This email has been sent to MLAs in all Alberta political parties, with comparable correspondence sent to 800 Alberta clergy and most Alberta school trustees.  References:

1. Last email to MLAs – Private Citizen – Draft Court Challenge (Oakes Test) to Inclusive Education Policy and GSA Law (Bills 10 and 24), dated 7 Mar 2018.
2. Updated draft – Court Challenge to Inclusive Education Policy and GSA Law (Bills 10/24), dated March 2018 (5 hour read).
3. Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) Injunction Application against various amendments to the Alberta School Act, dated 4 April 2018.
4. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Response to JCCF Injunction Application, dated 27 June 2018.
5. Email to UCP MLAs – Seeking Clarity Regarding UCP Positions on Inclusive Education Policy and Bills 10/24 Legislations, dated 23 Jul 2018.

Introduction

Alberta voters will be going to the polls on or before 31 May 2019 to elect the province’s 30^th Legislature. This timeline allows some nine months for social conservatives to influence the political landscape in amelioration of existing Inclusive Education Policy, Bill 10andBill 24 legislations. Over 690,000 students (K-12) annually attend Alberta schools. These children, along with their parents and guardians, are hugely impacted by the Policy and Laws. Since enactment of Bill 10 (March 2015), the interests and rights of students and parents from social conservative families have been proverbially “thrown under the bus” by all parties and most recently by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. According to CBC, the United Conservative Party is on track to win a majority; 53% of Albertans polled are most likely to vote UCP.  Many of these Albertans are social conservatives.

This correspondence is directed to all Alberta MLAs who recognize, and impartially wish to fairly/justly represent, the interests of social conservatives within their constituency.  The paper is intended to alert, edify, and motivate Alberta MLAs and their parties to seek policy and legal remedies in their party platforms for 2019, with particular hope resting upon United Conservative Party (UCP) policies.  Our democracy (provincial or school district) is only as good as the level of informed citizens who make their voices heard before and on Election Day. In our pluralist society the objective of social conservative influence should not be full eradication/repeal of Inclusive Education Policy, Bill 10 and Bill 24 legislations, but rather the even-handed modification of the Policy and Laws to achieve fairness, compromise, and balance of interests/rights amongst all stakeholders. The current radical affirmative action on behalf of one group (LGBTQ lobby) at the unwarranted sacrifice of other stakeholder rights (social conservative families – parents and their children) is poor governance.  On the day Bill 10 was passed, Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman, author of the original legislation that became the final Bill, expressed her surprise and jubilation at winning all she could have hoped for:

I’m really glad that the government was brave enough to take that step, and I will give you credit for being brave. That one wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t a gimme. I didn’t think you’d be able to go there.

The Progressive Conservatives held 70 of 85 seats at time of Bill 10 passage.  The Wildrose party was Official Opposition with 5 MLAs.  Laurie Blakeman’s party consisted of 5 Liberal MLAs. The NDP had 4 MLAs. -see also Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2015, p.541.

PROOF THAT SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN THROWN UNDER THE BUS

The following facts, line of questioning and commentary give evidence and measure to the extent of policy and legislative inappropriateness. This section is organized into three proofs:

• Questions Alberta Politicians (And in Particular the UCP) Will Not Answer
• Canada’s Media Declare Social Conservatives Have Been Disenfranchised
•  Alberta Court Of Queen’s Bench Rejects JCCF Injunction Application

QUESTIONS ALBERTA POLITICIANS (AND IN PARTICULAR THE UCP) WILL NOT ANSWER

Over the past two and a half years Bill10CourtChallenge.Org has requested Alberta political parties to clarify their positions on numerous “social conservative” concerns related to Inclusive Education Policy and Bills 10/24 (see email correspondence with politicians and school trustees).  Ref.B is the most up-to-date and complete argument for legislative remedy, which was sent to all Alberta MLAs and most trustees in March 2018.  Ref.E is a list of questions sent to all UCP MLAs in July 2018.  The following are sample concerns along with explicit questions taken from Refs. B and E.

1 – Eroded Parental Rights declared in the Alberta Bill of Rights and Family Law Act. Bill 10 amended the Bill of Rights Preamble, under the title: Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms, to include “the right of parents to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children.”The Family Law Act,under the title: Powers, responsibilities and entitlements of guardianship, states at s.21(6):

•  to make decisions about the child’s education, including the nature, extent and place of education and any participation in extracurricular school activities;
• to make decisions regarding the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage; and
•  to decide with whom the child is to live and with whom the child is to associate.

Notwithstanding the above declared rights and freedoms, the reality is that:

• the right to Parental Notice  for courses of study, educational programs, instruction materials and/or exercises dealing with “human sexuality or sexual orientation” (s.11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act) was repealed in full and the equivalent text kept only in the School Act at s.50.1, with no retained reference to subject matter dealing with “sexual orientation.”
• Inclusive Education Policy, promoted and endorsed by the NDP Government and Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), allows students (K-12) to self-identify while at school along a sexuality continuum of some 56 identities without parental awareness and approval;
• Bill 10 (by all party agreement – PC, Wildrose, NDP, Alberta Liberal Party and later Alberta Party) allows students (K-12) to join a GSA without parental awareness and approval;
• the current UCP platform declares that Alberta teachers (the vast majority of whom are members of the ATA) know better what’s best for a child’s sexual development (K-12) than the parents. Teachers are to be empowered to “respond to each child’s unique individual circumstances” (statement of Mr. Smith – Shadow UCP Education Minister) and to somehow arbitrarily decide when parents have the need to be informed of their child’s secret self-identity and/or secret membership in a GSA. This voluntary notice in an emergency is to be carried out by the very teachers who in many cases fervently complain at union bargaining time that large class sizes prevent them from paying adequate attention to their students.  Furthermore, Greg Jeffery, president of the ATA, proclaims the Union’s position is that the decision around GSA membership notification should not be left to teachers.

