AHEAOnline

Alberta’s Political Leaders Say if they will Remove Section 16 from the Education Act

Saturday, 21 April 2012 21:40 Patty Marler
April 21, 2012
The Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association has asked 3 direct questions of the Alberta Provincial Leaders.  Two of these questions relate directly to Bill 2, and apply to home educators.  The two home education related questions asked of each Alberta Political leader are:
 
“If your party forms the next government will  you reintroduce Bill 2 in its most current amended form...?”
 
“If Bill 2 is reintroduced, will your party remove section 16, pertaining to the Human Rights Code from the Bill?
 
In their responses, The Progressive Conservative Party, Alberta Party, and The New Democratic Party have all stated they would reintroduce Bill 2 and would keep section 16 in tact as
is. The Liberal Party has not responded.
 
The Wildrose Party states that section 16 will definitely not be part of a Wildrose Education Act.
 
YOU now have the opportunity to vote in the way we were calling MLA’s to vote.  A vote for a party in this election is a clear vote for or against including section 16 in the Education Act.
 
 
Have your say. On Monday, April 23 you may vote for or against including section 16 in the Education Act.
 

AHEA's President's comments on Negative and Postive Laws

Tuesday, 17 April 2012 16:12 Ted Tederoff
Tags:
At the AHEA AGM, President Ted Tederoff shared a quote clarifying the difference between negative law (as we see in the old Section 16  – eg. shall not promote. . .) and positive law (shall promote. . .as seen in the recently proposed Section 16 of Bill 2).  A portion of Ted's president report follows:
 
Much has been done to ensure parental freedoms in our province, starting with the fact Bill 2, the proposed Education Act, was not passed prior to the election call. We must stay on guard, though. The following quote appears on page 95 in R.J. Rushdoony’s 1973 “The Institutes of Biblical Law”: “The Irish Protestant jurist, John Philpot Curran (1750-1817, said, in 1790, in a speech on ‘The Right of Election,’ ‘It is common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition, if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.’”
 
One item to be vigilant about is wording of government bills and act that deal with home educational and parental freedom. This ties in with the current Section16 wording which has a negative concept of  law versus the proposed Section 16 wording which has a positive concept of  law. Again quoting Rushdoony from page 101:

A negative concept of law confers a double benefit: first, it is practical, in that a negative concept of law deals realistically with a particular evil. It states, “Thou shalt not steal,” or, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” A negative statement thus deals with a particular evil directly and plainly: it prohibits it, makes it unlawful. The law thus has a modest function; the law is limited, and therefore the State is limited. The State, as the enforcing agency, is limited to dealing with evil, not controlling all men.

Second, a negative concept of law ensures liberty. If the commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal,” it means that the law can only govern theft: it cannot govern or control honestly  acquired property. When the law prohibits blasphemy and false witness, it guarantees that all other forms of speech have their liberty. The negativity of the law is the preservation of the positive life and freedom of man.
Read more...

Redford Confirms: AHRA will Deny Freedom of Conscience Choices

Friday, 06 April 2012 19:49 Patty Marler
In the past month, AHEA has strongly objected to the Alberta Human Rights Act being included in a new Education Act because it would deny all parents freedom of conscience in teaching their children.  In case any of our members doubts that, please read on....
 
 
On the campaign trail on April 4,2012, PC Premier Alison Redford, confirmed that the Alberta Human Rights Legislation will be used to deny individuals the right to make  service decisions based on their conscience.
 
When asked about her view of conscience rights of individuals, such as Doctors who are opposed to performing abortions or Justices of the Peace who are opposed to performing same sex marriages, Redford stated:  “... all of the unique families of this province, have the opportunity to know that when they are accessing services, they can trust that those services will be provided.” http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120404/Redford-frightened-by-Wildrose-view-of-conscience-rights-120404/
 
If you vote for a PC Government:
There will no longer be the opportunity for people to deny providing services they are morally or religiously opposed to under a PC Redford government... they  WILL have to perform them.
 
If you vote for a NDP Government:
According to their webpage, http://albertandp.ca/wherewestand/details/respecting_everyones_rights , a NDP government would “expand the Human Right’s Commission’s authority and jurisdiction.”
 
If you vote for a Wildrose Government:
The Wildrose Party has Alberta Human Rights Act reform as part of their policy.  The Wildrose Party states it will make changes to the Alberta Human Rights Act which take the evaluation of complaints out of the hands of appointed individuals, and put them into the realm of the courts where the legal process and protective services are considered.  http://www.wildrose.ca/policy/justice-policing-human-rights/
 
If you vote for a Liberal Government:
http://www.albertaliberal.com/news.php?n=106 Statement by Raj Sherman on Conscience Rights.  “The Alberta Liberals are firmly opposed to the Wildrose Party’s suggestion that there is a place for such a repugnant and antiquated notion in contemporary Alberta as conscience rights – simply a clever phrasing of support and consent to systemic discrimation against gays and lesbians or other minorities.”
 
(For more information on problems with the Alberta Human Rights Act, see Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca). According to the March 2011study conducted by John Carpay and Carol Crosson, From Bad to Worse - Examining Restrictions on Speech and Procedural Fairness in Human Rights Legislation in Fourteen Canadian Jurisdictions (http://www.jccf.ca/images/From%20Bad%20to%20Worse%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf ), Canadian human rights legislation has, at best, a ‘bad’ rating for procedural fairness. Alberta’s human rights legislation is described as among the worst in Canada as a result of its lack of procedural fairness and its violation of free speech rights.)

More Articles...

Page 9 of 22

You are here Home