Bill 44 Going Through

...because "we're not able to retract", according to Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Minister Lindsay Blackett. However, there may be minor changes to the parental opt-out section, particularly:

11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.

[Teachers] had a problem with the wording . . . when it talks about instruction and instructional materials. Some teachers take that to mean any instruction," said Blackett.

"We're looking at how to clarify that."

Not quite sure what is meant here, but my guess would be the teachers are concerned that parents might be able to request an opt-out where, for example, a biology text containing a chapter on Darwin was being used even though the class in question did not concern that chapter.

Meanwhile, Rob Breakenridge laments. He's quite right that AHRC opponents like Bishop Henry have sold their souls over this bill (which the Bishop supports with caveats), but this part is baloney:

Just when it seemed that public demand and political will would finally result in a reining in of the province's much-maligned human rights regime, the Alberta government has fashioned a resurrection of almost Biblical proportions.

Public demand? Or the demands of a few hundred journalists, fringe righties, and blogosphere scribblers?

You know, one thing politicians know how to do better than anyone is count votes. The Stelmach government looked around and realized that the over-haul of their Human Rights Act would involve balancing the demands of the Gay and SoCon communities. If Speechies got stiffed (and they did), that's because the Stelmach government realized there weren't enough of them to be worth the fuss.

(And of course the Aryan Guard marched this year with renewed strength. That helped change a few minds in caucus, I am sure.)

Pankiw Case Appealed

Several years back, former Reform Party MP Jim Pankiw was charged under sections 5, 12, and 14 of the CHRA (referring to discrimination and harassment in the provision of services) for distributing a series of householder” pamphlets to his constituents that contained anti-aboriginal language and imagery. The case was originally dismissed because the "Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to the “householder” pamphlets".

However, it is now being appealed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Daniel Poulin said from Ottawa on Monday the commission appealed the ruling “late last week.”

“It is the position of the commission that the Human Rights Tribunal erred when it interpreted (the term) ‘services’ under Sections 5 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” Poulin said.

The commission believes Pankiw’s householder mailouts should be considered a service, and that the act should apply, he said.

Rob Breakenridge asks:

So seven years after an MP sent out some pamphlets to his constituents and five years after that MP was sent packing by his constituents, we're still wasting taxpayer dollars investigating whether these pamphlets were "offensive".

Whether they were or not, it would seem as though a verdict was already rendered: i.e. the decision by Pankiw's constituents that they no longer wanted him as their representative in Ottawa. Why are we still wasting taxpayer dollars on this case?

Because if they were against the act they were against the act? And how about: if the matter were being pursued through the criminal code then it would cost a lot more?