Reactionaries around the web are disturbed by revisions to the Education at of Alberta that make it against the law to show “disrespect” for “differences” when educating children–even in private schools or in the home:
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.
“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.
“Disrespect for differences”–what can this mean? Maybe all those people who think that America should adopt the metric system–surely this is shows damnable zeal for uniformity? Just to be safe, I think the Beach Boys should have to explain precisely what they meant when they said they “wish they all could be California girls”. Limiting ourselves to Canada, perhaps all educational materials should be reviewed to purge that nation’s most prevalent Other-directed hostility, namely contempt and hatred for the United States.
Sorry, I know the whole “playing dumb” act is getting tedious; I think this time around I’m the only one who’s bothered with it. We all know that “disrespect” for these sorts of “differences” is in no danger of being suppressed, just as everyone always knew that English laws against disrespecting religions would never be applied to reign in the rampant anti-Catholicism of the BBC. “Inciting hatred of a religion” is liberals’ way of saying “criticizing Muslims”. Also, remember liberals’ outrage when someone demanded that their own gender antidiscrimination laws be enforced as written? Similarly, when Canadian liberals decide to criminalize disapproval of homosexuality, they invoke a very abstract and neutral-sounding principle as its justification: “we will not tolerate disrespect for differences”. Stated this way, the principle is vague to the point of meaninglessness, rather like the principle that one may not “discriminate”. Theoretically, the two principles contradict each other, since anti-discrimination is itself a hostility toward differences. In practice, any act can be framed as affirming or denying differences of some sort, and it can be framed as discriminating by some quality or not by some other.
Liberals’ vague principles only acquire any sort of meaning when they’re read through the liberal frame of official oppressor groups and victim groups. When they say “we will not tolerate disrespect for differences”, they mean “we will not tolerate members of oppressor groups expressing disrespect or criticism toward members of victim groups”. Therefore, in anything that might be construed in an instructional setting (and soon any interaction between children and adults will be so characterized; note that home environments have already been explicitly included), oppressor adults speaking to their oppressor children may not make any negative statement about victim groups or allude to any standard under which a victim group would come off looking worse than an oppressor group. So, a Christian or morally conservative (but non-Muslim) parent, being officially an oppressor, may not disapprove of homosexuality, since that would mean showing disrespect for the behavior of homosexuals, who are an official victim group. Both sides understand that this is what the law and the principle behind it mean. What’s more, I imagine one can’t be sneaky and, while not directly criticizing homosexuality, teach a “heteronormative” form of sexual morality, one that stresses gender complementarity. After all, if such a moral system is true, it would imply that sodomy is immoral, and the child could infer this on his own. Really, the whole Christian, Muslim, and natural law moral traditions must effectively be proscribed.
There are, I’m sure, other forms of disrespect that Alberta would think it worthwhile to extirpate. Whites having an affection for their race and Christians thinking their religion superior to heathendom are always popular targets. Right now, though, sodomy is the elite’s great cause.
Of course, I disapprove of state persecution of Christianity, but I appreciate that liberals who advocate for it are only following out principles they believe to be just and true. The thing that irritates me to no end is all the dishonesty. Why can’t we just have laws that state plainly what is being outlawed? Why not just have a law saying “Muslims in Great Britain are a privileged class; no criticism of them will be tolerated”? Or a law saying “Alberta is a Sodomitical Republic; all children shall be instructed in the doctrines of androgynism; Christianity may not be taught here in public or private”? I was actually pleased a while back when a university official explicitly said that hate speech protections don’t apply to Christians. The honesty was so very refreshing.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/school-is-propaganda.html
If one of the main functions of public schools is to affirm our cultural beliefs against opposing beliefs, then we must be teaching more than just “obvious” things. For many things we teach our kids, substantial communities somewhere disagree.
While we give lip service to diversity and freedom of speech and thought, we in practice only allow such thoughts as can survive decades of mind-numbing public-school conformity. Yet we hardly ever discuss what our official school propaganda should be; we almost pretend it doesn’t exist.
For example, professional historians are usually embarrassed by what passes for history in school, but they usually say little. And my guess is that we prefer not to instead subsidize private schools and require them to teach specific things because we’d rather not be that explicit about exactly what propaganda we want taught; we’d rather that happened behind the scenes.
But to me the honest approach would be the opposite: we should publish lists of specific beliefs we teach in schools, and our best arguments supporting those beliefs against critics. We can’t say such topics are not important enough to bother arguing for, if we are going to all the trouble to teach them. And if we are too embarrassed by the quality of our supporting arguments, we just shouldn’t be teaching such things.
