Category: Human Rights

Bill 13 is going into final vote, and this has the Catholic leadership, religious groups, and the Sun incensed. It has mobilized protesters and grabbed the national headlines. It’s a fury the likes of which we hadn’t seen yet for this.

They say that this is a violation of religious freedoms, that they’ll sue the Ontario government for years to come, that this violates parental rights, that this is giving privileges to one group of people, that this is government meddling.

They are saying this because of this amended passage in Bill 13:

Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead activities and organizations that promote a safe and inclusive learning environment, the acceptance of and respect for others and the creation of a positive school climate, including,

…

(d)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

All this aggressive rhetoric because students will have a safe space to talk. The religious leaders are framing themselves as martyrs, which may work today, but is so deeply disconnected from reality that it will certainly be looked back upon with incredulity.

Their rights aren’t impinged because students are able to find solace in each other, but there’s no denying that the opponents are up in arms. The thought that these students would be seen as normal is unacceptable to them.

I don’t expect ignorance to disappear tomorrow. But that such views would still be so prevalent among school administrators and enabled by complacent staff members is deeply disappointing. I am equally dismayed that a major political party, the Progressive Conservatives, have embraced this bigotry with open arms.

History will not look back upon these players favourably. They all had a chance to do the right thing. Not only did they squander it, but they fought it every step of the way.

Update: I received a message from a teacher who raised a good point. I post it here with permission:

Hi Julien, I searched Bill 13 and found your recent blog. I am a Catholic secondary teacher and I want you to know that we are not all complacent. I agree with your eloquently written message and want you to know that many teachers are trying to stop the homophobia that is being displayed by some people higher up in our boards. Thanks!

I got up early this morning and headed over to the Marriott hotel where I attended the public hearings for Bill 13 & 14. It was a full-day affair, lasting from nine to five. My boss knew I wouldn’t be in today and was very supportive.

There were 29 groups and individuals scheduled to speak, each in 15 minute blocks. The people would come up, give a speech, sometimes accompanied by slides. Then, if there was any time left, the parliamentarians would be able to ask them questions. Otherwise, it was on to the next block. All three political parties (Liberals, PC, and NDP) were represented.

I sat and prepared to take notes. My MPP for Ottawa-Centre, Yasir Naqvi, walked in and recognized me from our previous encounter. He asked me if I’d be among those speaking. I told him that I was too late. I nevertheless showed him the speech I had prepared, and he helped me submit it so that all the parliamentarians on the committee would at least be able to read it. He also invited me to attend the press conference he was holding at 1PM. Awesome.

The deliberations started. First up was the legal counsel for the Coalition for Parental Rights in Education. He indicated that if Bill 13 were to pass, the province could expect years of litigation over claims of infringements on denominational rights. The simple solution was to remove all mention of homophobia and sexual orientation from the bill. He claimed there was preferential treatment by including them, but unsurprisingly did not take issue with the same wording as it applied to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or disability.

Next up was the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Homophobia, they argued, was a slur to bully those it is used against into silence. This was followed by another speaker, who indicated that homosexuality was intrinsically disordered and that the bill was against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gave precedence to the Christian God, the God of Abraham.

This was the tone for the day. Nearly all speakers espoused such views, and all against three particular passages of the legislation. The first passage, quoted below, because it includes the word “homophobia”. As hinted above, a number of speakers insisted homophobia didn’t exist. As one person put it, it was an “imagined prejudice.” Or as another stated, it was “a term used by activists and militants to oppose Catholic teachings.” Numerous were the calls for the bill to be amended to remove all references to it.

The purposes of this Part include the following:

1.  To create schools in Ontario that are safe, inclusive and accepting of all pupils.

2.  To encourage a positive school climate and prevent inappropriate behaviour, including bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia.

3.  To address inappropriate pupil behaviour and promote early intervention.

4.  To provide support to pupils who are impacted by inappropriate behaviour of other pupils.

5.  To establish disciplinary approaches that promote positive behaviour and use measures that include appropriate consequences and supports for pupils to address inappropriate behaviour.

