News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.7K     0 

Alberta Provincial Politics

If an election was held today, who would you vote for?

  • UCP

    Votes: 6 11.1%
  • NDP

    Votes: 42 77.8%
  • Liberal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alberta Party

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Total voters
    54
If my son or daughter was gay I would like them to talk to me about it. I'd prefer to give them the love, support and guidance that they need, rather than have some bureaucrat with a political agenda influence them. There's nothing wrong with forming a club to discuss issues regarding sexuality, but if parents want to know what their kids are up to at a school sponsored program, I think they have the right to know.

After the era of residential schools it still surprises me that we're pushing the government to have more agency and control over children than biological parents or legal guardians.
 
So, you'd prefer that thousands of kids get outed by the government and then, many of them, subsequently kicked out of their homes?

Just because you're progressive doesn't mean that everyone else is. If you want your child to talk about sexuality with you, it's your job to bring it up to them, not to disenfranchise thousands of other children who don't come from nearly as progressive of a household. This kind of legislation can and will literally ruin, and in some cases end, the lives of many children. When I was 14, I was outed to my entire high school in Woodstock Ontario by some horrid c*nt who I thought was my best friend. The ensuing regular physical attacks and daily threats nearly ended in my suicide. The day after the attempt, I came out to my family while in hospital. My saving grace was that my family instantly realized that if they didn't accept me, they would lose me completely, so they acquiesced. Obviously the attacks and threats continued at school, but I at least had the support of family and friends, which is why I am now a strong confident man, but still dealing with the mental health issues that living through such horrible long-term trauma is bound to cause. Now imagine a child in a position where they have no support, at home or from peers, and that is the position you're supporting for thousands of voiceless children by supporting this kind of legislation/government.

Accepting ones homosexuality and coming out of the closet to friends, even to those who accept you, is hard enough. It's a traumatic experience that anyone who isn't LGBT could not ever come close understanding. Now you people want to out these vulnerable children to parents who have the power to disown or mistreat their kids for something the child can't even control if they tried?

The point is, if you want to talk to your kids about sex and sexuality, then do it. Your kid being in a GSA has no effect on you approaching them to try and guide them to make good decisions. Do not, however, endanger the lives of countless children just because you think kids shouldn't have personal discretion on matters that are sensitive to them in a way that you couldn't possibly comprehend.
 
Last edited:
If my son or daughter was gay I would like them to talk to me about it. I'd prefer to give them the love, support and guidance that they need, rather than have some bureaucrat with a political agenda influence them. There's nothing wrong with forming a club to discuss issues regarding sexuality, but if parents want to know what their kids are up to at a school sponsored program, I think they have the right to know.

After the era of residential schools it still surprises me that we're pushing the government to have more agency and control over children than biological parents or legal guardians.


So you're missing the point. No one is forcing or influencing. They've just created legislation that requires schools to allow these clubs IF students want to form one. There was a few schools that didn't allow them to be formed and it caused a big stink. Furthermore, this bill of current contention is that would not allow teachers to out these kids to their parents. There is also no rules saying that the kids can't tell their parents they've joined these clubs. Raise your kid right, and they will.

Thanks for sharing your story Chad - you're right this is exactly why they are needed for the students that want to form or be a part of a club. Not everyone gets so lucky, and not all parents actually do know better.
 
Last edited:
Chad, thank you for sharing your story. I also see that you edited your comment at 1:28am, I hope you weren't too upset and didn't lose any sleep. However, just because my comment may have triggered you doesn't mean you should character assassinate me or straw man my position on the issue.


I'll present to you what I believe is a reasonable and rational position, here are three axioms:

1) An individual has the right to disclose their sexual orientation to whom ever they want, whenever they want or if at all.
2) Individuals have the right to freedom of assembly in a public space and the anonymity associated with it.
3) A tax payer and legal guardian of a minor(under 18) has the right to know the syllabus and material presented in a program at an educational institution funded by citizens.

If you disagree with any of the above statements formulate your argument based of logic, reason and rationality rather than an emotional appeal.


So, you'd prefer that thousands of kids get outed by the government and then, many of them, subsequently kicked out of their homes?

