I find it hard to understand which side of the debate you are arguing!

It's a parent's right and duty to decide what kind of education a child should have.

I'm not sure what 'liberal education' means in your context; if you're talking about the Great Tradition and the Enlightenment, that brings you back to rights again - which seem to be something you are concerned about - or is it something else that's 'beyond all measure of rational and democratic sense'.

Teachers are hired to teach whatever their employers, the representatives of the parents of their students, decide is important. Where there's a lack of consensus, the parent's choice is more important that the teacher's philosophical position.

I agree with Dean, and find Bill 44 recently passed in Alberta an embarrassingly regressive piece of legislation.

Education involves more than simply instilling your own point of view into your children on various controversial subjects. Parents are more likely to provide their children with one point of view only - their own.

There is at least a greater likelihood that educators will present a more balanced spectrum of viewpoints on a subject, with the hope that children will learn to formulate their own opinions, and not simply adopt those of their parents.

Any time anyone communicates, that person - whether teacher, parent or person posting online - selects and controls that information. One person's 'facts' are another's 'propaganda'. The question is really one of who decides which selection of facts a child - should be exposed to - a teacher or a parent.

True tolerance acknowledges that different people come to different conclusions on all kinds of topics; they understand and weight different facts differently. It's not tolerance to insist that all children must be given the set of facts their teacher (or their school administration, or the Minister of Education) thinks is important. It's the reverse. It's an attempt to reduce diversity and variation in the population.

Those parents who are so determined to shield their children from learning about such "controversial" subjects such as sexuality, religion, and sexual orientation should seriously consider the option of private schools or home schooling.

Publicly funded schools should serve the best interests of the public, which in my opinion is educating and informing our future generation, not promoting ignorance or intolerance.

Those children pulled from classes that their parents deem are inappropriate will simply receive a crash course from their friends in the schoolyard upon their return to class, which is not likely to be entirely balanced or accurate. Is this really the objective?

Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power.

So if we are going to be a multicultural nation, doesn't that mean we respect the views of Christians and those who have doubts about the theory of evolution?
Or are the only cultures that are valid are those of the minorities?

As far as limiting the exposure of children to evolution and alternative lifestyles and other information, aren't we already limiting their exposure to by not acknowledging the fact that the rate of STDs among homosexuals is 5 to 10 times that of the heterosexual population?
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
It's okay for the school system to censor anything not politically correct but they damn the parents for deciding what moral guidance their children get.

This is law is a great step forward. I couldn't care less about the debate on God or evolution or sex education is taught, but I love the idea that the parents are wresting some power back from the nanny state.
We are a people with a government, not a government with a people.
They work for us, not the other way around.

The society we currently live in talks a great deal about support for multiculturism, diversity, and differing points of view. However, if we are really honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that it is always the prevailing, majority view point(s) or ideology that is promulgated in any educational institution, whether it is elementary, secondary or post-secondary schools. This means that any opposing minority viewpoint is beaten down by the majority.

The current prevailing ideology is that society and educators should dictate the curriculum in the schools. But the question is, what is being taught in the schools? Only what is the current prevailing view point(s).

This then means that the ideas inculcated in children of parents with minority viewpoint(s) will not align with those of their parents. In a way, these children are being stolen from their parents, starting from a young age; their ideas/personalities may be directly opposed to those their parents wish for them. The rights of their parents are being ignored/shredded.

It was not so long ago that the European ideology was in full swing and aboriginal children were stolen from their parents. Now we have a very similar immoral discrimation in full swing. Canadian society is now the all knowing parent and the real parents are being relegated to the sidelines. The Animal Farm by George Orwell illustrates this point very well.

So, I cheer the fight against hypocrisy and discrimination of the majority. Hooray for minority rights! Hooray for the Alberta decision in favour of parents' rights.

SMP2006 - you prove my point exactly.

I cannot see how you can conclude that sex education, introduction to various religions, and the like is 'propoganda'.

You state: 'True tolerance acknowledges that different people come to different conclusions on all kinds of topics; they understand and weight different facts differently.'

I agree with this. However, do you think that our children are going to 'understand and weigh facts' when they are only hearing a limited version of them from their families? People don't learn when they are boxed and controlled.

The real act of courage here is to give our children wings to fly and to subject them to diverse opinions/thoughts. Just because a parent does not agree with something does not make it wrong. It is up to our children to 'understand and weigh the facts', as you yourself say, and to formulate their own thought processes and opinions! They can't do that with just their families' viewpoints on things!