6.  To provide pupils with a safe learning environment.

The second passage that raised the ire of the religious representatives was that quoted below. They interpreted it as meaning that religious groups would not be able to worship in schools, because their views would be inconsistent with the code of conduct. This would be, according to one speaker, a “violation of freedom of conscience, of association, of religion… a clear infringement of the constitution and the charter.”

If a board enters into an agreement with another person or entity, other than a board, respecting the use of a school operated by the board, the board shall include in the agreement a requirement that the person or entity follow standards that are consistent with the code of conduct.

The third passage, and the one that elicited a strong reaction from every speaker, was the one cited below. It would put an end to the ban on support groups for queer students that are in place in many Ontario schools.

Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead,

(a)  activities or organizations that promote gender equity;

(b)  activities or organizations that promote anti-racism;

(c)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people with disabilities; or

(d)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

It caused some speakers to label the bill “anti-Christian.” Another claimed that a “radical sexualized agenda” would “seep into the school curriculum in the name of equity, inclusivity and anti-bullying.” Yet another warned that this bill “would cause a Godless society where people would act impurely and on a whim.”

“I do not accept practising homosexuals, as a Catholic,” stated another. “Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.” A speaker lamented that not only were they forced to “tolerate” LGBT students, but now they would have to accept them too – and that was just too much. “This is indoctrination” affirmed a few. They all wanted those passages removed.

 

Not all speakers were like this. Most were, but not all. The Ontario Student Trustee Association said that they had run a survey in 2011 of 7,000 students and 2,000 parents. 88% of students thought a support group like a gay-straight alliance was a good idea, as did 79% of the parents. Kids Help Phone came in support of the bill.

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association stated that gay-straight alliances no more made straight students gay than gay kids straight, alluding to claims that these clubs would confuse children. “Why would anyone want to choose to be called intrinsically disordered, to be forbidden from birth to death to feel an intimate moment?” (A number of speakers had advocated life-long celibacy for gay youth.) “We must set aside what makes us different and embrace what makes us one,” was the conclusion.

The Youth Service’s Bureau strongly supported the legislation, as they found that the most effective model to support youth was to empower them. Get them involved, with student-run groups like gay-straight alliances. Their representative noted that sexual orientation was a big factor in bullying at the secondary level, with 50% reporting incidences.

Jer’s Vision meanwhile had two speakers. One had gone to a Catholic school and had wanted to start a GSA, but was not allowed. She stated that students needed help, and schools needed to be accessible by making them safe for students. It was right to let students talk about LGBT issues and that the only way to deal with bullying was to talk about it. “Silence equals death.”

These views of support were in the minority in the proceedings. A protest had also formed outside to object to Bill 13. The presenters were stacked in a way that did not reflect general opinion. I went up to the Liberal party’s press conference, where advocates for the bill’s passage were able to share their views. There was a law professor from the University of Ottawa, Jer’s Vision, and the Youth Service Bureau.

There was talk of the research that had shown that gay-straight alliances made schools safer for all students, not just those who participated in the club. Jer’s Vision had engaged with 75,000 youth across Canada, and its representatives discussed the kind of issues that some kids were facing.

The media asked a few questions and the press conference ended. I re-joined the principle deliberations. More of the same ignorance. Finally, it was down to the last speaker, who called upon the parliamentarians to “come clean” if the bill had as a goal to “promote homosexuality.” She wanted, like so many before her, all references to homophobia, homosexuality, and gay-straight alliances dropped. “Homosexuality is a serious sin. Warning about immoral sexual behaviour shows how much the church cares,” she stated.

The day was over, and I was exhausted. I tried to be as emotionless as possible as I took notes, but it’s difficult when every person sees you as something nefarious. I feel so sorry for the children of these speakers who might not end up fitting the narrow scope of their parent’s world view.