1(a) In light of the above, what is the practical/tangible value of the amendment to the Alberta Bill of Rights that parents have a human right and fundamental freedom “to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children”?  

1(b) In light of the above, what is the practical/tangible value of the Family Law Act powers, responsibilities and entitlements, s.21(6) (c), (d) and (e), regarding parental oversight of their child’s mental/physical/sexual development, education, extracurricular activities, and associations?

1(c) Is there any age at which parental knowledge and approval should be required for their child to self-identify and live as a Sexual Minority student while at school?  

1(d) Is there not a need to establish a legal age (such as 16 or 17 years-old) applicable for independent self-determination of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or attendance in a GSA without parental awareness and approvals?

1(e) Given the current UCP policy of assigning emergency parental notification responsibility to teachers, who in the student’s many transitory associations, i.e. English, math, drama, social studies, science, physical education instructors etc. (not to mention teacher changes over 12 grade-levels and student movements between various schools) is likely to recognize in timely manner the need to override a student’s secret sexual self-identity and/or the non-disclosure regulations for GSA membership on the basis of their intuition? In other words, what type of teacher is sufficiently experienced and qualified (e.g. trained in transgender medical and psychological sciences, autism, anorexia, body dysphoria etc.) to recognize when parents need to get involved over the student’s wish? Indeed, on what legal, policy, or medical basis will teachers’ exercise this discretionary responsibility to either remain silent about their concerns or take action to over-ride a student’s desire for non-disclosure? This UCP policy is an ill-advised attempt at political “compromise” between Sexual Minority activist interests and social conservative interests. The UCP position leaves parents in the dark and on the sidelines until an emergency crisis is discovered by a teacher or coach and declared. The position presumes timely intervention. The position sets teachers against teachers in a tug-o-war over deciding the need for intervention. The weakness and danger in this type of position was tragically evidenced in the death of Larry King [See Murder in the 8^th Grade, Newsweek, 28 July 2008, a must read].

 2 – Non-Existent Oversight, No Visibility of What Takes Place in Political/Ideological Activist GSAs.  Bill 10 law identifies the sole adult staff member involved in GSA “clubs” as a designated or volunteer liaison person, to “facilitate the establishment, and the ongoing operation, of the student organization or to assist in organizing the activity.”[2] This facilitator/liaison person is not a club supervisor or overseer, nor a qualified counsellor, nor a specialist in Sexual Minority mental, emotional and physical health issues.  By law, legitimate GSA club operations and activities are any pursuit “to promote a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment that respects diversity and fosters a sense of belonging.”[3] Bill 10 was heralded in the Alberta legislature and the media, as creating just another student club, of no more regulatory oversight consequence than that for a chess or book club. MLA David Eggen declared any attempt to increase GSA supervision beyond the institutional scrutiny afforded a chess club to be discrimination, stating: “If we make different rules and different laws for different people, different groups, then we can only seek to a take step backwards as a society.”[4]

Reality is the NDP and ATA see GSA clubs as ideological and political organizations. The ATA publication GSAs and QSAs in Alberta Schools: A Guide for Teachers, declares there will be GSA-executed political activism in our schools under the mantraof “an anti-oppression education mandate.”[5] GSA law, ATA guidance, and Inclusive Education Policy, have the common end goal of moving all Alberta students “beyond tolerance”[6] to “celebration”of LGBTQ orientations, identities, lifestyles and sexual morals.  The ATA GSAs and QSAs in Alberta Schools: A Guide for Teachers instructs how to organize GSAs to have the following characteristics:

• School wide visible presence characterized by social, educational and political activities such as:
• National Coming Out Day (Oct 11)
• The Day of Silence (in April)
• The National Day Against Homophobia (in May)
• Transgender Day of Remembrance (in Nov)
• Local community LGBTQ Pride Week
• Elementary School Sexual Minority Affirmation Day Focus on school climate and organizational change through outreach activities:showing LGBTQ-themed moviesinviting guest speakersholding joint meetings with other school groupswriting articles for the school newspaper or websitecreating a bulletin board display about LGBTQ history[7]

• Build networks and coalitions with other school and community-based groups [e.g. Alberta GSA Network, and altView Foundation]
• Execute an anti-oppression educational mandate across intersections of difference (race, gender, class, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression)
• Strive to move classmates beyond tolerance[8]

In the politics of GSAs, the ATA, the Sexual Minority lobby, and the left-leaning political parties (UCP aside) see two groups as primarily responsible for LGBTQ student under performance, lack of a sense of belonging, harassment, and suicidal ideation.[9] The two groups are:

• classmates holding different, contrary, even disapproving opinions and beliefs; and
• uncooperative, disagreeing, disapproving, and/or unsupportive parents.