What you are essentially saying is that teachers are wrong and the parent is right and the only 'facts' that the children should be weighing are those that the parents choose to subject them to.

This is the farthest thing from true tolerance!!

This is a much bigger deal than it should be from both sides of the arguement. As a parent I do believe it is my right to decide what opinions my child is subjected to and as we've all experienced, some teachers bring more of their own opinions to their craft than they should. Whick can on ocassion skew the intented information behind the teaching point.

However, it is also my responsibility as a parent to instill the tolerance and respect for the opininos of others in my child. As well, to subject them to the opinions of others and allow them to cultivate their own opinions and reasonings. The boost this topic has gained seems to stem from a person/people's lack of confidence in themselves as parents and their children's ability to think for themselves.

At the same time, I hope this whole ordeal doesn't bottleneck the information given to those children who have the freedom from topic filtering.

SMP2006 "One persons facts are another persons..." What?!? Facts are just that, facts. They exist, in and of themselves, independent of people or parties or viewpoints.

Young people have sex: fact. When young people have sex, they contract STDs, get pregnant: fact. Some will have abortions, some will have babies they cannot care for, those babies will not have the same opportunities as babies that were planned by older, more financially secure parents: fact.

The only "propaganda" I know of in all this is how much these unwanted babies cost society, how many end up in prisons, how many end up with addictions, how many end up dead early. Those numbers seem to differ significantly, depending on which side of the political fence you are on. No one seems to seriously deny they exist, just to what magnitude.

Education will bring the numbers down. Who will educate the children? I have heard for years that it is the parents' place to decide when their children should learn this information. So, tell them. Most parents can't do it. Go ahead and try. If you can walk into your 7th grader's room and discuss sexual activity, reproductive health, and safe sex, then you pass. If you can't, then you are already too late. By 8th grade your child can teach you: fact.

Teachers teach. Parents won't do it, so we have to. Support them, or do it yourself. But realize it must be done, one way or the other.

MMG 8th grade science teacher

So if we are going to be a multicultural nation, doesn't that mean we respect the views of Christians and those who have doubts about the theory of evolution?
Or are the only cultures that are valid are those of the minorities?

As far as limiting the exposure of children to evolution and alternative lifestyles and other information, aren't we already limiting their exposure to by not acknowledging the fact that the rate of STDs among homosexuals is 5 to 10 times that of the heterosexual population?
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
It's okay for the school system to censor anything not politically correct but they damn the parents for deciding what moral guidance their children get.

This is law is a great step forward. I couldn't care less about the debate on God or evolution or sex education is taught, but I love the idea that the parents are wresting some power back from the nanny state.
We are a people with a government, not a government with a people.
They work for us, not the other way around.

I agree fully with smp2006. The child's right to a broad education must come second to the right of the parent not to be upset by strange ideas. People who have studied for years to gain a full understanding of their subject area must bow to the parents’ wishes. Obviously this will include doctors and judges who are also employed by the people's representatives. We must remember that knowledge and understanding must always come second to individual rights. The group right to an open tolerant society must again come second to that of the parents.

My God it is funny how the majority of people making comments about this matter are making them from the point of view of the small minority of people who because of the lifestyle you chose will not have children. If it ever happens that you can and I fail to see it maybe you with all that education that parents lack in your opinion can , but not going to happen, if so make the decisions for your own children and not the rest of Canada. Some of the best minds in or out of Canada were educated during the years when sex education was unheard of in our schools, and in those days most teenagers did not end up in the university of hard knocks as lots are today. Think it might have anything to do with your liberal ideas? Guess not , it would have to be because the stupid parents wont allow you to indoctorinate them into the culture you are pushing. If you are indeed quoting Ignatieff , then I guess my opinion of him is not misplaced. When they become yours to support and raise then speak to how they are raised , until then please SHUT up.

This is a selection from Michael Ignatieff's "Rights, Intimacy and Family Life" (from Massey lecture).

I think it is relevent here.

"Children do have rights. They have the right not just to be sheltered and cared for and protected from abuse, but also, to be treated as moral agents in their own right, with intentions, purposes, and visions of the world that we should not presume are identical to our own. A liberal ideal of parenting puts empathy at the heart of modern family life - that is, no longer taking children for granted, no longer assuming that they should be silent and obedient witnesses to the godlike dramas played out above their heads, but acknowledging that they are incipient adults whose minds must be read, whose hearts must be understood, and whose love must be earned."

-Dean

I think that this poem sums things up beautifully!

On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.