So I could talk about the floor crossing and the embattled Wildrose Party today, but I've got a better idea.
Let's talk policy.
The Wildrose-proposed amendments to Bill 202 make absolutely no sense to me.
The first time I heard about Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) from a political perspective was from Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Party.
It was during a scheduled meeting with her immediately after the Wildrose voted against protecting their existence in schools. She sought out my opinion as a Catholic school teacher about them.
My response was that any initiative that promotes respect and dignity for every person is an initiative that any Christian should want to get behind. I also suggested that at no time could I fathom a faith-based school saying "no" to a group of kids who want to take that initiative on themselves.
A Christian school (Catholic or not) should want to encourage the teaching that every child is made in the image of God. A Christian school should also encourage the teaching that we are to love one another as we love God. A Christian school should also encourage the teaching that the only judgement that truly matters is the one by God, and even if someone makes a poor decision, they are still a child of God and eligible for His forgiveness. A Christian school should also encourage that we fight for the right of every individual to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of circumstance.
My school teaches that. I have been given stories of other faith-based schools that don't, but I'm convinced that most faith-based schools teach that.
So when the Wildrose presents amendments to Laurie Blakeman's Bill 202 suggesting that such initiatives should not be forced upon faith-based schools, I ask "why not?"
If a Christian school is really worried about the term "Gay-Straight Alliance", then it's likely they already have an issue with acceptance among students in their school. It's such a school that may need a GSA the most. And if students in the school are comfortable enough, or brave enough, with even suggesting its existence then the school needs to embrace it.
Nothing in a Christian school is unteachable. In fact, in order for faith to truly develop, it must be challenged. By questioning one's faith, that faith can become stronger. By that very point, in a Christian school everything must be taught, especially the tools students need to strengthen their own convictions and faith. In that way they can understand the facts as they exist, and cultivate a belief system around those facts. The one thing that is most destructive to faith is a lack of action in it. By not challenging your faith, you take no action in it.
So what the Wildrose is in effect asking Christian schools to do is not allow their kids to challenge their faith, and therefore not grow in their faith. That should upset the parents of those kids, as well as any faith leader they interact with.
I further don't understand why the Wildrose seems to be so adamant about making teachers inform parents of conversations about sexuality, sexual health and religion. If the spirit of this is to simply keep parents informed, that is an expectation of teachers anyway, so the legislation is redundant.
However, if the spirit of this is to give parents the opportunity to limit their kids education, why not force teachers to also send a note home if they are discussing gender inequality, race or evolution? If a parent is prejudiced against the First Nations, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction about them? If a parent truly believes that the role of a female is to be a servant to their male partner, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction that promotes the authority of women? If a parent is prejudiced against the First Nations, why not afford them the opportunity to exclude their kids from instruction about them, or even moreso simply force a school to put their kids in classes with no First Nations students? If a parent doesn't believe in the scientifically proven concept of evolution, why not afford them to exclude their kids from such instruction (which would basically take them out of every Science class ever).
Eventually we'll see notes being sent home before discussing with students appropriate attire, and kids being removed from school because parents don't believe in sparkly clothing.
At which point, why doesn't the Wildrose just suggest an amendment that befits "ALL" issues Alberta students might be subjected to. They seemed to be rather content with that definition at their most recent AGM.
Then teachers will be forced under the Alberta Human Rights Act to send a letter to parents before each and every class. What else would the Wildrose like to see micromanaged?
The issues the Wildrose have to face right now have absolutely nothing to do with who jumps ship when. It has everything to do with their actions. And as they recently touted, their actions speak louder than their words.