Progressive politicians and Sexual Minority activists label these classmates and parents as “homophobes.” Eradication of homophobia, conversion of homophobes, and isolation of LGBTQ students from homophobes, are self-evident objectives in GSA laws and Inclusive Education Policy. To end the so-called “oppression” of LGBTQ students, the ATA intends GSAs to be mobilized as unbridled activist organizations in our schools to fulfil this self-declared “anti-oppression education mandate,”[10] i.e. to tyrannize all dissenting opinion – particularly social conservative values and beliefs.

2(a) Does the UCP believe GSA oversight should be restrained to that normally afforded a school chess, dance, vocal or dart club?

2(b) Does the UCP believe GSAs can be safely established and operated at any grade-level (K-12) and with the only adult present (on occasion) being a volunteer or appointed staff liaison?

2(c) Does the UCP believe it is right/safe to empower students (K-12) to form activist clubs without any requirement to declare a club constitution (rules, purpose, staff oversight etc.), to gain school approval for such a document, and/or to make a club constitution available for public access?

2(d) Does the UCP believe students (K-12) should be empowered to conduct events (e.g. Drag King/Queen dances) or activities (e.g. conduct indoctrination exercises) in school classrooms, gyms and corridors aimed at eradicating homophobia, ending heteronormativity, and/or promoting Sexual Minority orientations, identities and lifestyles, among fellow students without school principal or school board review, approval, and implementation oversight, and without parental awareness/approval?

 3 – Exacerbating Sexuality Confusion Among Youth and Placing More Children at Risk. The American Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites (YRBSSS),[11] determined that 2.5% of students, grades 9-12, were unsure of their sexual identity. Rainbow Health Ontario found 3% of teens were questioning or unsure about their sexual orientation.[12] Indeed, the percentage of wavering children, i.e. sexually confused individuals who could develop along a heterosexual or Sexual Minority path (dependent upon various influences[13]) is likely much greater in Grades K-8. In Alberta, excluding Grades K-8, the number of waverers in high school exceeds 20,700 children.[14]

3(a) Does the UCP acknowledge the existence of sexually confused or sexually wavering students in the Alberta school system, perhaps more youth than all self-identified LGTQ students combined?

3(b) Is the UCP indifferent to whether a child develops along a heterosexual path or down a bisexual, transsexual, queer, or homosexual path?

3(c) Does the UCP recognize that Inclusive Education Policy and GSA laws have the impact of denigrating heteronormative values and beliefs held by a large number of Alberta students and their parents? Moreover, does the Party care about the hostile impact of these institutional (state enforced) laws and policy on traditional social conservative faiths/beliefs and family morals/values?

3(d) Does the UCP acknowledge that GSA affirmative action legislation and the related Inclusive Education Policy will result in more Alberta youth following a Sexual Minority path than would otherwise be the case?

3(e) Does the UCP recognize that the legislative/policy solutions for GSAs and Inclusion Education, characterized as “one-size-fits” all grades (K-12) and all school-types:

• masks the very real need for suicide screening, counselling and prevention resources applicable for all students within Alberta schools;
• puts the vast majority of school children at greater vulnerability to ideological/political-based  influences and therefore greater chance of following a Sexual Minority development path along with the associated health risks,[15] than would otherwise be the case; and
• falsely assumes that a random teacher, coach or GSA staff liaison is qualified to adjudicate matters of human sexuality and suicide, which are, according to the Alberta Family Law Act, the purview of parents and their selected medical/psychological professionals?

4 – Unwarranted Impairment of District-Based Democratic School Board Oversight. Bills 10/24 create unregulated student clubs of one or more students empowered to act as Sexual Minority political activists in all Alberta schools – public, Catholic and other faith-based, private, metropolitan, rural, elementary, secondary (junior and senior), and charter. In addition, these legislations (e.g. Bills 10/24 through School Act s.16.1 and s.45.1 and s.45.3) eliminate local school board and school principal discretionary powers regarding implementation of GSA laws and Inclusive Education Policy, including club organization oversight and activity management.

4(a) Any student (K-12) unhappy with support for a GSA is empowered to appeal directly to the Minister of Education at studentsupport@gov.ab.ca. Who in the teacher-facilitator-principal-superintendent-school board chain has authority to tell a GSA club what they can and cannot do?

4(b) Who in the chain (at 4(a)) has authority to decide when enough GSA-driven or one-off affirmative actions, ideological/political demonstrations, and/or LGBTQ pride events, have been completed to: (1) satisfy LGBTQ students’ sense of belonging; (2) accommodate the ATA declared “anti-oppression education mandate;”[16] and/or (3) move “straight” students’ beliefs and values far enough “beyond tolerance”[17] to suit activist Sexual Minority students and their outside affiliations?

