Wildrose Party policies defile Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

by Bobbie Saga

Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith refused to say Wednesday whether she personally believes in the concept of "conscience rights."

It’s a concept whereby commissioners can opt-out of marrying same-sex couples, or doctors can opt-out from prescribing birth control pills to a patient, or family planning counselors can opt-out of referring women for appropriate family planning – all in the guise of freedom of conscience and guided by a person’s values or beliefs.

It seems an unbelievable concept, this twist of Canadian Charter rights that cloaks discrimination. Yet the specter of religious fanatics and their nefarious influence are pushing for such policies, most notably within Alberta’s far right of the political spectrum. And it’s become a familiar aspect of Alberta’s provincial election with home-schooling parents pushing for their "god given right" to pick and choose what’s taught to their children in a publicly funded education system, or the chant to limit access to justice by way of abolishing the Human Rights Commission (HRC).

These intolerant polices should scare anyone who believes in a respectful society whereby everyone's rights are taken seriously and are balanced with competing views and guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not by one's personal values and beliefs. The whole concept smacks of state-sanctioned bigotry and justification for zealots imposing their views and values on the rest of society. Plus, it does so in tandem with another Wildrose policy that taints the purpose and value of HRCs and would limit access to justice for only those well-heeled enough to afford it. Indeed, in the November/December 2010 issue of Canadian Human Rights Reporter, it was noted that, "none of the last five full external reviews of human rights processes in Canada have seen any merit in abandoning human rights tribunal systems in favour of high courts!"

How is this "conscience rights" policy any different from the Jim Crow laws in the US that allowed systemic discrimination and widespread de jure racial segregation in all public facilities with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans? This separation led to unequal economic treatment in bank lending practices, in employment, in education, in housing with all leading to social disadvantages for one segment of the population.

It seems, however, Ms. Smith does not wish to publicly acknowledge the toned-down word -- that is, the government "should" implement conscience rights. The party's 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government "will implement legislation protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals." But the 2012 Wildrose platform has that one different word on the subject, which hopefully should put tarnish on a carefully polished campaign.

Conscience rights are hotly disputed in other jurisdictions, as they tend to involve medical professionals refusing to perform or counsel for procedures they have moral objections to. These procedures include abortion, sterilization or other forms of birth control. There have also been civil commissioners opting out of marrying same-sex couples. Just last year, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal upheld the principle that those sworn to carry out public duties cannot unilaterally pick and choose parts of their job they will perform. That case involved a marriage commissioner refusing to perform same-sex marriages because of his religious beliefs.

What’s disturbing is that since this story broke in the mainstream press, there are comments popping up on media boards and blogs suggesting those who question or oppose such policies should have more respect for politicians holding religious values. Ignorance is bliss, I gather.

Most reasonable people, I suggest, don’t have a problem with politicians of faith. Rather, they have a problem with those seeming to believe that their religion gives them greater moral authority than those who don’t share their particular set of values and beliefs. It should not – and does not – under Canada’s Charter. I would further suggest that most reasonable people would draw the line at politicians using their belief system to justify casting out those who don’t share their bigoted beliefs. Democratic policies are supposed to be inclusive and government is supposed to govern for all people.

Are we now so far distanced from the past that we have forgotten the mistakes of the past? I would hope not. But asked repeatedly about her stance, Ms. Smith dodged reporters' questions, stating only, "I'll tell you where I stand… I am fundamentally a populist… I fundamentally believe that Albertans should decide the direction of the province."

That is not good enough, Ms. Smith. It is blatant deflection on an exceedingly important question, a question of state-sanctioned discriminatory policy you have previously gone on record endorsing. It’s a simple question, so answer it and allow the people to decide if this is what is truly wanted for the future of Alberta.

Far right’s amplified web of deception

Update

Part 2 in a series (more posts to follow)

by Bobbie Saga

An amplified voice of the evangelical far right is leading the charge on Alberta’s education and human rights debate.

To give this more clarity and context, the Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA) first organized a rally on the steps of the Alberta Legislature March 5, which drew hundreds of protestors. It was reported the parents’ concern is Section 16 of Bill 2 "that enshrines the Alberta Human Rights Act into the Education Act" and infringes "on their right to teach their children what they want."

Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk, addressed the protestors (the writ was dropped Monday triggering the provincial election).

"What you do at home, your values, you will not be asked to develop any particular curriculum," Lukaszuk said according to Global TV Edmonton. "There is no reason to believe that you will be required to do anything differently than you have up to now. Not only the minister of education, but no ministry of this government will ever, ever venture into interfering with what we do at home, with what we practice at home, and what we believe in that home. That is our private lives and that will be respected."

Not appeased by Lukaszuk’s comments, the AHEA, which openly works in cooperation with another group, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), turned up the political heat. The two followed up by organizing a second rally March 19, set to work lobbying with a letter writing campaign, plus put out calls for people to contact the government.

