this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to http://daveberta.ca.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

will bill 44 lead to increased citizen engagement or cynicism?.

LindsayBlackett: is amazed at the continued fearmongering by the opposition, intelligent people who read the bill can see through it.
While Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett used his Twitter feed to deem all Albertans opposed to his Bill 44 as unintelligent, Alberta's 72 Progressive Conservative MLAs performed an Academy Award deserving reenactment of Jean Chretien's Federal Liberals by voting the Party line even after being promised a "free vote."

Outnumbered 7 to 1, Alberta's eleven opposition MLAs presented reasoned arguments last night while debating against sections of Bill 44 which would allow parents to pull their kids from classroom discussions on religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. Special kudos should be given to Edmonton-Centre MLA Laurie Blakeman, who tabled 84 letters voicing opposition from Alberta High School students and presented some of last night's most solid arguments against the controversial sections of Bill 44.

Arguably for the first time, online social media created through networks like Twitter and Facebook played a substantial role in facilitating debate opposing legislation in the Alberta Legislature. While social media has allowed Alberta citizens outside the extreme minority that populate the official partisan and political realm to engage in debate and information sharing about Bill 44, only time will tell whether this action will lead to sustained increased citizen involvement, or if the lack of response from our distant traditional institution of a Legislative Assembly will add to the already prevalent culture of cynicism and distrust of the political process in our province.

64 comments:

bingofuel said...

if increased engagement is all that can be salvaged from this political clusterfuck... well, I'll probably still move away from Alberta when I have the necessary means to do so.

not proud to be from this province this morning, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

Yay, now I can enrol my son in a Christian school and take them to the human rights commission when they give him religious instruction!

Did the Tories think of that possibility? That's how stupid this law is.

Anonymous said...

They did think of that, actually. Hancock described enrolling children in private, religious schools as pre-authorizing your children for such instruction.

*twirls finger*

I have so very much enjoyed watching this horrid debate rage through the Legislature every day. From Blackett saying that he couldn't be discriminatory because he was a black man to the panicked whispers of backbencher tory MLAs trying to inform him of what the province's motto actually was, this has probably been the most embarassing stint for Stelmach's Progressive Conservatives. Hopefully they're right and all of the opposition fears will amount to nothing. I never, ever expected to see a bill that essentially allows an individual to be offended on behalf of another introduced in Alberta, and especially not by conservatives. Give me back my fiscally conservative party, you wingnuts!

Anonymous said...

And the sky has yet to fall. When exactly does that happen? Just curious.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...the sky didn't fall under Hitler, Stalin or Mao. The sun rose on their regimes everyday also. Do you have anything else usefull to add?

Chandler Kent said...

Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? Unreal - speaking of useless contributions.

Darren said...

I can't see the bill allowing you to lodge a complaint aginst a Christian School. I thought the controversial provisions of Bill 44 was a response to recent HRC rulings.

Anonymous said...

This issue could bring down the tories in a heartbeat. Albertans don't care for social engineering by the state, particularly when it's religious in nature.

Whichever party includes a promise of a referendum on abolishing funding of religious schools, WILL win.

If it can happen in Newfoundland & Labrador, it CAN happen here. It would be great if Morton inadvertantly caused the death of tax-payer funded religious schools.

http://archives.cbc.ca/society/education/clips/15515/

Anonymous said...

I hope the same thing happens for health care!

"Oh no, Mr. ambulance driver, don't drive me to the Royal Alex, I'm having a 'christian hernia'.

Anonymous said...

It took down the Ontario Tories:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article787403.ece

Gauntlet said...

On Bill 44, it's being pushed by the opposition parties because it is good support for the idea that they want Albertans to have of the tories: intolerant.

Frankly, I don't think as many people outside the opposition parties actually care about intolerance as much as the opposition parties do.

And if the government is looking for a way to discriminate against people, they've found a very round-about way of doing it.

The government is pushing this to appeal to their right-wing base. The kind of people who argued that gay teachers in California were trying to "recruit" children 30 years ago.

Everyone should be embarrassed.

As for twitter, it'll help for a while. Then more people will come, and the signal/noise ratio will approach that of blog comments, and it will be ignored like everything else.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but separate schools are guaranteed in the constitution, I thought.