5 – Unjustifiable Impairment and Disproportionate Negative Impact on Freedom of Speech. “Homophobia”[18] and the labelled perpetrators “homophobes,” characterize the targets that Inclusive Education Policy and GSA activism intend to eradicate/challenge/silence.  Nowhere in legislation – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Criminal Code, Alberta Human Rights Act, Alberta Bill of Rights, Alberta Education Act, Alberta Family Law Act, or Alberta School Act, are the two terms legally defined.  Moreover, the historical application of the terms to any and all disagreement with Sexual Minority movement values, objectives and beliefs, amounts to arbitrary name-calling, stereo-typing, prejudicial bullying and offensive identity politics. Note that Education Alberta defines what bullying is not: “Bullying behaviour is not the same as hurting someone’s feelings, if there is no misuse of power or a deliberate intent to cause harm…Bullying behaviour is sometimes confused with conflict. Conflict is disagreement about different beliefs, ideas, feelings or actions. It is a normal part of healthy relationships.”[19] Disagreement with Sexual Minority values, ideology, and behaviours need not be sourced in “fear or hatred of homosexuals” (ATA definition) nor is all bullying of LGBTQ students the result of “homophobia.” Note heterosexual students are bullied. People, who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or of another faith, who reject on religious grounds the values, ideologies and politics associated with Sexual Minority activism, are not homophobes; nor are other Albertans who disagree for non-religious reasons.  Their disagreement is neither irrational, nor fear-based, nor hatred-based.

 It is revealing that the Associated Press recognizes the ambiguity and limited utility of the term homophobia. The AP operates 243 news bureaus in 120 countries, is published by more than 1,700 newspapers worldwide, and more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters. In 2012, AP decided to ban the use of the word homophobia from its Style Guide (the premier manual for news writing).  AP apparently arrived at the conclusion that labelling and declaring a political stance “irrational” and “fear-based” was untenable ground for journalism. The online Style Book now states that “homophobia,” “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness” should not be used “in political or social contexts.” AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn commented:

We feel that ‘homophobia’ has two shortcomings: it is not specific, and can also imply a psychiatric condition. We always owe it to readers to say exactly what we mean. Instead of terms that try to describe some general state of mind, we always prefer to say what a person’s position is or how he acts.[20]

 5(a) Does the UCP acknowledge that Inclusive Education Policy and GSA laws empower, mobilize and promote student activism to: (1) stamp out “homophobia,” a pejorative speech term with no definition in law; (2) to label students and parents who disagree with LGBTQ activist goals as “homophobes;” (3) to silence free speech and bully disagreeing classmates; and (4) to conflate and compare disagreement with LGBTQ values, agendas and lifestyles as a social disease equal with racism/fascism/hate?

5(b) Does the UCP agree with Education Alberta that respectful disagreement (speech – verbal or written) that may cause cognitive dissonance among LGBTQ students or with straight students, due to a difference of opinion/belief/values is normal, healthy and not oppression?

5(c) Does the UCP acknowledge that having a tolerance of Sexual Minority values, ideology, and behaviours, which falls short of the celebration goal of Inclusive Education Policy, is not illegal; is in fact a healthy reality in a diverse and pluralist society?

5(d) Why does the UCP support legislation that in policy and impact enforces a single ethos in our schools – that all speech (whether casual or formal conversation) must promote the celebration of Sexual Minority orientations, gender identities and gender expressions?

6 – Unnecessary Impairment and Disproportionate Negative Impact on Freedom of Religion. In the Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) ruling of December 2004, under the topic “Religion,” the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) acknowledged concerns that the SSM law could violate or conflict with freedom of religion. The SCC wrote: “The question we are asked to answer is confined to the performance of same-sex marriages by religious officials.  However, concerns were raised about the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages and about being compelled to otherwise assist in the celebration of same-sex marriages. The reasoning that leads us to conclude that the guarantee of freedom of religion protects against the compulsory celebration of same-sex marriages, suggests that the same would hold for these concerns.” [My underline.]

6(a) Will any MLA (UCP, NDP, Liberal, Alberta Party, Independent) explain how GSA Law and Inclusive Education Policy are not intended to impose compulsory celebration of a pro-LGBTQ ethos in all schools and amongst all students?

6(b) Will any MLA explain why the Charter freedoms, rights and values that protect clergy from forced celebration of a particular social ethos should not equally protect the followers (children and parents) to whom they minister?

6(c) Will any MLA explain how Inclusive Education Policy, Bill 10 and Bill 24 “promotes equality and non-discrimination with respect to, without limitation – religious belief (School Act s.16.1(2)?

CANADA’S MEDIA DECLARE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN DISINFRANCHISED

See the following media articles that describe UCP leadership and policy-makers disregarding their “SOCON” base:

LGBTQ-focused policy resolution overshadows Alberta’s UCP convention

Jason Kenney is reaping what he sowed with Alberta’s social conservatives

Why Jason Kenney is now defying Alberta social conservatives: he’d rather win [Note this article asserts the UCP can win a majority without throwing its conservative base under the bus.]

Alberta conservatives clash with Leader Jason Kenney on gay-straight alliances

ALBERTA COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH REJECTS JCCF INJUNCTION APPLICATION

Article for Calgary Herald, reported by  Licia Corbella

On April 4, 2018, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom (JCCF) filed an interlocutory injunction application (Ref.C), with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.  The application was intended to stay a number of provisions in the Alberta School Act. In her dismissal of the application (Ref.D) Justice J.C. Kubik wrote in part (Paras 20-28]:

Reference Ruling Para 21. Justice Kubik writes: “They [applicants] allege that GSAs are teaching a particular ideology with respect to sexuality and gender identity which is harmful to students… [and] unsupported by scientific evidence.” What these applicants allege is true. The ATA publication GSAs and QSAs in Alberta Schools: A Guide for Teachers is premised upon indoctrinating “a particular ideology.” The Guide states under the title “GSAs or QSAs to Effect Educational and Social Change”: “Execute an anti-oppression educational mandate across intersections of difference (race, gender, class, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression); strive to move classmates beyond tolerance”[21] That GSAs are intended to be a means of recruiting, indoctrinating and mobilizing Alberta youth for ideological-based activism in our schools is indisputable.