Although not in support of his political philosophy, I must admit that Robin Hanson’s “Homo Hypocritus” hypothesis would certainly explain a lot about the elite Left.
[All but the last paragraph should be in quotation above.]
If those in the West who call themselves Christians were to see “radical liberalism” as the political expression of the homosexual “nature” (“feminism” being the political expression of the dyke “nature”) then many things start to make more sense. When one talks of “vague” liberal principles one is referencing the oft repeated liberal values of nondiscrimination and tolerance. Yet, for many Christians, all one can sense from the true liberal is discrimination and intolerance. So the key is to see these values as a “nature,” i.e., the homosexual nature. It is a radically autonomous “nature” (one that seeks to detach from the Created Order without consequence). Such “nature” is the embrace of an all-accepting indiscriminancy. That’s the liberal pact. Because homosexuals are self-annihilators by definition, it is self-evident that the homosexual “nature” would then embrace nondiscrimination (in act and thought) and tolerance (of pain and death) as its highest values. Nondiscrimination and tolerance (better understood as an all-accepting indiscriminancy) IS THE SUREST PATH to self-annihilation.
The West is embracing the homosexual “nature” at all levels and self-annihilating as required by “natural law.”
The thing that irritates me to no end is all the dishonesty.
Yeah. Just come out and say it: It’s illegal to teach your kids Christianity in Canada.
To add something more substantive: if you read the article, it’s apparent that the new policy makes a distinction between homeschool “curriculum” and “religious” teaching. The policy mandates tolerance for diversity during “classroom” time, leaving parents free to impart religious values during “non-classroom” time. As Christians we should know that it’s an error of logic to view these things as really separate – as if we aren’t always “teaching” our kids the faith! – but if the Cathedral insists on viewing “classroom” time and “religious values” time as separate, then let them.
The new policy is obviously one more small attempt at proscription of Christianity, but in a sense I say: so what? It’s bad, but let’s view the glass as half-full. Let the Cathedral think it’s “winning”. If they want to create an artificial distinction between “school” and “religious instruction”, let them think there is a distinction. We know the distinction is artificial. We know that we are always “teaching” our children, whether we’re calling it “school” time or “bible study” time.
The Cathedral has played its chess move, now let’s play ours: “school” time will be held in the morning, and “religious instruction” will be held in the afternoon. If it still rankles that the law bars you from directly teaching biblical values during “school”, then I say you don’t understand how the game is played in this hostile world we unfortunately live in. (It should rankle, but I am trying to show you the optimistic side of things.)
Really, I’m reminded of the recent thread at Lawrence Auster’s about publicly endorsing politically incorrect thoughts. There were several commenters in the thread who I thought fairly foolish because they didn’t seem to understand that there is a way to play the game. Just because you can’t be crassly offensive to favoured minorities doesn’t mean you can’t criticize them at all. Same thing here: if the law makes a clumsy attack on Christian education, make a clever counter-attack.
Notwithstanding that of course we should fight back directly against the law. It’s just that I get so frustrated with the gloom of hopelessness that so often pervades these blogs.
By the way, the biggest unstated news story in the LifeSite news article is that conservatives seem to have completely given up on private and religious schools. Homeschooling is the only thing they’re even trying to save from Leftist control.
Bonald,
And yet we really need to move beyond “homeschooling” if we want to retain control over our children’s well-being. The reality is that even “homeschooling” is an acquiescing to the legitimacy
of the public school system.
When we think about what our sons and daughters are going to need 10, 15 or 20 years down the road is it really to be found in “homeschooling?” The radical liberal juggernaut has every intention of enveloping the “homeschool” movement with its highest creed. We pay deference to its power when we “homeschool” i.e., when we teach public school values at home.
It Is “homeschooling” versus teaching Christianity?
I teach my kids to strive towards Supremacy. A “homeschool” is an archiac relic of the liberal past.
^^^[archaic]
Sure, everything has to have a name, and sure, homeschooling has some unfortunate connotations, but you’re calling it “Supremacy” instead?
Steve N,
No… When people ask… I tell them my kids don’t go to “school.”
Personally, I am persuaded that teaching my kids to strive towards Supremacy is at the fundamental
level EXACTLY what is required. In fact, Man striving towards Supremacy is the first “natural law” for any Christian worth his salt.
Be then again, no one in the West wants to be a Supremacist, especially a “white Supremacist.”
How doomed does that make us?
