Public School will segregate students based on religion this fall.

I can't believe that a public school is moving forward with a decision to segregate students on the basis of religion this fall. This is 2012 for crying out loud! Canada is susposed to be a multicultural society, not a christian one. I just don't get it.

Luke Fevin - one of the leaders in trying to promote the removal of christian prayer from classrooms at Sturgeon Heights - has exactly captured what this form means.

Dear Parent, could you please indicate which room of random students you would like your children to be with each morning when they sing "Oh Canada" & get publicly acknowledged for their birthdays & achievements.

Please ignore the fact that the majority will be praying & to select non-praying may have your family judged & ostricized, or your children stigmatized & separated from their friends.

You can read more about the issue here.

Pro Choice - This is why Canada should not re-open the abortion debate

Today, Conversative MP, Stephan Woodworth wants to open the debate around the definition of when human life begins and admits it is to re-open the issue of abortion rights in Canada.

I don't like where he's going with this.

While I think that biological arguments could be made that human life begins at conception, another biological and ethical argument can be made that a zygote/embryo/fetus depends on the life of it's host (the mother) who is an autonomous human being with rights and freedoms. The life of the zygote/embryo/fetus has serious impacts on the life and health of the mother. Our criminal code recognizes this and protects the rights of the autonomous human being. Therefore we do not need to to change our criminal code definitions - precisely because it endangers the rights, health, and well-being of autonomous human beings.

Coincidently, the author of "What Pale Blue Dot?" wrote about why she is pro-choice and I couldn't agree with her more.

Because I know that pregnancy kills, and more pregnancies kill more, and I believe in a woman's right to ensure her own survival (if for nothing else but to care for existing children), I strongly believe that women should have affordable, safe access to any and all measures to prevent and terminate pregnancy and the social support to utilize these measures.  Women should be in absolute control of when and under what conditions they put their lives at risk to bear a child. (emphasis mine) And we should value their lives enough to respect that agency.

For comparison, the death rate in any abortion procedure between 1993 and 1997 was .6 per 100,000 (Kaiser, 2002).  This makes ANY abortion, including late term, overall ten times safer than pregnancy and childbirth.  As it happens, this rate is still accurate, with more risky surgical abortion risk at .625 per 100,000 (NAF, 2006).
The takeaway on this is pregnancy is risky.  It may be less risky in wealthy nations when women have access to excellent medical care.  But it is always risky.  Women should be free to only take on this risk willingly and enthusiastically.  (emphasis mine) As such, all family planning services, contraceptive and abortive, are basic lifesaving healthcare and should never be denied to women.
Any denial of this lifesaving care is to presume that the life of a woman is less important than that of her potential offspring.

What bothers me most about pro-life activists is that they sure do seem to care a hell of a lot about the unborn than the living.

Please write your MPs and ask them to honor promises made by Stephan Harper that he will not allow this debate to be re-opened.

Freedom

This news story is so moving. I think that as we move towards a more tolerant society, we need to protect freedom of expression. The story is how a  Thompson Rivers University student, Sooraya Graham, a Canadian woman who is also Muslim and chooses to wear a niqab and abaya took a photograph trying to portray an image through art that Muslim women - even those who wear traditional dress are normal.

This is Canada, she is Canadian, and she has the right to express herself through this medium and the fact a a Muslim man complained should not have resulted in her photo being censored. As her professor says, it is an example of what art should do - make you think and consider the world through a different lense.

I`m not saying the Muslim student group who were offended by the photo can`t express their reasons, but I am saying that that offense should not silence the voice of their fellow students - who is one of their own faith. I will say though that the reactions of the offended student group and Saudi Arabia`s embassy does say alot about their own views on women`s rights - both to freedom of expression and personal freedoms such as whether to allow others to take photos of you...while you are fully clothed...folding laundry. Strange that such as everyday occurrance can be so thought-provoking...and so offensive?!...as to make news....in Canada!

Today, although Sooraya and I are far apart on religious issues - I want her to know that I support her rights and freedoms. I think her photo is very compelling on so many levels. In fact, I`m even a little glad that this controversy happened - because now even more people will see your work and hopefully stop and think about their own biases.