What will this unbridled anti-oppression activism look like in a few years? These examples (across) – Transgender Student Rights Town Hall and GSA Activist Camps, portray how far progressive left politics, pro-Sexual Minority ideology and pro-GSA Network organization has pervaded California’s education system.  According to the ATA, GSAs have a goal of making all students indifferent to whether their classmates (K-12) progress down a transgender or heterosexual path; indeed, GSAs are clubs to celebrate each classmate’s decision to transition gender,  take up a queer identity, or declare bisexuality etc., even at age six in Kindergarten. Where a student’s mother and/or father might not approve of such indoctrination, the son/daughter is to be secretly isolated from the parent(s).  Be your own judge of the veracity of the applicants’ assertions; view this video – Gender Ideology Puts Our Children at Risk.

Reference Ruling Paras 23-25.  In the internet age, from the parents’ and child’s perspectives, what is the difference in levels of harm between pornographic material “disseminated” in a GSA or “accessible” in the Alberta GSA Network website? Really! Disseminate means spread, circulate, publicize, communicate. Does the internet not disseminate information? The ruling is biasedly splitting hairs. Moreover, who knows what was downloaded or examined by any child (K-12) accessing the GSA Network site.  A child viewing the site assumes everything published and linked to the Alberta GSA Network is “promoted” material. However, in March 2017, Dr. Kris Wells,[22] key organizer of the Alberta GSA Network, was forced to remove numerous  pornographic links to the Network website when Theresa Ng of Informed Albertans went public with the disgrace.[23]  

According to an IT staffer at web.com, the only way other websites can link into the Alberta GSA Network site is by either hacking the site or gaining the host’s permission along with the host’s IT support to change the site.  There is no substantiation to suggest the Alberta GSA Network claimed their website had been hacked. Indeed, evidence indicates that at least one of the pornographic links was definitely not the result of hacking.  Co-founder of Alberta GSA Network, Dr. Wells, has shared posts from Fruit Loop on his own social media, “including a ‘fast-paced ad’ for sneakers featuring naked young people kissing and embracing in hetero- and same-sex pairings.”[24]

How can Pamela Krause, CEO of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre (previously the Calgary Birth Control Association;[25] now Centre for Sexuality), which coordinates the Calgary GSA Network credibly testify as to the number of youth accessing an online Alberta GSA Network and whether these youth were members in a GSA at the time. It really doesn’t matter if the children were or were not in these “clubs.” The point is the Alberta GSA Network was “disseminating” pornographic material to all youth accessing the site while claiming to be: “A collective of resources specific to Alberta K-12 students, teachers, and school staff.”[26] Justice Kubik gives Theresa Ng’s affidavit about scandalous material on the Alberta GSA Network website little weight. The testimony of the Pamela Krause is itself hearsay – “no knowledge of such information ever disseminated in any GSA” and is discredited by the facts.

[Note: After numerous questions of clarification sent to Education Minister Eggen, Bill10CourtChallenge.Org is still unaware as to who in Education Alberta or the Government is responsible or accountable for Alberta GSA Network oversight.] 

Justice Kubik dismissed a survey of Camp fYrefly which contained sexually explicit comments.  She asserted Camp fYrefly has nothing to do with GSAs, although the Alberta GSA Network fully contradicts that statement. The website states: “Hilary Mutch is an educator at the Calgary Sexual Health Centre and the coordinator of Camp fYrefly, a 4-day retreat for LGBTQ youth as well as the Calgary GSA Network.” See also Footnote 26 on previous page to see how GSAs, Alberta GSA Network, Camp fYrefly and ATA guidance to teachers on GSAs, are all linked through common purpose, authorship and foundership.

Reference Ruling Paras 26-28. In her findings JusticeKubik dismisses as anecdotal evidence and hearsay, harmful GSA realities as reported by Licia Corbella (Calgary Herald) in Couple warns their daughter could have died under new GSA law. Justice Kupik calls a child’s perceived pressure to transgender and eventually to ponder suicide a mere “negative experience” with a GSA. The Justice further states; “there is no evidence to support the contention that GSAs encourage transitioning, the use of medical or surgical options, or provide medical treatment advice.” The Corbella article records that the school (responsible for the GSA) did encourage particular medical treatment. The school wrote the parents a letter recommending that they take Jane — who was still 12 years old — to a gender clinic.[27] The Justice’s statements appear severely arbitrary and also miss trending scientific evidence and gender dysphoria statistics.

