,
18 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Let’s review the purpose of UCP’s amendments to GSA’s & what it says about children’s human rights.
You present a false argument. A school may recognize a behaviour change, but it’s highly unlikely they know the issue or are able to contribute to the resolution significantly.
You present a false argument. A school may recognize a behaviour change, but it’s highly unlikely they know the issue or are able to contribute to the resolution significantly.
Changes in behaviour often indicate difficulty coping with an issue. Attendance in a GSA reduces negative behaviour changes; it does not increase them.
Your argument makes the assumption that the nature of GSA’s are nefarious and cause the behaviour change.
Your argument makes the assumption that the nature of GSA’s are nefarious and cause the behaviour change.
GSA’s are meant to provide support for children already struggling with their identity.
GSA’s provide a safe place for them to explore and receive peer support.
Reinstating school official’s ability to reveal attendance reduces the safety factor significantly.
GSA’s provide a safe place for them to explore and receive peer support.
Reinstating school official’s ability to reveal attendance reduces the safety factor significantly.
Which is the entire point of the change in legislation.
Trying to make this about parental rights is a nefarious misdirect to distract from the restored ability of school officials to advise parents their child is struggling with their sexual/gender identity.
Trying to make this about parental rights is a nefarious misdirect to distract from the restored ability of school officials to advise parents their child is struggling with their sexual/gender identity.
Parents have no RIGHT to police the identity of their children, especially as they approach adulthood. The right to determine one’s belief & value system doesn’t start at age 18.
As children grow older they self individuate, & may reject their parents belief system and ideology. That is neither illegal nor contrary to the parental rights provided in Canada. Children are human beings. Parents don’t own them, or their thoughts.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified in Canada in 1991. Note: the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney chose not to ratify the optional international complaints procedure for child rights violations.
canada.ca/en/canadian-he…
canada.ca/en/canadian-he…
What the UCP legislation does is allow parents & school officials to intervene & prevent a child from determining their own belief system. It negates the validity of the experiences, thoughts and values of the child, in favour of the parents desire to control them.
Support for this legislation means you want thought control of your child & support the indoctrination of beliefs & values of human beings under age 18 remain the exclusive control of the parent, with no “right” for the child to self determine who they are and what they believe.
It’s a sad day for the rights of the child & it is confirmation that this government plans to remove many more rights from vulnerable segments of the community.
Attached are the definition of a child and some of the Articles Canada has sworn to uphold.
Attached are the definition of a child and some of the Articles Canada has sworn to uphold.
The UCP value Christian religious institutions that demand adherence to religious dogma over individual human rights.
Dominionist Christians, almost 50 were elected as UCP MLA’s, believe human rights are determined by the inerrant Bible, not secular governments or the judiciary.
Dominionist Christians, almost 50 were elected as UCP MLA’s, believe human rights are determined by the inerrant Bible, not secular governments or the judiciary.
Note: the legal challenge from Christian religious schools was dropped long before this legislation was tabled.
The UCP agenda was clear from the beginning. False assurances are characteristic of this government.
globalnews.ca/news/5218911/a…
The UCP agenda was clear from the beginning. False assurances are characteristic of this government.
globalnews.ca/news/5218911/a…
The UCP rejects the rights of the child by making the changes to the legislation regarding GSA’s. Rather they confirm the rights of religious institutions and beliefs to supersede the child’s rights to have opinions & to think & believe independently.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee…
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Canada.
By removing rights from children in favour of religious institutions and parental ideology, UCP is indicating their unilateral rejection of the convention in Alberta.
Here are some of those rights.
By removing rights from children in favour of religious institutions and parental ideology, UCP is indicating their unilateral rejection of the convention in Alberta.
Here are some of those rights.
Acknowledgement of children’s rights doesn’t affect the responsibilities and rights of parents. It just affirms the humanity of the child.
Removing rights from children in favour of religious dogma, and couching it as parental rights is hideous, treacherous and vile. It reduces children to mere possessions or property of parents, to do with as they please.
It’s a sad time in Alberta to witness such demagoguery in support of Religious Freedom.
The far right’s SoCon policy agenda: remove ALL human rights in favour of Christian institutions.
Religious Freedom trumps human rights in the view of the religious “Social Conservative”.
The far right’s SoCon policy agenda: remove ALL human rights in favour of Christian institutions.
Religious Freedom trumps human rights in the view of the religious “Social Conservative”.
Charles Adler is struggling with this because he is beginning to recognize what he’s enabled to come to power; fanatical religious zealots posing as conservatives who will protect their dogma at any cost. Even by harming children.
I imagine sleeping well at night is difficult.
I imagine sleeping well at night is difficult.