Anonymous said...

As it was guaranteed in the Newfoundland constitution!

Popular referendums can change constitutions, even in Alberta. We can do exactly what Newfoundland did. Honestly, I've done the research. Do you recall the California referendum on Prop 8 to change their constitution? You know, the one backed by the mormon church to demonize gays?

Anonymous said...

I actually suggested this referendum idea to the ALP last year. I never heard from them again. They are so afraid of proposing real 'evolutionary' policy. But why develop real policy when you can just walk around like a deer in the headlights saying, "I don't know why they're doing that!" "I just don't get this goverment!" "It make no sense!" Yup, thanks ALP

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the latest technology fetish will save democracy.

Anonymous said...

First off there's 71 tories, not 72. Second off - maybe they all supported this ground-breaking legislation that respets a parent's right to raise their child? I know I sure do.

Alberta PC Supporter said...

The Internet trolls on twitter have no place in politics. Go drink your cheap beer and mow your lawn like the rest of the prols and lead democracy to the lawyers and professionals. We have been doing a great job for 40 years. We don’t need your distractions now.

Amanda Krumins said...

I was on twitter while watching the debate all night last night and it was a really enjoyable experience (besides the obvious frustrations of watching a bill debate in Alberta).

Twitter is like watching a hockey game with a friend and talking about what's going on in the play. But with twitter, instead of talking to the person beside you, you're talking to all the people out there who are talking about it too. It really keeps you engaged in the process.

Alberta PC Supporter, you say that you 'don't need [our] distractions now.' To be honest, I think that's pretty silly (unless your post was meant to be satirical - it's hard to tell nowadays). I'm sure that a lot more people tuned into that debate last night then late night debates of years past (it's not like this is the first piece of controversial legislation that has been debated into the night), and I believe that a lot of that had to do with twitter and other social media.

I am not sure what possible downside there could be to more people paying closer attention to what is going on in the Alberta Legislature...what possible reason could anyone have, besides the obvious, for discouraging Albertans from being involved in the processes in the Legislature and in democracy in general?

In conclusion, get involved in the conversation at #ABLeg! It's fun and will give you lots of political dirt to dish while sitting around drinking cheap beer or talking to your neighbor while mowing the lawn.

Aden said...

To add to Amanda's comment, I watched the Legislature's live feed for the first time for these debates, spurred on largely by twitter, which gave me the link. I'm not much of a twitter geek, but I know several other people who also watched for the first time for the same reasons. I found that both the Liberals and the PCs had some good speakers with whom I agreed, and some truly awful ones.

But above all, it was fascinating to watch. I doubt that Twitter and 'social media' will revolutionize politics, but they bring increased attention to and participation in Alberta's apathetic and depoliticized public debate. And for that, they're welcome additions.

roblaw said...

As posted earlier, Dave, this is truly going to be much ado about nothing.

There are those who just cannot get their mind around the idea that a parent raises their child - not the state. The same sort of people who think that the "Ministry of Love" wasn't such a bad idea in Orwell's, "1984".

Finally - the PC party in this Province shows some balls and says, we're doing what we believe in, and if you don't like it, vote against us.

Contrary to all the gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing, two things will happen as a result:

a) Society will function pretty much as it did yesterday;

b) The PC Party just solidified it's base with this vote.

Well done Ed.

Socred said...

Hopefully this will pave the way to a privately funded education system where parents can choose the schools and the material that their children will be taught. What we have now is a state run propaganda machine, also known as public education, which takes our children at a young age and indoctrinates them.

My hope is that Bill 44 will cause such an uproar that people will see that public education does not work.

Anonymous said...

To Roblaw and Socred: This will bring down the PC party! No one is going to let this issue rest. Election 2012 will be a referendum on booting the church out of our schools. Bishop Henry and his colleagues are the only ones that have ever been interested in indoctrination. As we know know, the bishop doesn't think the government went far enough. How Orwellian is that?

PC's, more than ever, believe in self-fulfilling prophecy. If we just keep saying it, and who cares if it's true or not, people will start to believe it. We will be there to expose your lies at every turn.