The deadline for ammendments to the bill is 5PM on May 24^th.

On May 28^th, the bill will be debated, clause by clause in Parliament. If it passes come the parliament’s last session before the summer break on June 7^th, it will come into force for September.

Note about the quotes: I was transcribed all I could during the day, but some quotes might be not word-for-word what was said. Please refer to the hansard for the accurate transcription.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy will be in Ottawa on May 22^nd to hold public hearings on Bill 13 and 14. Among the confirmed speakers will be the Catholic Women’s League of Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (“homosexual activists … subvert already weak Catholic sexual teaching in the schools”).

When: 9:00am, Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Where: Ottawa Marriott Hotel on 100 Kent St., Victoria North Ballroom (2nd Floor)

I got in touch to be among the speakers, but I was too late. Nevertheless, I have the following prepared should the opportunity present itself:

To my esteemed parliamentarians and participants here today,

My name is Julien McArdle. Full disclosure: I organized in the spring of last year a petition to lift the ban on Gay-Straight Alliances, or GSAs, in the Ottawa Catholic School Board. I amassed over 700 signatures to this effect. The accompanying Facebook group has over 400 followers.

I’m here today to talk about Bill 13, and more specifically to discuss Gay-Straight Alliances and the clubs like them. I believe it to be the elephant in the room with regards to this bill and the reason why there is such strong opposition from a dedicated minority.

What I propose is simple: listen to the students. I find that they are so easy to forget when we hold these sessions away, both in time and place, from schools.

If you listen to the students, they have already spoken. They did so when they tried to set up Gay-Straight Alliances. Let me remind you that it was not the students who subsequently forbade their establishment.

I must also speak out on the “Respecting Differences” clubs. I would find it a wonderful asset were it not actually utilized as a tool to legitimize the prohibition of genuine support to students. The guidelines for the Respecting Differences group forbid conversations on gender identity. I ask you: how is a group where you can’t even discuss what you’re facing supposed to be of any help? It can not. Imagine how ineffective an anti-racism club would be if its participants were not permitted to talk about issues surrounding race.

On the matter of religious freedom, an argument oft-cited by opponents, I ask this: how is one’s religious freedoms impinged by the existence of a group whose mandate is to foster understanding? It is not.

That some speakers before you have made comparisons to slavery and the residential school abuses in reference to a mere support group attests to the toxicity in the public sphere that makes clubs like GSAs so necessary to the young recipients of this ignorance.

I conclude with a simple message: the beneficiaries of this bill are the students. They have already spoken, they just need for you to listen.

Thank you very much for your time.

This was another day of debate for Ontario’s Bill 13, also known as the Accepting Schools Act. You can read my coverage for the previous debate here. You can read a transcript of today’s events here.

The NDP through MPP Cheri DiNovo affirmed their support for the legislation, while re-iterating where they saw avenues for improvement. She also talked extensively about Gay-Straight Alliances. She quoted a student who felt rejected by his school administration, which had banned students from forming a GSA. She also went on to talk about statistics of suicide among LGBT youth, and the need for the support:

We want to support these students, and part of supporting these students is to support them in supporting themselves. When they say—and they don’t all say, but when they do say—that they want a gay-straight alliance in their schools, we need to be behind them.

DiNovo then spoke of the demonstrable benefits of having such support in schools:

I want to just share some quotes, and these quotes are from various groups. First of all, let’s look at Egale. Egale Canada says, “GSAs … demonstrably improve the lives of LGBTQ youth, increasing their safety and improving their self-esteem.”

By simply existing, GSAs present “students with the idea that LGBTQ identities have a place in the school, and society at large. Directly engaging LGBTQ youth and their allies within school, as well as those who are ambivalent regarding LGBTQ themes, is an excellent means towards addressing school climate, isolation, promoting social connectedness.” They cite a study in California that found gay-straight alliance presence and participation in high school to be highly correlated with decreased depression, substance abuse and lifetime suicide attempts among LGBTQ young adults.