Supremacy, i.e., mastery, over self, yes. That is unfortunately not the first thing people think of when you say “supremacy”. Seems, alas, a bit more confusing that “homeschooling”, or “home education”, or simply “edification” (which is pretty much what it is).
I send my kids to a “Christian” school here in the Deep South, because my wife and I don’t know how to homeschool, and the public schools are completely unusable. My little girl participated in the school talent show on Saturday, and from kindergarten through 12th grade my daughter was the only one who presented a Christian bit of entertainment (Ode to Joy, on the piano). We saw an Elvis impersonator, a nine year old playing a medley of Cream and Hendrix tunes on the guitar (the kid was pretty good), and some teenaged girls singing inappropriately suggestive country music songs. As far as I can tell, the school is no more “Christian” than my dog is a Christian.
For the most part, Christian seems to be more of an adjective than a noun; that is, a “Christian” school is one that displays nice values of hard work, respect for elders, and where the girls won’t get pregnant before graduating from high school. But though I am a seminary grad and an ordained minister, I very rarely meet Christians who want to talk about their faith. In the end, I can’t blame the serious parents for wanting to homeschool; as you stated, even the private Christian schools have gone over, voluntarily, to supporting the liberal agenda. And if push comes to shove, these culturally Christian schools will do whatever it takes to keep the governmental octopus happy.
If you taught ‘em how to use the toilet and their ABCs, you know enough to homeschool ‘em.
I don’t understand how Alberta plans to enforce this law with respect to homeschooling. Do they make you use “approved” pro-sodomy textbooks? If so, how do they know I’m not teaching the kids that portion of the textbook is baloney? Will there be a state agent in my house when I teach that section? Frankly I don’t see how they can enforce this law without banning home schooling — which is probably coming.
Just to add to the gloom, remember that Alberta is supposed to be the most politically conservative part of Canada. With its oil sands and supposedly free market leanings, it’s acquired the reputation of a sort of Canadian Texas. Yet this is what goes on there. And Alberta is also where Ezra Levant was dragged before the Human Rights Inquisition to answer charges of heresy – i.e., not thinking very highly of murderous Muslims. There’s really NO safe place for Christians or conservatives anymore.
@JP, “I don’t understand how Alberta plans to enforce this law with respect to homeschooling.”
I don’t understand this either. It’s a little silly … and vague.
It’s like the horse has bolted from the barn, and now the farmer is making a list of what the horse’s diet has to include.
Having said that, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Education bureaucrats I’m sure could figure out mechanisms to ensure greater compliance in the future, so it’s probably wise for homeschooling parents to fight the policy at the first step.
It is by deception that they got accepted by society and it is by deception they will stay that way.
The logical way to enforce this would be to use children as informers against their parents.
A conversation between children could start the process, if one child was home-schooled in a politically incorrect way and the other child was the well-indoctrinated offspring of an inquisitor of the left, of which there are many.
A quarrel between parent and child could start the process. Ground your kid for a month, get denounced to the government for saying the wrong thing in home-schooling, even if the kid is earning good marks. Later the child might regret their outburst, their lack of self-control and maturity, but later would be too late.
Or the government could take the initiative, to punish the parents for taking a stand on some issue, or being politically incorrect in some obvious way. With a week in protective custody, and the attention of skilled interrogators, a child could easily say things that would prove their parents were law-breakers and the family had to be broken up for the protection of the children.
I have family in Ontario and my parents have both lived in Canada for some time. They told me in Canada children are encouraged to report their parents to authorities for the smallest things and neighbours all spy on each other and will report you to the government for things like not separating your garbage. It makes me think of Stalin. I live in Western Europe and here we consider it shameful to inform on our neighbours, though of course, some people will do it. They are of the same type who betrayed Jews to Nazi during the occupation.
@testing2
I live in Canada. Not a Stalinist paradise yet. Meanwhile, homeschooling is illegal in Germany, the largest country in Western Europe.
ajb, I don’t want to slander the Canadians and I’m glad to hear it’s not that bad over there. As for Europe, we have our own problems and stupid laws, yet the difference, imo, is that here people don’t take them too seriously, unlike in the English-speaking countries. My uncle who lived in Canada used to say that if some Canadian would be sentenced to hanging he”d bring his own rope as well. Definitely not the case over here.
Duocodicalism. The vaguer the law, the more power the state has to institute a second legal code. If everyone is a criminal, punishment will be meted out based on the decision mechanisms used by the enforcers; and we all know whose side the bureaucrats are on.