By the way Socred, did the government come along and kidnap your child and take them away for government programming? You're the nut. No one HAS to send their kids to public schools. You can foot the bill at your own private school. Reactionaries like you love to push this shit. Are you worried that Obama is the new Hitler? Are you worried about the New World Order? If you don't like goverment, move to Somalia. Bye-bye!

Anonymous said...

If you want to know what motivates the religious right, watch "The Obama Deception". It can be found on youtube and elsewhere.

If you watch it, you will start to understand why Stelmach, Morton and the team are doing what they're doing.

Let me know what you think

roblaw said...

I love anonymous posters. Look, if you can't go to the trouble of at least providing a nom-de-plum, let alone putting your identity behind your comments, you're probably best ignored.

But - I'll bite.

Yes - this will bring down the government, like health care and deregulatio of utilities brought down Klein.

You don't get it.

Albertans agree with the government.. no, they're not on twitter and on the 'net, but the meat and potatoes of this province, the average man and woman, agree with the government.

No - Bill 44 solidified the base. Those who may have migrated to the Wild Rose Party will vote PC again - now, perhaps they won't dominate like the last election, although by selecting another leader who won't connect with the electorate, the Liberals certainly aren't going to make serious headway.. and outside of Edmonton, no one is going to vote NDP either.

If you don't like a Conservative government.. well, then you're going to be very, very unhappy come next election.

And I'm so sick of the "send your kid to private school" - it's like, to have my faith respected, which right, by the way, is in the Charter, I have to pay to send my kid somewhere so he won't be taught that my faith is wrong.

I've never questioned my kids' education. I have never asked that they not be taught whatever is in the curriculum, even when they were told by teachers that Ralph Klein was ruining Alberta.. and I still wouldn't take a child out of class under Bill 44. But I respect a government that understands that they are, after all, MY children - not theirs.

Go live in Oceana, Mr. Anonymous. Go live under Hitler where the state had the right to "educate" your children, without qualification.

Again - on my own behalf, on on behalf of the great silent majority in this Province, "Thanks, Ed."

Anonymous said...

Holy Crap, you're a lawyer? The charter guarantees you absolutely NO right to send your kids to religious school. There is abolutely NO funding of religious schools in Ontario and Newfoundland. Prove me wrong lawyer boy...

The alberta constitution affords the right to send your kids to a separate school. However, a referendum can change that.

Anonymous said...

Thump....thump....thump...

C.Morgan said...

Considering that the Alberta Social Credit Party has policies calling for manditory instruction of creationism in classes, manditory teaching of Social Credit monetary theory and manditory "chastity based" sex education, I wouldn't think their 1/2 dozen supporters would be so eager to see Human Rights Legislation expanded like this. If hell were to freeze over and they took power again, the school year would not last 15 minutes before a challenge was made to their kooky curriculum.

Anonymous said...

I do not imagine the average person cares if a parent now has the ability to remove children from certain classes. It does not seem to be the kind of issue that voters will become worked up over. The public reaction so far does seem to be from individuals who already are involved in the political process or have an interest in politics. The internet simply allows for a simpler and faster way for individuals with a similar interest or goal to connect. Has the internet changed the way in which campaigns function? Certainly, but it seems that we have inflated the role the internet plays in campaigns way beyond reality.

Take the Obama campaign as an example. The campaign pushed the idea that the internet was revolutionizing the way in which the campaign raised money. Now reports are coming out that Penny Pritzker has admitted that the Obama campaign relied heavily on the large high-dollar contributions instead of the small donations coming from the internet.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if all these clever people who find it humorous to insult the gov't and other supporters of Bill 44 realize that they are actually insulting parents, and not the gov't as it is parents who are being given the choice.

It's no wonder the Liberals keep losing elections. They just don't get it.

Nastyboy said...

Arguably for the first time, online social media created through networks like Twitter and Facebook played a substantial role in facilitating debate opposing legislation in the Alberta Legislature.

Wrong. Blogs, message boards and the rest are an echo chamber. They don't change anyones mind or facilitate debate. It merely solidifies previously held posiions. If they do anything it lowers the level of debate to that of monkeys throwing shit at one another. The CBC message boards make me ashamed to be a Canadian.