The Progressive Conservatives through MPP John O’Toole voiced their objection to Bill 13. O’Toole suggested that passing this law would be tantamount to bullying:

I believe this document from the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, Respecting Difference, summarizes particularly how I feel about the issue. I believe that the secular society forcing views on non-secular society is in fact bullying.

Perpetrators are being framed with the same language used to describe the victims, in an attempt to provide a sense that both positions are of equal merit. And yet, when you look at who is exercising control over the other, such illusions are quickly dispelled.

The students are seeking to form a support group. They are not preventing other students from forming a support group. They are not preventing the school’s administrators from creating a support group. They are not making bigoted decisions that negatively impact others. On the contrary, they are the recipient of such prejudice. Contrary to the MPP’s assertions, the inability for a perpetrator to infringe on the well-being of others does not make them victims.

I find it telling that the MPP quoted the Respecting Differences document, which forbids students from even speaking openly about matters of gender identity.

As Liberal MPP Glenn Murray noted:

The reason the GSAs, and not organizations for disabilities or black kids or aboriginal kids, are at the centre of this is because of our social discomfort with sexual orientation. That’s what the Hotwire—Charles McVety and a few thousand extremists are going to be out on the front lawn. They’re not here talking about kids with disabilities. They have no problem with stopping bullying against young folks who are unfortunately overweight or kids who are a little ungainly or awkward or a bit nerdy or whatever the thing is that brings on that horrible bullying.

Then taking aim at the comments made by O’Toole, Murray said:

You know, it isn’t bullying. There’s no one here that’s suggesting that we shouldn’t teach a Catholic perspective in our schools. Let me read Charles McVety, who is a person who, if you had to find the philosophical polar opposite to my world—this is what he recently said in a news article editorial he wrote. He said that Catholic teaching is defined in the document, by referring to the document Pastoral Guidelines to Assist Students of Same Sex Orientation in the 2006 CCCB statement, which the member from Durham mentioned before: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity” and a tradition that declared—he’s quoting from the bishop’s direction—“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

I have to say to the bishops: “You’re not allowed to do that anymore.” I’m not allowed to say to the Catholics—nor should I—or to other Christians or Muslims or Jews, that because of your faith you’re intrinsically disordered. I would never say to you that anything that goes on in your family with the person you love—can you imagine me describing a husband-and-wife relationship as inherently depraved? Can you imagine how it feels to gay and lesbian families and to our children in schools when people like Charles McVety say we’re unfit to be parents? How much do you love your children? How would you feel, as an Ontarian or as a Canadian? You feel a little less Canadian. I feel a little less welcome in my own country every time someone like that is endorsed.

He concluded by stating he hoped both the Liberal Bill 13 and the PC Bill 14 passed. There was more commentary by other MPPs, and declaration that this debate would be continued another time.

Then came the second reading for Bill 14. NDP MPP Rosario Marchese expressed her party’s support for the legislation, while PC MPP Lisa MacLeod told the audience where she thought it was better than Bill 13. More accountability and better at remediation, she said. Another Liberal, Liz Sandals, said she would support Bill 14. Other MPPs spoke up to support the private member’s bill. There was a motion to carry. With that, the PC bill passed second reading.

It seems that Glenn Murray’s observations were spot on. Because Bill 14 did not explicitly cover LGBT students, it was devoid of the opposition that has plagued the Liberal bill. Its second reading debate lasted an hour, and then it passed to the next phase for legislation. Meanwhile, Bill 13 has been dragged in second reading debates for days, with no clear end in sight.

I’m glad Bill 14 passed this stage. I’ll be more happy when Bill 13 does too.