But the AHEA and the HSLDA are supported in their lobbying efforts by other far right leaning and evangelical groups, including Concerned Christians Canada (CCC) that, for example, put out an e-alert (last updated February 23) about the first protest entitled Political Correctness Gone Mad (Alberta Alrt – Calls Needed Immediately). The alert states:

"The new Education Act (Bill 2) proposed in Alberta will force political correctness on parents in their own homes when teaching their children. Under this powerful new legislation, all homeschooling, including all material and teaching, must meet these requirements. It essentially makes parents subject to the Alberta Human Rights Act when they interact with their own children in their own homes. Furthermore, it requires this communication to promote understanding and respect as set out in the Alberta Human Rights Act: the same Act that has been responsible for repressing virtually all forms of religious expression that have come before the Human Rights Tribunal. How then, is a parent to read the bible to their child, or pray with them, or share any of their own religious beliefs without fearing the political correctness police."

Not by coincidence, no information is given on the CCC site clearly explaining its US roots or its affiliation with Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB). And most references to the infamous PGIB founder and CEO Craig Chandler were removed from the CCC site. His Wiki profile doesn’t do him justice!

Chandler, who founded the CCC, was replaced as National Chairman by Jim Blake who hails from Balzac. What is stated on the CCC site, however, and located on its "Christian Politics" page, is the following (direct quote with an archaic notation of "rhelm" included):

"Christians for too long have bought the lie from secular media and secular education, in short secular propaganda, that Christians should not take their Christian worldview to the rhelm of politics, but the time has come that Christians push back, that Christians understand that we are called to be overcommers in all the world. We are called to be salt and light in all the world. We are called to preach the gospel to all creation, not all creation but the world of politics. Check out these news items for updates on Christians who are not afraid to be involved in politics, as Christians, not by stealth, but unashamedly Christian all the time…"

Further, the CCC also boasts feeds to 20 other groups with evangelical orientations and is often quoted in LifeSite news that has ties to a site calling itself Concerned Christians Canada | No Apologies. And No Apologies is directly linked to another site Stand up for Freedom Canada (SFC), which appears to be a stand-alone "grassroots" lobby against Human Rights Commissions.

The content of Stand up for Freedom Canada is pure propaganda (more on that in my next post), without religious context or content. But as stated implicity on the site – without clarification, including the full name or a link to the affiliated organization – it is connected to the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada. That site has the caption, "Sharing the light of God’s word across our nation." And this group is connected to another group called ChristianGovernance.

But getting back to the Alberta debate, the AHEA and the HSLDA are working in stride with an umbrella group called Association and Citizens for Diversity in Education (ACDE). And this group sent a letter to the provincial government March 19 with an interesting list of 14 evangelical signatories. They include:

Association of Christian Schools International (or the Wikipedia version)
Strathcona Christian Academy Society
MCS Foundation (a registered name)
Millwoods Christian School Society (Calvary Community Church)
REAL Women of Canada (Or the Wikipedia version)
Congregations of the Living Church of God
Grace Point Church of God
Mill Woods Pentecostal Assembly
Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church
Olive Tree Fellowship
The Empty Tomb Ministries
Living Waters Christian Academy
Logos Society of Edmonton
Lighthouse Pentecostal Church

Although the Association claims representation of about 80,000, the above list is a fraction of churches in Alberta and represents a very small portion of Alberta’s voting population (3,653,840 latest statistics on total population). The Catholic Church, however, has weighed into the debate.

More problematic is the caption above the letter on the AHEA site. It states "Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association and Citizens for Diversity in Education write Letters." But all links to the supposed letter from the school board are broken or people are redirected to another page on the AHEA site. And the letter is not a feature on the school board’s site. This is not to say, however, the school board has not made its views known to the Alberta government.

Nor do the numbers game and alleged representation negate potential political influence in real and present in ways.

The request appearing on the AHEA site entitled Response from Education Minister and Education Critics has a link on the title that also goes nowhere. It, however, states, "ACDE would welcome a statement from the Ministry of Education and Education Critics from all political parties as to your position on parent’s roles in the education of their children, rationale for the votes you made. Your responses will be posted on our website. If you would like to provide a response, please address it to myself, and I will be sure to have it posted on our website."

The post appeared on the site March 26 – and the initial post was accompanied by a single, prominently featured partisan response from Rob Anderson, Wildrose Party education critic. At the time of this post, no other political party comments were posted to the site.

Again, it gets a little confusing with all the sites and names, but that is not without purpose. (see Part 1 in the series).