Socred said...

So the "enlightened" now resort to ad-hominem attacks when someone disagrees with them? You know nothing about me, yet you call me a "reactionary" and a "nut", because I believe that parents should be free to choose what their children are taught in school.

You say that I can put my children in private schools and foot the bill, but there's the rub. Then I would not only be forced to pay for my own child's education (which is fine by me), but I would also be forced to pay the taxes for an educational system that I don't necessarily agree with.

It seems to me "anonymous" that you're the one who doesn't like the government, so maybe you should move to Somalia?

I'm all in favour of this bill, and I only hope that it leads to the day when parent's are free to educate their children in the facility of their choice, which will give them the right to choose the teachers and the educational format.

That is freedom, and only "nuts" seek to impose their will on others. You're certainly free to educate your child in any manner you wish, just don't tell me how to educate mine, and we can get along marvellously.

Socred said...

C. Morgan, what does the Alberta Social Credit Party have to do with my views or Social Credit?

I don't believe in mandatory education of anything. It is up to the parents to decide what their children learn, and that is why I favour private education.

Elizabeth said...

Just a quick note on private schools in Alberta, in response to "I would also be forced to pay the taxes for an educational system that I don't necessarily agree with". The government of Alberta has recently raised thair funding of private schools to 70%.

That means that I too am paying for an educational system that I don't agree with.
So we're all in the same boat.


Also...
I still don't get why children can't learn about creationism in sunday school and about evolution in public school. Sounds like a great topic for your family to discuss around your kitchen table.

Knowledge is power (or maybe your family beleives that faith is power) and open discussion of why will only make you kid better able to express/defend/understand his/her beliefs later in life.

Squee22 said...

I'd say cynicism. until we have a democratic system that better represents the people than the one we currently enjoy, where the conservative with 52% of the vote, get over 80 percent of the power.

Socred said...

Elizabeth, the point is that people should be free to choose what their children are learning.

To me, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I'm not really happy with the legislation as it stands, but it's a least a recognition of the parent's right to choose, and a step in the right direction.

I also think you assume way too much when you start talking about Sunday school and creationalism. That demonstates your prejudice on this issue.

I don't believe in creationalism, nor do I have any children, and if I did, they most likely would not go to Sunday school.

Knowledge is power, but all knowledge is based upon revalation of some sort (even scientific observation is a "revelation", where the truth is revealed). Mathematical knowledge, or logic, is tautological, or true by definition. I don't have a problem with science of math, and certainly don't feel that either threaten my faith. I do wish that science teachers would teach the philosophy of their study openly, and demonstrate the limits of the scientific method in terms of knowledge.

Discussions these types of issues is something completely different. The problem with the discussions on these types of issues in the classroom is that the teacher's hands are tied, because he/she cannot make negative statements about the homosexual lifestyle (for example), because that would be considered prejudice. The debate is one-sided. Issues regarding sex, and sexual lifestyles belongs in the homes, not in the schools, who should be concentrating on reading, writing and arithemetic. Given the state of students today in these subjects as compared to the past (generally), I think that is fairly obvious.

Socred said...

Squee, the only true democracy is economic democracy, where 1$=1vote.

The idea that the majority rules is completely absurd, even if it were actually put into practice, people would soon wish for an end to "mob rule", and examples throughout history demonstrate this.

What we have today is representative democracy, but this doesn't work unless these representative represent their constituents instead of their party.

lyrical said...

One of the biggest problems in Alberta is that citizens can't watch the Legislature sessions on TV. Many other provinces have dedicated channels for Legislature coverage - they show the debates and not just Question Period, which now airs on the channel formerly known as the community channel. A lot of people I spoke to didn't even know about Bill 44.

There was no broadcast of the debate on Monday night, except for online. Broadcast TV still gets a far greater audience locally than the internet. If Albertans are getting short-changed in coverage of their democratic processes, they need to start asking why.

Squee22 said...

Socred said...
"Squee, the only true democracy is economic democracy, where 1$=1vote."

that's plutocracy, not democracy
buy yourself a dictionary

"What we have today is representative democracy"

not even that..... we don't have a democracy at all. the first past the post system disenfranchises so many voters,and so few people vote, it is intellectually dishonest to call this "democracy"

Socred said...