Introduction

Yesterday was the second reading for the Accepting Schools Act (Bill 13), the anti-bullying legislation introduced by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

The provisions in the bill would create a “bullying awareness and prevention week”, grant the Minister the ability to put a policies and guidelines to deal with bullying, and also the following:

Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead,

(a) activities or organizations that promote gender equity;

(b) activities or organizations that promote anti-racism;

(c) activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people with disabilities; or

(d) activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

Unfortunately, there is a very vocal force opposing the introduction of this bill. Now I don’t pretend to fully understand those who reject this anti-bullying legislation. That said, I have tried to read the statements written by the detractors to get a better insight into their objections.

There’s a few things to take away from this opposition. First of all, it exists because the anti-bullying legislation also covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. If that inclusion wasn’t there, you wouldn’t have these groups make a ruckus.

To that extent, this opposition is entirely religious in nature, including not just adherents of the Catholic faith but other religions as well. This is not all that surprising since faith-based groups have historically opposed measures of acceptance for LGBT folk. Let us not forget that this bill partly owes its existence as a reaction to the much-publicized ban by Catholic schools on support groups for LGBT students.

It would be unfair to group these opponents together, though there are a few discussion points I’ve seen crop up over and over. One is the concept that in the case of students from sexual minorities, there is such a thing as just discrimination. The other is this idea that they fear the normalization of homosexuality (in other words – acceptance.) This latter notion seems ideologically-tied to the concept of the fictitious homosexual agenda, the queer equivalent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

There’s unfortunately little middle ground here with that kind of rhetoric. One side is arguing against the acceptance of certain students as equals because of the minority to which they belong, while the other wants those same students to be treated as equals. As this anti-bullying legislation is incompatible with the continued “just” discrimination against a minority, so the religious leaders appear to be saying, it cannot be allowed to succeed.

 Bill 13: Second reading

You can read a full transcript of the second reading here. Starting the day was a petition to kill the anti-bullying bill by the religious Parents As First Educators:

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

Whereas, as an anti-bullying measure, Bill 13 is unnecessary because Ontarians already have Bill 157; and

Whereas Bill 13 promotes radical revisions to school instruction on sex and gender that a majority of parents do not support; and

Whereas legislation is not the way to implement equity education (this should rather be addressed by teacher training, after wider parental consultation, in a way which respects the views of people of faith);

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to vote against Bill 113.

A member for the Progressive Conservative party, meanwhile, appeared to suggest that the opposition would not support Bill 13. Or in parliamentary-speak:

We believe that Bill 14, which has been brought forward by my colleague, is the more comprehensive bill, and that’s what we’ll be supporting.

Bill 14 is the competing anti-bullying legislation tabled by the Progressive Conservative. It was introduced the same day as Bill 13, and unlike the latter, makes no reference to orientation or any other basis for discrimination, but rather focusing on acts. Education critic for the opposition, Lisa MacLeod explained why she believed her party’s bill was superior, and accused the Liberals of not negotiating in good faith with her party in coming up with a joint solution.

The PC’s bill language does nothing to confront prejudice that’s from the board-level, and so the bans on support groups for LGBT youth would continue if they succeeded in supplanting Bill 13. I do believe this omission is why they introduced the legislation – so as to protect the discriminatory policies of the Catholic schools, which their supporters see as a matter of “freedom of religion, expression and thought“.

The NDP meanwhile stated that they disagreed with the PC’s approach of placing all the blame on the bully while ignoring the environmental factors that lead to those behaviours. They backed Bill 13, but saw it as being in need of improvements.

The member speaking for the NDP, Peter Tabuns, also spoke of the GSA issue:

As contentious as they may be, there is another issue that has taken on much more profile, and that takes me to the whole question of student clubs to reduce bullying, the most contentious section of this bill—and that is because one section has to do with the formation of gay-straight alliances in schools. This is the part of the bill that helps to address two issues: cultural change and building support networks for those who are under attack.