No. That's such a strawman. No one is saying that. Are you going to ask me when when did I stop beating my wife?

Just because you're progressive doesn't mean that everyone else is.

Yes, every culture has a different approach when dealing with issues of sexual orientation, who are we to infringe on them?

If you want your child to talk about sexuality with you it's your job to bring it up to them,

Correct.

not to disenfranchise thousands of other children who don't come from nearly as progressive of a household.

That's a character assassination.

This kind of legislation can and will literally ruin, and in some cases end, the lives of many children.

For the record I neither agree nor disagree with the legislation. Once again, if you formulate a reasoned critique against it and I'll keep an open mind, make your critique rational and calculated. Don't just say "It'll kill gorillions of children!"

When I was 14, I was outed to my entire high school in Woodstock Ontario by some horrid c*nt who I thought was my best friend. The ensuing regular physical attacks and daily threats nearly ended in my suicide. The day after the attempt, I came out to my family while in hospital. My saving grace was that my family instantly realized that if they didn't accept me, they would lose me completely, so they acquiesced. Obviously the attacks and threats continued at school, but I at least had the support of family and friends, which is why I am now a strong confident man, but still dealing with the mental health issues that living through such horrible long-term trauma is bound to cause.

Betrayal is one of the most damaging things a person can experience is their life. I'm sorry to hear that your friend was so asinine and malicious. I'm sure this was not an easy experience to write about, however your antidote does not give you moral high ground.

Now imagine a child in a position where they have no support, at home or from peers, and that is the position you're supporting for thousands of voiceless children by supporting this kind of legislation/government.

Is the child also a terminally ill refugee? I'm not advocating the abolish of any support groups...sheesh! Another straw man and character assassination.

Accepting ones homosexuality and coming out of the closet to friends, even to those who accept you, is hard enough. It's a traumatic experience that anyone who isn't LGBT could not ever come close understanding.

I agree with this statement.

Now you people

.......

want to out these vulnerable children to parents who have the power to disown or mistreat their kids for something the child can't even control if they tried?

Another character assassination.

The point is, if you want to talk to your kids about sex and sexuality, then do it.

Correct.

Your kid being in a GSA has no effect on you approaching them to try and guide them to make good decisions.

Here lies the core of the issue. My only concern is that there may or may not be a political agenda within these associations. We live in an age where deconstuction , post-modernism and neo-marixism is being promoted in our schools and in post-secondary institutions. Ideas such as:

"White privilege" - code for collective guilt on an ethnic group. Because nothing bad happened in the 20th century when collective guilt was applied on an ethnic group.

"Safe Spaces" - code for segregation.

"Trigger warnings" - code for censorship.

...and lastly and my favorite "Social justice".


Do not, however, endanger the lives of countless children

I've never endangered the life of any child. Shame on you for insinuating that. In conclusion, just because someone slightly disagrees with you does not mean you should attribute malice to them. After spending so much time on the SSP Canada threads I thought you would have come out with a more nuanced approach.
 
Last edited:
Chad, thank you for sharing your story. I also see that you edited your comment at 1:28am, I hope you weren't too upset and didn't lose any sleep.

My original post was at like 12:30 am, so not really a big deal. I'm always up till 3 am, I'm a university student during finals season. Thank you for your concern, but I wasn't upset at all. If I wasn't able to comfortably talk about my struggles, I wouldn't, as most don't. I'm proud of what I went through because I'm proud of the man I'm becoming.


However, just because my comment may have triggered you doesn't mean you should character assassinate me or straw man my position on the issue.

You should probably stop using words that you have personally insinuated that you find inflammatory, like "triggered". I was not "triggered," I was responding to a vital topic which I have a great deal of personal and learned knowledge on.

On to my actual response to this part though, every single thing I said in my post was apt, in relation to the post of yours which prompted my response on this issue. I am not at all sorry for being straightforward on an extremely important issue that you (nor several others here) clearly do not understand.


I'll present to you what I believe is a reasonable and rational position, here are three axioms:

1) An individual has the right to disclose their sexual orientation to whom ever they want, whenever they want or if at all.
2) Individuals have the right to freedom of assembly in a public space and the anonymity associated with it.
3) A tax payer and legal guardian of a minor(under 18) has the right to know the syllabus and material presented in a program at an educational institution funded by citizens.