The "enlightened" once again resort to ad-hominem.

Economic democracy is not plutocracy, so I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary. Plutocracy is GOVERNMENT rule by the wealthy.
Economic democracy is not rule by the wealthy, but the ability to direct production with our financial vote. There's a huge difference. The wealthy do not rule the less wealthy in economic democracy, because the less wealthy also control production with their financial vote.

http://www.archive.org/details/econdemocracy00dougiala


I'll agree with you that it's intellectually dishonest to call this a democracy. But like I said prior, you cannot have democracy without economic democracy. True democracy is not "majority rule". Even Mill saw the potential of "majority tyranny" in this model of government. It is essential that we have a strong constitution to protect individual rights, which includes protection from mobs seeking to redistribute wealth through force of taxation.

lyrical said...

Actually, from the outside, Alberta looks like a theocracy at the moment - the ruling party appears to be getting used by groups from the theocratic right who want to gain control over the province's public education system and other aspects of society. That might not be the case but it looks that way.

Socred said...

lyrical, how can Alberta look like a theology, when parents have the right to remove their child from a class in Alberta if religion is being discussed?

I do not like the bill as it stands, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Parents have the right to direct their child's education, not the state.

Socred said...

* stated theology above, when I meant to type theocracy, sorry.

Squee22 said...

"The "enlightened" once again resort to ad-hominem.

Economic democracy is not plutocracy, so I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary. Plutocracy is GOVERNMENT rule by the wealthy.
Economic democracy is not rule by the wealthy, but the ability to direct production with our financial vote. There's a huge difference. The wealthy do not rule the less wealthy in economic democracy, because the less wealthy also control production with their financial vote."

so the richer you are, the more votes you get... therefor the more political power and influence, therefor a plutocracy

"economic democracy" is not in the dictionary.... sorry to disapoint you
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economic%20democracy

Squee22 said...

"Parents have the right to direct their child's education, not the state."

parents have always had this right through the education act, but teachers never had there right to teach be threatened by the human rights commission.

this only makes it harder for teachers to teach, historical facts that relate to religion, which brings us one step closer to a theocracy

Socred said...

Voting for school board representatives is not controlling the curriculum anymore than voting for a political representative is controlling the policies of the nation.

I love the fact that the government used the kangaroo court (HRC) against some of the very people who wanted to implement it in the first place. The truth is not a defense against the HRC.

I despise the HRC, but if you can't beat them, join them. Maybe this will cause so much outrage that the HRC will be dismantled, and the public education will cease to exist.

One can only hope.

Socred said...

BTW squee, I wanted to ask you something.

What is an "historic fact"?

Could you please elaborate on that term?

Squee22 said...

you want me to define "historical fact"?

are you that hard up for an argument??

it's kinda self explanatory isn't it??


it's something that is known to have happened (ie historical and a fact), usually with many forms of collaborative evidence.... archaeological evidence, as well as written accounts from many sources with differing biases.

historical facts are facts related to history......


actually what I was refering to when I mentioned parents rights had nothing to do with voting for a school board rep.... parents have already had the right to pull children out of classes that have to do with religion or sex ed.

bill 44 was not necessary and just makes it harder for teachers to teach, because now, giving children an education, could be considered a human rights violation

you want public education to cease to exist??? no wonder you support bill 44.... you want to cripple the education system, and ruin our children's education. you are an extremist, and I do not believe your views reflect the views of most albertans

Socred said...

Hi Squee:

You said, "it's something that is known to have happened (ie historical and a fact), usually with many forms of collaborative evidence.... archaeological evidence, as well as written accounts from many sources with differing biases.

historical facts are facts related to history......"

If something relies on archeological evidence and written accounts, wouldn't that be better termed an "historical theory"? A fact is something that we witness ourselves. Something that took place in the past is merely conjecture based upon someone's interpretation of writings, archeological evidence etc.... I am sure that some theories have much more support than others, but as Napoleon once said, "history is a set of lies agreed upon".

I am labelled an extremist because I do not believe the state should be indoctrinating our children at a young age? If that's your defintion of an extremist, I guess I'll accept that label.