Who Really Has the Moral High Ground Here?

I've been following the request for public education free of religious instruction - as guaranteed by law - in Morinville. It's been a great story and I really admire the parents for what they have done to date and the progress that has been made. These parents have stood up to authority, with the law on their side, and solutions are on the way to Morinville- hopefully since it has been done in such a clumsy manner by our government.

Following the Morinville story lead me to following the stories around the new Education Act in Alberta as well. And in truth, it seemed like a good piece of legislation to me. It was so close to being passed, but then the call for an election halted its progress - due in large part to an effort by parents, who were concerned that teaching their kids about human rights, took away their rights to teach them whatever they wanted either in home schools or religious schools. See here, here, and here for more information.

However, I`m concerned that what is really happening is that forces, similar to those behind the religious right in the US, is trying to erode our public education system and our success as a country in protecting diversity and human rights. I`m sorry but if these kinds of movements and special interest groups means we`ll end up with Rick Santorums in Canada - then I`m not interested.

The Alberta Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are great legislation, not perfect, but pretty awesome. They do protect those rights that need it the most - yes, the rights of homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and religious and nonreligious folks.

Parents don`t need to worry that they cannot teach their children their own religious views - those rights and freedoms are firmly protected.

From the Charter:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

And so while if you believe that being homosexual is a sin - you have every right to believe that and express that - but you do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals - because they are humans who have rights too - the right to believe they are NOT sinners and the right to express that - and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of who they love.

So, does the religious right have the moral high ground here? Hello, they are protesting teaching human rights and canadian law to their children - somethings that the Minister of Education said the act won't even force them to do! Their religion has them questioning whether or not to uphold laws and legislation that protect everyone - and Canada's unique multi-cultural, plural society.

I find these enshrined rights to be full of values that I can support.

From the Charter

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

From the Alberta Human Rights Act:

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and

inalienable rights of all persons is the foundation of freedom,

justice and peace in the world;

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle

and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in:

dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious

beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age,

ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family

status or sexual orientation;

WHEREAS multiculturalism describes the diverse racial and

cultural composition of Alberta society and its importance is

recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and a matter of

public policy;

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle

and as a matter of public policy that all Albertans should share in

composition of society and that the richness of life in Alberta is

enhanced by sharing that diversity; and

WHEREAS it is fitting that these principles be affirmed by the

Legislature of Alberta in an enactment whereby those equality

rights and that diversity may be protected:

The Act goes on to clarify that freedom of belief and expression are protected. There is nothing wrong with teaching children about the laws, acts, and charter. It's typical social studies. The religious right is just wrong on this issue and I have to wonder - to what end?

Public Schools Introduce Anti-Discrimination Policy for GLBT Youth - Christian program doesn't like it

I've been following the news regarding Edmonton Public School Board's (EPSB) decision to create policy that would protect Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered (GLBT) youth from harrassment, discrimination and bullying at school. Unfortunately, in order to spin a story, the Edmonton Journal chose to focus not on why this policy is needed or how it will help and protect GLBT students, but instead on how the Christian LOGOS program are concerned that the policy "could have a significant, negative impact" on their programming.

With a little searching, I found a discussion document on why the EPSB decided they needed to develop this policy. The rationale for creating such a policy, outside of regular school anti-bullying policy, includes the following points:

1. research that shows that GLBT youth experience significantly more physical and sexual abuse and harrassment in school, have run away from home, have trouble with harmful substances, report more sucidal thoughts, and suicide attempts than their peers.
2. The Alberta Government was the first in Canada to name homophobic bullying as an education concern (surprisingly progressive for Alberta!), in addition all public funded schools in Alberta are legally mandated to provide discrimination-free educational environments
3. Courts are encouraging school to do more than just discipline bullies, but must also "address a pervasive school-wide culture of homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism."
4. And finally, and to me, most importantly

"Contemporary research demonstrates that vulnerable minority groups have needs and concerns that are seldom effectively addressed by broad “catch all” policies. (...) A specific LGBTT policy and accompanying regulations are necessary to help provide teachers and administrators with the necessary knowledge, strategies, and resources to create safe, caring, equitable, and inclusive learning environments for sexual minority students and employees. In addition, these policies also provide important support for heterosexual students who may come from same-sex parented families. Importantly, the development of specific policy and regulations will also create recommended actions and outcomes from which progress can be measured and evaluated. ... However and perhaps most importantly, as an invisible minority, a standalone policy visibly signals to the LGBTT community that they are a valued and respected part of our school communities.