Dr. Lisa Littman, specialist in gender dysphoria at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reports on a phenomenon she titles “Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria (GD) in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs).”[28] In her study 164 parent-completed surveys met the study criteria. They describe GD appearing for the first time during or after puberty. The development occurs in the context of being part of a peer group where one, multiple, or even all friends have developed GD and come out as transgender during the same timeframe. Dr. Littman discovered:

On average, 3.5 friends per group became gender dysphoric. Where friend group activities were known, 63.7% of friend groups mocked people who were not transgender or LGBTQ. Where popularity status was known, 64.2% of adolescents had an increase in popularity within the friend group after announcing they were transgender. AYAs received online advice that if they didn’t transition immediately they’d never be happy (31.7%) and that parents who didn’t agree to take them for hormones are abusive and transphobic (37.3%). AYAs expressed distrust of people who are not transgender (24.7%); stopped spending time with non-transgender friends (25.3%); withdrew from their families (46.5%), and expressed that they only trust information about gender dysphoria that comes from transgender sources (53.1%).[29]

She concludes:

Rapid onset of gender dysphoria that occurs in the context of peer group and online influences may represent an entity that is distinct from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender. The worsening of mental well-being and parent-child relationships, peer group dynamics, and behaviors that isolate teens from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning.[30]

Other informative data on the unprecedented increase in children declaring transgender identities and making gender clinic referrals in the United Kingdom and United States include:

Child gender identity referrals show a huge rise in six years.  [The data from the UK shows a 10-fold increase in six years.] 

Is Gender Dysphoria a Fad?  

More U.S. teens identify as transgender, survey finds

What other result, than an increase in children self-identifying transgender and wanting access to gender clinics, can Alberta MLAs, school trustees, clergy, the ATA, and others entrusted with the indoctrination/education of our children expect when the driving ethos behind Bills 10/24 and Inclusive Education Policy is indifference to whether a child moves down a path of transsexuality or heterosexuality.  Indeed, the ethos behind the ATA declared “anti-oppression education mandate,” is one of celebration of gender dysphoria starting as early as kindergarten.

The Court of Queen’s Bench cannot deny that Inclusive Education Policy and GSA legislation isolate children from parental influence and oversight, and create no-free-speech zones where only trans-positive, gender fluid, anti-oppression, hetero-negative principles and ideologies can be voiced and indoctrinated. The Court also cannot deny the scientific evidence that historically 84%[31] of children with gender dysphoria (GD) desist after puberty, i.e. will not continue the GD into adolescence and adulthood. The point is the vast majority of children with GD (assumed/self-declared/actual) can and will desist from transgenderism, given a neutral curriculum/environment or one edifying the statistical and healthy truth about heteronormativity. The alternative is a society where the state and parents are to be indifferent to whether children become desisters or persisters.  Current Inclusive Education Policy and Bills 10/24 in effect frustrate what should be obvious National and Alberta health goals – minimization of the number of youth following a transgender path.  The Policy and Laws put more children at risk.

Reference Ruling Para 27. The goals of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre/Centre for Sexuality are: to promote healthy sexuality, and affirmation of sexuality and gender, outside of heterosexuality and to provide resources and support to GSA facilitators.  Although Ms. Krause asserts that the subject matter found in the Alberta GSA Network pornographic links is inappropriate and would not be disseminated through the Calgary GSA Network, her Calgary Sexual Health Centre does assert inappropriate guidance under the topic Stages of Child Sexual Development. The following guidelines are not science-based; but rather ideological and are seen by the Centreas suitable to inform the resources, counselling, and support “disseminated” to Alberta youth (K-12) and GSA facilitators:

Guidelines for 0 to 3 years old

• I am curious and want to explore my own body and maybe yours too.
• I talk openly about my body – including where pee and poop comes from.
• I touch my genitals because it feels good.
• I am able to say the names for body parts that you’ve taught me – head, nose, elbows, vulva and penis.
• I experience vaginal lubrication or an erection as a reflex.
• I imitate my same-sex parent.

Guidelines for 4-5 Year olds

• I am curious exploring body parts, bodily functions and the differences between boys and girls.
• You might find me “playing house” or “playing doctor” with my playmates and showing each other our genitals.
• I may ask questions like: Why are you hairy there? Why don’t I have a penis? Why does my penis get hard? Can I marry you mommy? Where do babies come from?
• I can identify my own gender (I identify as male or female regardless of my physical sex).
• I am beginning to recognize the traditional roles of boys and girls.
• I am conscious about my body and how it appears to others.
• My sexual identity and feelings about sexuality are beginning to be shaped.
• I may masturbate – rub my genitals on furniture or pillows – to sooth or relax myself[32]

While on the subject of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre impacts, a prejudicial double standard needs to be exposed within the Alberta school system. The Calgary Board of Education (CBE), following Education Alberta guidance,[33] declares:  

During the collaborative process, no student or family should ever be referred to a program or service provider that purports to “fix”, “change” or “repair” a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.[34]

Taken literally this statement should be a CBE declaration of total neutrality in counselling. Reality is they are not. Taken at face value there should be zero tolerance for institutional support for fixing or changing “any student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” Hypocritically,Central Memorial High School (CMHS), a CBE affiliated school, lists in their Parent Handbook under Community Partnerships a “fixing/changing” program:

Calgary Sexual Health Centre: WiseGuyz — Supporting young men in small group settings to foster healthier relationships and make better choices through challenging stereotypes about masculinity, teaching them to respect themselves and others and giving them the skills to have healthy relationships.

