BALANCING HUMAN RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS IN SCHOOLS
By Mariam Ibrahim, Edmonton Journal November 24, 2014
Liberal MLA Laurie Blakemore has sponsored Bill 2002 that would force all Alberta school boards to allow gay-straight alliances in their schools. The bill would also amend section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Right Act, a controversial clause that requires parents to be notified when discussions about sexual orientation happen in the classroom. The section would be moved to the Education Act, and remove any reference to sexual orientation. The Wildrose opposition parties proposed three amendments to Bill 202. The first amendment would allow Catholic and faith-based schools to opt out of allowing gay-straight alliances provided that they create a “strong anti-bullying and support strategy that meets the unique needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students.” The second amendment would keep section 11.1 in the Human Rights Act, but would remove the reference to sexual orientation and replace it with discussing about “personal sexuality or sexual health.” The final amendment would add a clause to the Education Act to ensure that home- schoolers and religious schools are not forced to teach lessons that contradict their faith.
Present day doctrines of the world’s major religions vary greatly on their attitudes toward sexual orientation. For these religions that are negative towards homosexuality, sanction range from quietly discouraging this orientation, to explicitly forbidding it an in extreme cases to execution. How does government address these diverse views when developing educational standards in a cultural mosaic like Canada?
Freedom of conscience and religion is a Fundamental Freedom in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the same charter, however, every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Canada’s approach to education, although largely under the jurisdiction of provinces is to try and find a balance in addressing the competing concerns of antidiscrimination laws and religious freedoms. In considering Bill 2002, it would seem that the Wildrose amendments are not a step backwards but are an attempt to strike that delicate and necessary balance
Mnicole#200
Understanding World Religions 
This is an interesting topic I had no idea about this before ill have to read up more on it. Allowing these kind of groups in schools could greatly encourage greater tolerance between students and has the possibility to reduce bullying.
I think I would have to disagree with the Wildrose party in this respect.
Their first proposed amendment, which would allow Catholic and other faith-based schools to opt-out of GSA’s sounds like it would be more trouble than it’s worth, as they would still have to develop anti-bullying programs for LGBT students. Isn’t this the purpose of GSA’s, except in a much more inclusive, less round-about way? It sounds like schools could simply say they have this in place (whether or not they actually do is another question) and get away with having very little support for LGBT students.
Their second proposed amendment, to have parents notified if “personal sexuality or sexual health” will be discussed in class, sounds to me like parents will be notified a lot more. I also feel like, while having parents notified when sexual orientation is discussed might be questionable, it might give parents a good opportunity to chat with their kids at home about their own sexual orientations. Further, “personal sexuality or sexual health” is such a broad term that sexual orientation could easily be excluded.
The final amendment is a bit preposterous; I believe everyone should be taught the same fundamental things, and to exclude any lessons about sexual orientation would be to ignore a huge population of people who do not follow what would likely be the home-schoolers “traditional” view of sexual orientation. In other words, I think it’s important for everyone to learn that there are different kinds of people and that not everyone will share the same sexual orientation.
CW