See related story on the federal level and the environment:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/
See article posted by the Alberta Teachers Association
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20News/Volume%2046%202011-12/Number14/Pages/Home-educators-miss-the-point.aspx
See press release from the Public School Boards Assoication of Alberta
http://public-schools.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/News-Release-March-26-2012.pdf

The religious right hijacks Alberta’s education and human rights policy

Part One (more postings to follow)

by Bobbie Saga

What appears to be a small group of several hundred homeschooling parents framing the debate on Alberta’s education policy succeeded in delaying a key bill Thursday. And the group, which is embedded with the religious right and backed by the Wildrose Party, vow to make it an election issue.

The Alberta Education Act (Bill 2) went into limbo March 22, leading some media pundits to speculate opposition to it may cost Alberta Premier Alison Redford an important platform piece as the provincial election looms.

Ms. Redford, who casts herself as a health-and-education premier, inherited the bill from the previous provincial Tory government. Now, however, she could go into the campaign without the law that was years in the making, and one supported by major stakeholders like teachers and school boards.

Bill 2, intended to get tough on bullying, pulls together outdated and pre-Internet legislation. It also aims to improve graduation rates by raising the dropout age to 17 from 16, plus allows students to stay in school for free until age 21, up from age 19. And if passed, the act would allow for local decision making by granting broader powers to school boards, including the power to direct how education is provided, close schools, set the school calendar and dismiss trustees who breach codes of conduct.

But Section 16 of the bill ties the legislation to Canadian human rights laws, a move that riled a small number of people engaging in vitriolic discourse, including death threats against Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk, which promptly pushed the issue into the pre-election spotlight.

Ms. Redford’s Progressive Conservatives, who hold a majority, didn’t invoke closure on the bill but criticized chief rival, the Wildrose Party, for tabling amendments that delayed its passage. The PCs, under political pressure, then delayed it further by canceling a legislative session Wednesday evening, returning Thursday afternoon with four amendments. Wildrose, with four MLAs, to the PCs’ 66, balked at the move, equating it to a filibuster and an attempt to "railroad four last-minute omnibus amendments through the Legislature." As such, they refused unanimous consent to extend the session past a 4:30 p.m. deadline. Time ran out, with the Legislature adjourning until April 2.

Meanwhile, and according to comments published in the National Post, the Wildrose Party will take the issue to Alberta voters.

"This is definitely going to be an election issue," said Wildrose House leader and education critic Rob Anderson. "The PCs have failed to listen to Albertans on this issue," he continued, adding the party supports passage of the act, but if elected, Wildrose would restore its original language. "There are conflicts between people’s personal beliefs and the interpretation of the Charter of Rights," he said. "What we’re saying is, let’s let those parents teach their children according to their personal beliefs."

Optics v. Reality

But in the midst of political posturing and finger pointing, scratch the surface of the debate and something more insidious emerges. Indeed, the brouhaha over the proposed education act – and Alberta’s education policy – is a lesson in hypocrisy. Moreover, the optics and the arguments being put forward by spokespeople for some parents – and carefully crafted remarks by the Wildrose – are deceitful.

The optics shows a vocal group of homeschooling parents taking issue with a section of the proposed Alberta Education Act (The actual head count is subject to dispute). Paul van den Bosch, a spokesperson for the protesting parents and treasurer of a group calling itself the Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA – an innocuous sounding name) says the proposed legislation amounts to "social engineering." That sounds rather nasty, at least if the term is used in a negative context!

Peeling back layers of the protest, however, one finds an echo chamber with deep theo-conservative roots and fundamentalist Christian social values. All are sporting the same talking points in various incantations and for similar reasons. Most notably, they take exception to the secularization of Canadian society. It’s the latest fiasco playing out over human rights in Canada and in a chain of events dating back a few years (more on that in my next post).

Not by coincidence, the AHEA limits itself to only taking issue with the Alberta Human Rights Act. Conveniently, they leave out details that can put a negative twist on their spin.

In a statement posted on the AHEA’s site, for example, "The focal point of the peaceful rally was the last six words of Section 16 of Bill 2 – ‘and the Alberta Human Rights Act’ – which need to be removed in order to protect the rights and freedoms of all parents, all home educators, and indeed all Albertans."

It went further by advising members, "There is a provincial election coming soon. While AHEA and HSLDA won’t tell you how to vote in that election, we would ask that you carefully consider who to vote for. If your elected representative – or a candidate for that position – won’t stand up for parental freedoms and your human rights, then [sic] why would you vote for them?"

To put this in perspective, spokespeople for the AHEA say parents worry they’ll face complaints that they’re not necessarily teaching their children according to what’s in the human rights code. More specifically, this group is concerned with Section 16 of the education act (under the heading ‘Diversity’), which says all academic materials must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.