According to a Calgary Sexual Health Centre, WiseGuyz Research Report #3, written by Centre CEO Pamela Krause, and titled “Boys Returning to Themselves: Healthy Masculinities and Adolescent Boys,” a key goal of WiseGuyz is for fourteen year-old boys to critically examine masculinity as a social construct and unravel boys’ heteronormative values and behaviours.  She writes:

The boys in WiseGuyz demonstrate an awareness of the cultural constructions of masculinity and thereby develop the consciousness required to critically examine the constructions. WiseGuyz facilitates this by establishing a safe space for the boys to be free to examine and challenge their own beliefs. Undoing and interrupting the pressure to be extreme forms of masculinity is a significant part of the work of WiseGuyz. WiseGuyz begins to unravel the heteronormative values and behaviours of the boys that are required to maintain their masculinity.[35]

Where is such “fixing,” “repairing,” “changing” of a student’s sense of gender/masculinity required in Alberta curriculum or authorized by Ministry Inclusive Education Policy?  The answers are “nowhere” and “only if there is a double standard in Policy implementation.” Ms. Krause writes further in the report:

As a society, we have to fundamentally extend the notion of what it means to be a boy and a man. The broadening of masculine norms we experience each year in the WiseGuyz program. We witness the normalizing of adolescent boys being comfortable and unrestricted in being expressive, emotional and deeply connected in their relationships…Through increasing consciousness they foster empathy through recognizing how their own attitudes and beliefs can positively or negatively impact others. This signifies an understanding of masculine ideologies that is critical to the boys influencing and shifting equitable gender norms. This shifting of social norms is an enormous and long-term endeavor; however, redefining masculinity for fourteen year-old boys is an invaluable starting place.[36] [My bold, colouring and underline for emphasis.]

The CBE, through CMHS, and in partnership with the (now) Centre for Sexuality, intends to “fix,” “change” and “shift social norms” like “masculine ideologies” using 14 year-old boys with confused identities as “an invaluable starting place.” “Shifting of social norms” is left-progressive code for the continued “long-term endeavour” to deconstruct Canadian society from its Judeo-Christian heteronormative founding values and beliefs.

The political left and Sexual Minority activist endeavours are not shifting social norms; they are destroying them – deconstructing long established/aggregate/dominant societal preferences in an attempt to eliminate discrimination/difference and enforce equity/equality across some 56 sexual orientations/identities. The goal: everything is marriage; motherhood/fatherhood cannot be promoted, two dads or two mothers or four contractual parents are all equal in child rearing; sperm and eggs are downgraded to genetic material for sale[37] by catalogue;[38] surrogacy is ethical; all sexual/gender identities (56 plus-types) are equal; morality is situational/self-defined/relativistic; and all spiritualities/religions (e.g. Wicca, Christianity, Hinduism etc.) are equal, and therefore, immaterial/neutral in governance by normative pluralism. [For more on the destructive impact of shifting social norms see video – Discrimination in Child Rearing and Education is a Parental Right]

On who’s authority; better yet, on who’s watch, has Education Alberta now become the societal change agent for radical feminist, political left, inclusive and gender neutral (anti-masculine) and equitable/fluid gender ideologies. The biased politicalization of our education system and the partiality of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench are unbearable to Alberta social conservatives. That all politicians are unwilling to protect/defend/safeguard so-called “space” for social conservative parents and their children in Alberta’s education system; and that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is unwilling to do the same, is an unprecedented tragedy.

In ruling against the JCCF Injunction Application Justice Kubik wrote in part from Para 28:

The anecdotal evidence of the parent affiants describes the negative experiences their children have had in GSAs…While I accept that children have received information about sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of GSAs, and accept at face value the deep concern expressed by parents over their children’s exposure to that information, I cannot form any reliable conclusion that the events as described occurred in the context of a GSA or that the harm described is directly attributable to participation in a GSA or a lack of notification to parents.

CONCLUSION

Inclusive Education Policy and Bill 10/24 legislationsempower and encourage our children and  grandchildrento sexually experiment and secretly self-identify outside of heterosexuality at any grade level (K-12) while at school, and to surreptitiously join an unregulated/unsupervised GSA, which is linked to an equally unaccountable activist Alberta GSA Network/Camp fYrefly through the coordination of ideologically driven agencies like the Centre for Sexuality, the altView Foundation,  and the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services. The Policy and Laws put more Alberta children at sexual development risk by sowing confusion and early biased indoctrination.  The Policy and Laws will grow the number of Alberta youth identifying with the Sexual Minority and thus living with the “Minority’s” associated intrinsic behavioral health risks.[39]

This level of government erosion of parental rights and intrusion into parental responsibilities is unprecedented; a totalitarian assault on Albertan family autonomy and function; and an unjustified erosion of freedom of speech and religion.  Before Bill 10 and Bill 24 the state could only override parents in the physical/mental/spiritual nurturing of their off-spring after due legal process, and after the issuance of a parenting order. In effect the Policy and Lawsimply that all political parties and the state are indifferent to whether a child develops along a heterosexual path or down a transgender path.  The Policy and Lawselevate the notion of sexual self-identity (K-12) to sacrosanct, ignoring actual Health Agency of Canada science:

Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious, and spiritual factors. [40]

The Policy and Lawsmove all the underlined influences in favour of more children moving down a Sexual Minority development path. Moreover, knowing that teachers and principals: (1) are very busy; (2) are trained only to instruct specific curriculum subjects or administrate; and (3) are only overlapping with each child for minutes not hours of each day, the UCP still asserts teaching staff are capable to take on responsibility for deciding when to do nothing, when to alert unaware parents, or when to intervene directly in a child’s mental/physical/sexual health problems.