I believe that people who think the state should be responsible for educating our children are "extremists", but I guess it all depends on one's point of view.

My opinion is not the majority of Albertan's? That does not worry me much, for as Soren Kierkegaard once said:

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion... while truth again reverts to a new minority.”

Squee22 said...

why do you obsess over semantics?....

n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


call it whatever you want to call it.... your bill-44 is gonna drag teachers in front of a human rights commission for doing there job.... we can debate semantics till we are blue in the face, and this still will be a bad bill

you are labelled as an extremist because you don't think the public education system should exist. that is a very extreme position.

your quote is bogus.... clearly we who are against bill 44 have an opinion and aren't a bunch of brainless drones.... I think your ego needs to be knocked down a notch.... you are not some genius sent to this earth to save us all from our own sheep like ways.

are you blind to the need for public education?

I'd rather experts in a field of study set the curriculum and decide what is and isn't science, or history, than some evangelical parent..... what about the child's right to an education??

Socred said...

The problem is that many people cannot distinguish between fact and theory, and there are people wilfully blur the line between fact and theory.

I have to laugh that the HRC is being used against the very people who wanted it in the first place. I despise the HRC, but if you can't beat them, join them.

You have misinterpreted the quote by Kierkegaard. What the quote states is that the POWER of the majority is illusory, because most people do not care enough about an issue to really hold a firm position. It is the minority of people who hold a firm position, and when their position gets stronger, the majority follow them.

Believing that "experts" should decide what a child is taught even in opposition to the parent's wishes is a very extremist position. In fact, you betray your motives when you talk about "evangelical parents".

Children are the responsibility of their parents, not wards of the state. I'm sorry if I find your brand of authoritarianism abhorrent, but I believe that people should be free to choose what is best for themselves and their children.

It seems to me that it is your ego that needs to be knocked down a notch, since you believe you are here to save the children of "evangelicals" from their parents, because you seem to think you know what is best for their child.

I recognize the need for education, but I see absolutely no need for pulic, or state controlled, education.

Squee22 said...

"The problem is that many people cannot distinguish between fact and theory, and there are people wilfully blur the line between fact and theory."

like the very creationists that support bill 44

"You have misinterpreted the quote by Kierkegaard" according to the wikipedia article on this guy
'Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted"'

I believe I interpreted it just fine.


education curriculum chosen by experts in the field is not extremist, it's the basis of the modern education system

if a parent wants to control what a kid learns they are free to home school the child

bill 44 is not necessary.

where do the children's rights come in all of this?.... you talk an awful lot about the rights of the parent.... does the student not have a right to the best damn education we can get him.... to equal opportunity... is it not child abuse to remove a child from a classroom and force the kid to learn one perspective on the world without allowing the kid be exposed to the alternative and academic viewpoint?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR76l9mWVow

I think the education system knows what is best for children during the hours of 9 to 3:30.... what you want to teach your child from the remaining hours of the day and the weekendsis your choice.... I believe children have a right to the most varied and diverse exposure to knowledge we can give them...

parents can teach the kid that the gays are all going to hell, we can teach them that they are human beings with rights.... the kid can decide what to believe for himself.

parents retain the largest influence on a child's development with or without bill 44.... bill 44 is not necessary unless you wish to punish teachers for teaching

is that what you wish to do?

do you see the need for a standardized curriculum, and who do you think should design the curriculum?

Socred said...

Squee, once again you demonstrate your prejudice towards evangelical Christians, who are not the only ones who support this Bill.

Obviously the school should determine the curriculum, and the parents should choose the school.

Teachers have every right to teach so long as the school is willing to pay them for teaching, and parents have right to choose the school in which their child will be educated. If nobody wants their child instructed by certain teachers, then that school will not receive funds from parents, and the teacher will no longer continue to teach, because the school will go bankrupt if it continues along the same path.

Your interpretation of the quote by Kierkegaard was incorrect.

It is not your responsibility to tell other parents what is appropriate or inappropriate for their child, but "progressives" just can't help themselves when it comes to controlling the lives of others.

Merlin Durken said...