But Alberta’s Human Rights Act was amended in 2009 via the highly controversial and arguably unconstitutional Bill 44, enshrining parental rights into that legislation. It gives all parents a right to exempt their children from any instruction relating to sexuality, sexual orientation or religion. This is what the PCs want to change. Last summer Ms. Redford committed to repealing Section 3 but the issue was stalled pending a review.

For opponents, however, they now worry that due to Section 16 of the proposed education bill, decisions and interpretations of Alberta Human Rights Commission might become a mandatory part of the provincial curriculum, including for students educated in Catholic schools, faith-based private schools and for those students who are homeschooled. They, therefore, centre concern on the controversial Section 3 of human rights legislation, which has gained oxymoronic notoriety. They say it’s a clause used by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to "attack the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Of course the AHEA does not want to openly discuss the Charter, and with very good reason. On one hand, they don’t want to be restricted by human rights legislation promoting diversity and tolerance within acceptable norms of a civil society, while on other hand, they take a very libertarian approach, wanting absolute rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and their ‘God given’ parental rights. And they refer to them as if they are absolute rights, which they are not.

It can be a little confusing, but that’s exactly the point. Neither the AHEA, nor the Wildrose bring up pesky little facts like Section 1 of the Charter, or a recent Supreme Court challenge that failed. One can’t allow facts to get in the way of ideology!

Rather, they stick to provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) that was subject to much scorn and negative media attention over the past few years. Incidentally, but not in any small way and in a legal sense, the AHRA – other than amendments made by Bill 44 – mirrors Section 1 and Section 2 of the Charter.

They don’t want clarity because, in essence, the protest is, in fact, part of a larger and complicated issue: a back-door attack against Canadian Charter rights and, in particular, a Christian fundamentalist war being waged on the secularization of our society.

Indeed, one omitted fact is a February 17^th ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, (SCC) that was very specific on the issues being twisted in the Alberta debate (S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes).

The case began when in 2008 the Ethics and Religious Culture ("ERC") Program became mandatory in Quebec schools, replacing Catholic and Protestant programs of religious and moral instruction. The parents, (court documents refer to S.L.), requested the school board exempt their children from the ERC course putting forward the argument there was an existence of serious harm to the children. S.L. sought a declaration the ERC Program infringed on their and their children’s right to freedom of conscience and religion, claiming that decisions were made at the dictate of the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport ("Ministère"). The case was appealed up to the SCC, which dismissed the parents’ case.

The SCC held that although the parents sincerely believe they have an obligation to pass on the precepts of the Catholic religion to their children (A.F., at para. 66), the sincerity of their belief in this practice is not challenged.[Ref 26]. The parents had alleged the ERC course was liable to cause the following harm [Ref 28]:

[translation]
1. Losing the right to choose an education consistent with one’s own moral and religious principles; interfering with the fundamental freedom of religion, conscience, opinion and expression of children and their parents by forcing children to take a course that does not reflect the religious and philosophical beliefs with which their parents have the right and duty to bring them up.
2. Being put in the situation of learning from a teacher who is not adequately trained in the subject matter and who has been deprived of freedom of conscience by being forced to perform this task.
3. Upsetting children by exposing them at too young an age to convictions and beliefs that differ from the ones favoured by their parents.
4. Dealing with the phenomenon of religion in a course that claims to be "neutral".
5. Being exposed, through this mandatory course, to the philosophical trend advocated by the state, namely relativism.
6. Interfering with children’s faith.With respect to the arguments put forward to the court, the judgement stated (highlights):


The principal argument that emerges from the reasons given by the appellants in their requests for an exemption is that the obligation they believe they have, namely to pass on their faith to their children, has been interfered with. In this regard, the freedom of religion asserted by the appellants is their own freedom, not that of the children. The common theme that runs through the appellants’ objections is that the ERC Program is not in fact neutral. According to the appellants, students following the ERC course would be exposed to a form of relativism, which would interfere with the appellants’ ability to pass their faith on to their children. Insofar as certain of the appellants’ complaints focus on the children’s freedom of religion by referring to the "disruption" that would result from exposing them to different religious facts, I will discuss this in my analysis of the alleged infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion [Ref. 29].

We must also accept that, from a philosophical standpoint, absolute neutrality does not exist. Be that as it may, absolutes hardly have any place in the law. In administrative law, for example, the concept of impartiality calls for an assessment that takes account of the context and the intervention of human actors (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 47). Moreover, in analysing infringements of rights protected by the Charters, this Court has often repeated that no right is absolute (Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425, at p. 596). "This is so because we live in a society of individuals in which we must always take the rights of others into account" (Amselem, at para. 61) [Ref. 31].

Therefore, following a realistic and non-absolutist approach, state neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the affected individuals affected [Ref. 32].

Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish. However, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society. The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education. Although such exposure can be a source of friction, it does not in itself constitute an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and of s. 3 of the Quebec Charter [Ref. 40].