At the end of the day, GLBTT students and students of GLBTT parents, experience bullying for very different reasons than heterosexual kids. It's often not an issue of just dealing with the class bully who is lashing out - but from overt and subtle discrimination and harrassment from many students, teachers, counsellors, and administrators. This kind of bullying, harrassment, and discrimination comes from a place of bigotry, fear, and homophobia: it is not the same as your run-of-the-mill school-yard bullying (although it can be that too). Teachers and students need different resources and training to deal with these issues to make school a safe place for GLBTT.

I would also venture to guess that GLBTT youth need these policies even more in a relgious enviroment. GLBTT youth who come from religious backgrounds often don't choose their schools - their parents do. Potentialy, these youth cannot get support or help with their feelings from their own family members who may believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin - wouldn't it be nice if they could find support, help, and community at school - since they might not be getting it at home or church?

I am sad that the publically funded LOGOS program is more concerned about their teachers' rights to "freely [express] their Christian beliefs in the classroom" and thereby contribute to a homophobic culture than to protect the vulnerable youth that are certainly in their midst. Perhaps they can just focus on the many positive Christian beliefs they hold regarding love and charity - and keep their views on homosexuality to themselves in the classroom - leave those beliefs to be taught at church, in the political arena if you feel you must, and in your home. Maybe keep them from vulnerable children who are just trying to discover who they are and get comfortable in their own skin. Although, perhaps you might just choose to focus on your own sins, rather than the percieved sins of others, who may not share your view anyway.

My heart aches of GLBT youth - let's see if we can't help them make it through high school without being tormented - and everyone else too.

For a great opinion piece on this issue please see this.

Judge shows that Feminism has a way to go yet.

I read two articles today that made me so angry, that I couldn't help posting about it. The first article was about a recent rally in Manitoba protesting a judges remarks during the sentencing of a man accused of sexual assult. The judge basically said that what the accused did was wrong, but the women was asking for it because of what she was wearing! Seriously!

The second article quoted a law professor from the University of Manitoba and why she believes the judge was in the wrong.

I think that Dr. Karen Busey was exactly right when she said,

"That [decision] goes back to suggesting that women are in a state of constant sexual readiness and that sexually active women will consent to sex with all comers. It should have changed 20 years ago. It should have changed 40 years ago. But we can see that it hasn't changed for some," she added, saying the decision makes her sick to her stomach. "Every Friday and Saturday nights, there are lots of women who will dress to go out and to party and they're going to have alcohol, but when they do that they're not saying, 'Oh, and please rape me.'"

The thing I don't think a lot of men get is that, by nature and in general, a man is much stronger than a woman. Without a respect for what a woman says (ie. no) a man has the ability to physically overcome most women - making them feel vulnerable and out of control. To not have a say over what happens to one's body is the most  powerless feeling in the world - one that most adult men never have to endure. Although I have never been sexually assulted, it has crossed my mind from time to time when with boyfriends how vulnerable and weak I am in comparison if I could not trust that the people I was with would respect my will.

For this judge to say, "This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour," just re-victimizes the woman all over again. Not only has she been sexually assaulted, but her sexual assault was simply "inconsiderate behaviour". Yeah - it's soooooooooooo inconsiderate to follow a woman into the woods and rape her. What an asshole! How did he end up in a judge's seat?

Lorraine Parrington, who co-ordinates the sexual assault crisis program at Klinic, was quoted in the first article saying:

"Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no. People have a right to change their mind. If I decide that I want to be engaged in certain sexual behaviour with somebody I can do that and I'm allowed to say, 'Stop, I don't want to do it any more.' That needs to be respected."

Exactly! Because a woman's will is all she has in these situations and shouldn't be overcome by the strength and/or desire of the other person - at any time.