If you disagree with any of the above statements formulate your argument based of logic, reason and rationality rather than an emotional appeal.

GSAs are not "programs," as in those headed/managed by faculty. They are student clubs, headed/managed by students, for students. I believe the one in my high school that I helped start had a liaison to the teachers, and it was the librarian. Don't ever remember dealing with her at all in relation to the GSA though.


No. That's such a strawman. No one is saying that. Are you going to ask me when when did I stop beating my wife?

You literally said, "if parents want to know what their kids are up to at a school sponsored program, I think they have the right to know." Or are you reneging on that comment now? Because that is the end result of this belief, regardless of if you admit it or not. Just because you don't understand an issue, does not mean it's not vital, with lives hanging in the balance.

Nice red herring with the "wife beating" thing though, classic move bud.


Yes, every culture has a different approach when dealing with issues of sexual orientation, who are we to infringe on them?

When it leads to people being persecuted/physically attacked for things they can't control (orientation, ethnicity, etc), then hell yeah, it's time to do some infringing. One cannot control being homosexual, the only choice is whether or not they accept it. One can, however, control being a homophobe. (obviously that's not to say you're a homophobe, though I imagine you'll take it that way, hence this edit to clarify)


That's a character assassination.

Please explain how. As it is a fact that anyone who supports this kind of legislation is, in effect, supporting hardship for unknown numbers of already vulnerable children.


For the record I neither agree nor disagree with the legislation. Once again, if you formulate a reasoned critique against it and I'll keep an open mind, make your critique rational and calculated. Don't just say "It'll kill gorillions of children!"

Well that is the argument, and it's a well documented fact that LGBT children are much more likely to attempt/commit suicide than their heterosexual peers. So, take it or leave it, I suppose. Again, just because you don't understand an issue and it doesn't personally effect you doesn't make it any less vital for countless others. It's important for you to educate yourself on it, as I have done for, for instance, farmers issues relating to children working on farms and the NDP legislation relating to that.

Sources re. suicide figures:
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446760/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/
- http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815


Betrayal is one of the most damaging things a person can experience is their life. I'm sorry to hear that your friend was so asinine and malicious. I'm sure this was not an easy experience to write about, however your antidote does not give you moral high ground.

No, of course it doesn't. I never insinuated that it did. It does, however, mean that I know a great deal about this issue. Meaning that I have an informed perspective.


?Is the child also a terminally ill refugee? I'm not advocating the abolish of any support groups...sheesh! Another straw man and character assassination.

Nice red herring redirecting question ;) And again, by not educating oneself on this issue, that is what anyone who supports this legislation is, in effect, supporting.


.......



Another character assassination.

A well deserved character assassination to anyone who supports this legislation. Certainly not personally directed at you. It is one that I'll be more than happy to deliver to anyone who supports this type of horrific legislation negatively affecting those without a voice.


Here lies the core of the issue. My only concern is that there may or may not be a political agenda within these associations. We live in an age where deconstuction, post-modernism and neo-marixism is being promoted in our schools and in post-secondary institutions. Ideas such as:

"White privilege" - code for collective guilt on an ethnic group. Because nothing bad happened in the 20th century when collective guilt was applied on an ethnic group.

"Safe Spaces" - code for segregation.

"Trigger warnings" - code for censorship.

...and lastly and my favorite "Social justice".

So in relation to all of that, why on Earth would a child being in a GSA be a problem? There are clearly bigger fish to fry than vulnerable children having clearly defined support structures. LGBT children are already far more prone to support liberalism regardless of where they grow up or how they're taught, as liberalism is the only reason we are finally able to publicly express ourselves and our love for our partner(s) for the first time in thousands of years, and typically, left-of-centre political parties are the only ones that support our equal rights.


I've never endangered the life of any child. Shame on you for insinuating that. In conclusion, just because someone slightly disagrees with you does not mean you should attribute malice to them. After spending so much time on the SSP Canada threads I thought you would have come out with a more nuanced approach.

I certainly never said or insinuated that you have endangered the life of a child. I insinuated that by supporting the UCP/their out-the-kids Bill, anyone in support of such actions will, in effect, be endangering the lives of children.