Socred -- thanks for your perpectives on... everything, especially the 'I know you are but what am I' portion of your 'debate' with Squee. (mis)Interpretations of the dreamer Kierkegaard, indeed. Why not quote the dreamer Kant, or Hegel? Becasue that would lead to the dreamer Heidegger, which leads to the dreamer Popper, yes?

Maybe creationists should have a hard look at why there are people 'prejudiced' against them. I am, and I'll tell you why -- because I was targeted by them when I was a kid, and when I wouldn't join up, vilified. I return that fire now, x3.

Frankly I don't care what you do on your own time, but when it affects me, I get hot. So what you gonna do... you all own guns, but you ain't got the guts to pull the trigger on anyone 'cause you prevaricating shits all get other people to do your killing for you -- you're chickenshit and angry at the World, and too dumb to see that you're fatally gripped by groupthink.

Here's a philosophical quote for you to misinterpret to your heart's content, little man; "You should always go to other people's funerals, otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra

Socred said...

LMFAO, I love it!

Let me begin by stating that every single thing you assumed about me, Merlin, is wrong. Not just one, but EVERYone.

Heidegger was influenced by Kierkegaard, and was an existentialist. Kierkegaard wrote in opposition to Hegel who in turn influenced Karl Marx.

I would love for scientists to read Karl Popper. Let me quote Popper:

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

In other words, a genuine test of a theory never confirms the theory, but only refutes it, or does not refute it.

However, none of this has anything to do with Bill 44, but nice attempt at a red herring.

Merlin Durken said...

Socred -- So you don't have a gun but you do your own killing, you do have the guts to pull the trigger on somebody, you're not a little man, you're a fat guy. How is it that an Acolyte Of The Dogmas like yourself claims to be not gripped by group think? Nice attempt at a dodge, and besides, you missed my point... dreamers, all. I forgot Wittgenstein, now there's a thumb-twiddler.

And, it has everything to do with Bill 44. The offensive section is out of context with the rest of the bill, sort of an aside, like your meanderings. What's it doing in there, that particular afterthought, why not a separate bill? The evolution/sex education paragraph isn't about school and choice. It's a dig -- you know it is, don't you?

Diane Gall said...

"And I'm so sick of the "send your kid to private school" - it's like, to have my faith respected, which right, by the way, is in the Charter, I have to pay to send my kid somewhere so he won't be taught that my faith is wrong."

And by 'respected' you mean 'catered to' and 'taught'.

Knock it off and teach your child what you want to teach them at home. Let them learn what everyone else learns.

It's child abuse to *restrict* information from your child. If you want your child to have a carbon-copy of your mind, keep them at home and make them recite what you want. If you want your child to think for herself, expose her to many many points of view.

After all, maybe *you* are full of shit and it will be your child that teaches you something.

Do you really want to entrench in law the right to keep your children ignorant?

Socred said...

Merlin, I cannot believe your prejudice, it oozes from your very being.

If you click my name, there is a picture of myself taken two years ago at Long Beach in Tofino. You decide if I'm "fat". You're the only person, ever, who has called me fat. But again, this is just another red herring, and simply insults that have no basis in reality.

There is nothing in Bill 44 that refers to evolution, so that's a red herring. In terms of sex, or sexual orientation, I believe it's every parents right to pull their child out of a class that they think is inappropriate. That also goes for religion, which is also mentioned in this bill.

Do I think this bill is perfect? By no means! I would like to see an end to the HRC, where it is admitted "the truth is not a defense", and I would like to see an end to public, or taxpayer funded, education. I think parents should be free to choose where there funds go in terms of their child's education.

Socred said...

You have some gall! (joke)

You might be sick and tired of having to listen to people complain that they have the right to decide the furture of their child's education, but that is the parent's right, not the teachers.

You claim, "It's child abuse to *restrict* information from your child."

Sure. Why don't we teach children six years of age about scatological sex while we're at it? I mean, why should we restrict information from a child.

Quite simply, your morality is not necessarily mine, or anyone else's morality, so quit trying to shove it down our throats.

If the "evangelicals" were proposing to only teach creationism in school regarless of the concerns of other parents, I would be the first one on the message boards defending a parent's right to choose. That is the issue here.