Culture change—because when authorities recognize and respect groups that are under attack, that are subjected to abusive action, it changes the dynamic of power. When authorities show respect for girls, when authorities show respect for those who have different skin colour, show respect for those who are disabled, show respect for our gay youth, that helps to shift the culture as much as the principal of my school coming in to talk to my class when I was in grade 3. It says the ground has to move. Allowing students in schools, under the sanction of the administration, to set up clubs says to all students that those students deserve respect; that the authorities in charge of the schools and the education system believe that those students deserve respect. Allowing students in schools to set up support networks gives them the security of being together and reduces the isolation that we all know can be, literally, deadly.

He read off the provision I quoted in the introduction, and talked about how clubs dealing with gender, racism, and disability issues are in great need here in Ontario. He continued:

That takes me to the last category in this subsection of the bill: “(d) activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.”

Everything that has been seen to be true for other responses to oppression based on gender, racism or ability is true when we come to sexual orientation. Yet, as you are well aware, Speaker, this is the most contentious item of the bill. We’ll explore that, I am sure, as we go further through debate and through committee.

This bill supports formation of equity-promoting groups for gay and lesbian students but does not require school boards to allow students to determine the most appropriate name for the committee. Speaker, I think that is a change that is going to be necessary, to give the students the right to determine the names of their committees. This lack runs counter to the aim of creating schools which are accepting of all students and of stopping prejudice and discrimination.

Egale Canada says “GSAs … demonstrably improve the lives of” lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning “youth, increasing safety and improving their self-esteem.”

By simply existing, GSAs present students “with the idea that LGBTQ identities have a place in the school, and society at large. Directly engaging LGBTQ youth and their allies within school, as well as those who are ambivalent regarding” those “themes, is an excellent means towards addressing school climate, isolation and promoting social connectedness….”

A recent study in California found GSA presence and participation in high school to be highly correlated with decreased depression, substance abuse and lifetime suicide attempts among LGBT young adults.

Now we started off this afternoon with the member from Nepean–Carleton talking about the tragic death of Jamie Hubley. I have to say his death was not one that was so rare that we could say there was no pattern. I wish—and this is tragic to say—I wish it was that rare.

In the Toronto Star last December, Antonia Zerbisias wrote about Support Our Youth, an organization in Toronto on Sherbourne Street that supports gay youth. In her article, she talked about how children are bullied and how gay children tend to be particularly picked out for abusive treatment.

She notes in her article: “‘Numerous studies suggest that among lesbian, gay and bisexual youth, approximately 32 per cent contemplate or attempt suicide (compared to 7 per cent of all youth)’ says a recent analysis by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.” Those are very high numbers, Speaker. Those are numbers that every person in this room should keep in mind as we debate this bill, because the simple reality is that we’re dealing with decisions that will affect life and death of our young people. Researchers and advocates say that “it’s not their sexuality that leads these kids down a suicidal path—it’s the stigma and discrimination they face in a heterosexual world…. Jamie Hubley, 15, killed himself” last fall. “Orangeville girlfriends Jeanine Blanchette, 21, and Chantal Dube, 17, were found in a wooded area in 2010, apparently after committing suicide with pills.

“In 2007, 13-year-old Shaquille Wisdom hung himself the day after he was stuffed into a garbage can at his Ajax high school. His homophobic bullies have never been outed—or punished.”

All of us have a responsibility to protect our children no matter what colour they are, what gender they are, no matter what their gender orientation. All of us in this building, in this chamber, who have power, authority and responsibility have to protect our children. Speaker, we cannot abandon children to their fate; we have to act.

Bill 13 could be enhanced by incorporating elements of the Conservatives’ anti-bullying private member’s bill. Elements around public reporting, enhanced staff training, inclusion in curriculum, alternative programming—all those need to be taken into account as we get into committee, and everything that is going to advance the protection of children in this province that is incorporated in that private member’s bill needs to be brought into the government’s bill.

This session of the Ontario parliament has 107 seats. 53 are taken up by Liberals, and another 17 by the NDP. The PC meanwhile has 37 elected members. So presumably if the issue were to come to a vote today, Bill 13 would pass even without the PC’s support.

But success is not yet assured. I’ll keep you posted.