed to assure parents of their rights because "faith-based groups urged government to recognize -- as a right -- parents' role in making choices for their children."

"When asked about evolution, always a question since the monkey-human thing is a talker, the premier says 'parents would have the opportunity to make that choice.' Take that, Darwin."

A mixed bag then. Section 3 stays in, gays get an explicit mention...and Creationists can pull their kids from biology class when evolution comes up. Maybe also from Astronomy class. Can Muslim parents pull their kids from History class when Israel comes up? And why would anyone send their kid to Algebra? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

A lot not to like about that.

12 comments:

Robert McClelland said...

What's not to like. If right whingers want to walk down the path of ignorance, let them. It's working out great in the US. Great for the left that is.

Ti-Guy said...

Great for the left that is.Yeah, wonderful. Now the rest of us have to start challenging the resurgence of economically-illiterate socialists for the next ten years.

noonespecial200 said...

It's going to be hell for teachers to try and accomadate students who's parents object to certain portions (or vast swaths in some cases) of the curriculum because no doubt teachers will still be expected to include those students in a regular class. I also wonder how a province with standardized tests will be able to continue with the diploma exam or provincial acheivement tests if a good portion of students' parents exclude them from some parts of the curriculum. Will there be a grab bag of standardized tests that one can pick and choose from or will there remain one test and the students who do badly because they were not in class when certain deas were taught will be able to blame the teachers?

noonespecial200 said...

Here's another one. What if a teacher has a child in class whose parents are members of a racist group such as the Aryan Guard. Or if the parents are just general bigots. Could they now object to their child learning about the Holocaust? The Civil Rights struggle in 1960s America? Nelson Mandela? How about an English class where "Night" or "The Diary of Anne Frank" are the novels being studied by the class?

Where does this end?

Ti-Guy said...

It won't end, so long as we have an economy that, for most people, doesn't really require much thinking. Having irrational beliefs isn't exactly an impediment to amassing wealth, particularly in places like Alberta.

MgS said...

Actually, after reading the legislation a bit more carefully, it's quite topic specific. Topics like science remain science, and the creationists would have to prove that the science curriculum is in fact a religion that they disagree with.

It's got a lot less wiggle room in it than Morton's bill had in 2006.

bigcitylib said...

Mgs,

Can you link to that? Or is it the document I ref in last night's post?

MgS said...

Sure:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/bills/2009/pdf/bill-044.pdfWarning: make a copy for your reference. Alberta has a nasty habit of ditching the PDFs as they move things to archives.

bigcitylib said...

Okay I see what you're getting at now. I suppose, though, if you were a Catholic your parents might demand that you forego a class on the history of Buddism, or a sex ed class that deals with the mechanics of gay sexuality, or some such thing.

bigcitylib said...

...although that makes Stelmach's response to the question re Darwin a little bit mysterious, as he indicates there would be opportunity for choice there.

Ti-Guy said...

or a sex ed class that deals with the mechanics of gay sexualityThere's no reason for Catholic parents to have their children learn that at school.

That's what the priests are for.

MgS said...

BCL:

...although that makes Stelmach's response to the question re Darwin a little bit mysterious, as he indicates there would be opportunity for choice there.Stelmach's a farmer, not a lawyer. I doubt he's read the clause that carefully.