By the way Merlin, I'm a preterist, which probably makes me a heretic in most evangelical's eyes. I am probably more opposed to the theology of puritanism than you are, but I respect the right of everyone to their own beliefs.

I might not agree with you, but I will defend your right to hold your own beliefs, for the opposite is tyranny, and public education is a propaganda device for the state.

Squee22 said...

"Squee, once again you demonstrate your prejudice towards evangelical Christians, who are not the only ones who support this Bill."
I have a prejudice against bigotry, which includes evangelicals.....

I also posted a video of neo nazis brainwashing children.... I'm prejudiced against neo nazis too

"Obviously the school should determine the curriculum, and the parents should choose the school."

so you agree bill 44 is not necessary??

or are you 'double-thinking'/ 'double-speaking'?

Socred said...

Squee, now you're comparing evangelical christians to neo-nazis?

There is a term I read on the internet, and I wish I could remember it, but the crux of it was that all discussions eventually evolve into comparisons with Adolph Hitler, so I guess this discussion is no different.

Your analogy is ludicrous.

My position has not changed one iota since the beginning of this discussion - I believe Bill 44 is a step in the right direction, but it is merely a step in the right direction, and nowhere near what I would want out of our education system.

Squee22 said...

I am showing two examples where this bill could be used to hurt children.... I am showing two examples of children being hurt by a non standardized education process.

it is not a comparison between the two. just two separate and distinct examples of extremists taking over the education of innocent children.

something you have no problem with, for you don't even think there should be an education system.... makes me wonder where you went to school.

the term is argumentum ad hitlerum, and I was not making that fallacy for I was not comparing any individual to hitler.

you might not know this but we have an actuve chapter of neo nazis in calgary, so this is relevant.... a mother just had her child taken away from her, because she was brainwashing the kid with neo-nazi ideals.... this was deemed to be child abuse

what we teach children can be abusive.... and teaching kids to hate gay people is abuse. refusing to let children learn that gay people have rights in social studies is abusive

children have rights too, and I will always believe the rights of an innocent child come before the rights of an abusive parent

of course your position has not changed..... it is incapable of changing... just like the Albertan government

Socred said...

Your words betray your beliefs. Now you're saying it's the right of the state to "standardize education", and to force parents to adhere to this "standardized education". You want to take children when they're young, and when they do not have fully developed minds, and indoctrinate them.

Not much different than Mao's "re-education" camps.

Your socialist agenda is exposing itself.

I, on the other hand, believe that the family is the most important unit in any society (not the state), and I believe that parent's have the best interest of their child at heart (at least in the vast majority of cases - and there are already laws on "child abuse").

I never said there shouldn't be an education system. I think you should read what I wrote. I said they're shouldn't be a PUBLIC education system, or a taxpayer funded education system. Schools should develop curriculums, and parent's should choose the school they want their child to attend.

I attended the public school system and the University of Alberta, and was indoctrinated during that time on dialectical materialist propaganda promoted within that system. I have spent the last 20 years re-educating and de-programming myself. I have changed alot since I graduated from University.

Squee22 said...

that's nothing but a strawman

I never said I "want to take children when they're young, and when they do not have fully developed minds, and indoctrinate them."

without public education you would be denying many children an education..... illiteracy will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will increase. this will then increase crime rates, infectious disease, and drug use

I was unaware "dialectical materialist propaganda" was a major.

please give me your actual education if you wish to explain your educational background, and not a series of buzzwords that deserve better placement on fox news, than on this blog

Socred said...

"without public education you would be denying many children an education..... illiteracy will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will increase. this will then increase crime rates, infectious disease, and drug use" (squee)

Are you claiming that crime rates, infectious diseases and drug use have decreased since the advent of public education?

Of course, your words betray your socialist agenda when you talk about "the gap between rich and poor". The socialists love the poor so much that they want to make everyone poor.

I've already discussed my education, and if you want to get more detail into my education, just click on my name.

I'd be more than willing to discuss the assumptions of materialism in economics, or several other subjects if you desire, but that is probably a discussion for another post, or another blog. You're free to post on my blog anytime.

Squee22 said...

another strawman by socred