Tragically, we already know when an individual student’s health crisis is discovered or declared, Education Alberta has no institutional capacity to respond independent of parents. Consequently, the school will absolve itself of any responsibility for the child, referring him/her/zie/ze back to the parents or guardians and Alberta Health Services.  In “CBE puts off junior high student’s messages about suicide, self-harm for a year,” Eva Ferguson (Calgary Herald) reports on a mother who discovered her heterosexual son was in a suicide pack. The mother went to the school immediately, asking for the principal, then the vice-principal, neither of whom were available. She was eventually connected with a “student services” administrator who normally deals with academic issues, not psychological ones. When she asked to connect her son with a CBE psychologist, she was told that in all of Area 7, which represents 46 schools in the city’s southwest, the Area only had access to one therapist and that the therapist would not have any openings until the following school year. The child’s mother is quoted (in part): “I was also told that a mental-health issue is an Alberta Health issue…And the CBE basically threw their hands up in the air.”

Regarding this “mental-health” issue, CBE spokeswoman Megan Geyer said that when a school works with a student who is suicidal or is threatening to harm themselves, staff would consult with parents and likely contact Distress Centre Calgary.[41]  Responding to this issue, Education Minister David Eggen argued that under the province’s “inclusive education” model, local school districts have the autonomy to fund [counselling] programs as they wish.  Critics say the model leaves principals struggling to meet a variety of growing needs, particularly around mental health, with limited budgets, meaning many schools do not have in-school psychologists or qualified counselling resources. We now have Inclusive Education Policy, Bills 10/24, GSAs, GSA Networks, and a Centre for Sexuality, to minimize suicide ideation among LGBTQ students (5% of CBE attendance); but only one over booked therapist for handling suicide ideation among heterosexual youth (95% of CBE students). 

Inclusive Education Policy and Bill 10/24 legislationsattemptto “protect our children” at school by empowering them to sexually self-identify and escape, if desired, parental knowledge and oversight, allegedly for the child’s own good.  This is unprecedented affirmative action, social experimentation, and risk taking in Alberta. When something goes wrong the school will “basically throw their hands up in the air.” The state (Education Alberta) does not have the expertise, funding or capacity to safely implement Inclusive Education Policy and GSA laws over the rights/responsibilities of parents. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the most thorough Inclusive Education Policy and Bill 10/24 analysis complete with the long list of recommendations see Ref. B. The following is just a short list of needed remedial actions:

• uphold established parental rights and traditional family values by setting the minimum age requirement to 16 (high school – Grade 10) for independent sexual orientation and/or gender self-identity while at school and for Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) membership, apart from parental knowledge and approval;
• protect the health and sexual development of all Alberta children by preventing GSA club formation at elementary and junior high schools (Grades K-9) or insisting on parental approval for GSA membership (K-9) and by precluding biased Sexual Minority affirmative action, ideology-based, curriculum development;
• prevent unjustified erosion of freedoms of speech and religion in our schools by legally defining what homophobia is/is not, thus clarifying who is/is not a homophobe (e.g. following the Criminal Code 319 hate speech model) – Statements do not constitute homophobia: (1) which are true; (2) which are made in good faith, respectfully expressed to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or on a belief in a religious text; and (3) which are relevant to any subject of public interest, for public benefit, which are believed to be true;
• set in place clear boundaries upon which to contain and regulate ideological and political activism in our schools, including critical revision of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) publication GSAs and QSAs in Alberta Schools: A Guide for Teachers; and
•  establish needed institutional (Principal, School Board, Ministry) oversight and accountability requirements for GSA clubs and GSA networks (Calgary/Edmonton/Alberta), including approved and published club constitutions and network charters.

REQUEST TO ALBERTA MLAs

MLAs are requested to ponder whether there now exists a place (institutional “space”) for social conservative parents and their children in this post Bill 10 (March 2015) education era. In the debates and pronouncements leading up to Bill 10 approval, the issues were all about finding a balance of rights, responsibilities, and interests between stakeholders. To quote then Premier Prentice:

This is too important an issue to be reduced to a political game. When faced with such an unfair and unbalanced approach, I believe that it is the job of a Premier and the job of a government to show leadership and to build consensus because rights need to be advanced, because children need to be protected, because parents need to be reassured and because school boards need to be respected.[42]

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith at the same time emphasised the challenge with Bill 10 was “all about balance, balancing parental rights and religious freedom with equality and the rights of LGBTQ students.”[43]

Request any MLA or political party to answer any of the questions posed earlier; and as a minimum response please comment on questions 1(a) and 1 (b):  

1(a) In light of the above, what is the practical/tangible value of the amendment to the Alberta Bill of Rights that parents have a human right and fundamental freedom “to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children”?  

1(b) In light of the above, what is the practical/tangible value of the Family Law Act powers, responsibilities and entitlements, s.21(6) (c), (d) and (e), regarding parental oversight of their child’s mental/physical/sexual development, education, extracurricular activities, and associations?