It seems that you may need to take some of your own advice. Obviously this is an extremely personal topic to me, which I am also extremely knowledgeable about. So there is bound to be emotion in my responses. However, you read way too much into my response as a directed personal attack on you. Of course the impetus for the response was your comment. However, after the initial question I posed to you, in my view the framing of my post was clearly directed towards the general audience of everyone reading this thread.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, on the GSAs my non-legal mind reading of the legalities (informed by acquaintances who have thought way more about this than me) is this:
  • In all schools but Catholic public funded schools (either separate or public catholic boards), the security of the person argument mentioned by UrbanWarrior - the papers on suicide - means that courts would side 100% with the establishment of clubs and a lack of enabling legislation even if the government hadn't moved on the issue first. If the government hadn't moved, they or the individual board would have been directed to pass Regulations or full on Acts that would have the seem effect as the laws passed now.
  • Catholic schools, due to these clauses in the Alberta Act:
    • [*]17. (1) Section 93 of The British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for paragraph (1) of the said section 93, of the following paragraph:--
      [*]
    • "Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the Ordinances of the North-west Territories, passed in the year 1901, or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in the said ordinances."
    • In the appropriation by the Legislature or distribution by the Government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the said chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29.
    • Where the expression "by law" is employed in paragraph 3 of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in the said chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression "at the Union" is employed, in the said paragraph 3, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.
Probably could opt out, and it would be constitutional, since their right to not be interfered with supersedes theCcharter, since that right existed before the Charter was in place.​
 
The whole GSA thing is something I don't understand, and won't pretend to, but looking at SJ, and UW's posts, it seems like both of you guys are not that far off from each other and have your heart in the right place, but have a simple difference of opinion on how it deal with these things. I don't know that there's a 'fits all' type of solution. All parents are different, even those parents from a similar cultural background.

I'm glad to see that most parents like myself and SJ are open minded to this stuff. That's a big improvement from when I was a younger and a had a friend's parents blow a gasket when they found out about his orientation.
 


Sorry Chad, I had a rough day of Tuesday and made my reply a bit too snarky.

I perceived your original reply as an accusation of bigotry directed towards me. Maybe it was directed at me, either way, you have the right to think and express what you feel. Just like Cowtown said, "we are not that far off from each other"

There's a By-election going on. Is Kenney gonna win today? By what percentage? I don't know too much about Kenney besides the fact that he was minister of immigration. Looks like he's a career politician based off his Wikipedia page.
 
Sorry Chad, I had a rough day of Tuesday and made my reply a bit too snarky.

I perceived your original reply as an accusation of bigotry directed towards me. Maybe it was directed at me, either way, you have the right to think and express what you feel. Just like Cowtown said, "we are not that far off from each other"

There's a By-election going on. Is Kenney gonna win today? By what percentage? I don't know too much about Kenney besides the fact that he was minister of immigration. Looks like he's a career politician based off his Wikipedia page.

I understand, I may have been to rash with my response. My initial response was certainly harsh, hence the edit an hour later. I definitely didn't mean to make you feel that way, though I do understand why you initially did. It's an emotional and personal topic to me, one which really hits home... so I responded in a fairly emotionally charged way.

Yeah he's definitely a career politician, he actually started out as a Young Liberal, oddly enough. He then swung way right of centre and well, now we're here.
 
I understand, I may have been to rash with my response. My initial response was certainly harsh, hence the edit an hour later. I definitely didn't mean to make you feel that way, though I do understand why you initially did. It's an emotional and personal topic to me, one which really hits home... so I responded in a fairly emotionally charged way.

Yeah he's definitely a career politician, he actually started out as a Young Liberal, oddly enough. He then swung way right of centre and well, now we're here.

I'm glad we're friends again....

hUNAo.jpg
 
What a pleasure it is to read these comments compared to those in the SSP political threads. Whether I agree with the people posting here or not it is nice to see constructive dialogue rather than the continual mudslinging and slandering that makes up the majority of discussions over at SSP.
 
Found these littered across campus this morning :D Courtesy of the majority of the student body of the University of Calgary ? ?

179283
 

Back
Top