Dan Shapiro, Research Associate, Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership
First they came for the journalists. Then they came for the teachers. Who's next? Let's hope it's the people responsible for Bill 44 because the Alberta government's proposed changes to human rights legislation make matters worse, not better.
It is time to speak up before the new law is passed.
Bill 44 to amend the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act does nothing to protect freedom of speech and now puts teachers at risk of facing human rights complaints for violating the parental “right” to opt children out of lessons having to do with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.
The failure to protect a fundamental right and the creation of an artificial one smacks of unprincipled political compromise and a poor grasp of the unintended consequences of ill-considered policy-making.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and it should go without saying - but unfortunately does not - that any government committed to protecting rights and freedoms should not empower human rights commissions to restrict free speech. When offensive speech turns into incitement to violence, we've got the Criminal Code to deal with it.
Currently, section 3 of Alberta's human rights act gives the human rights commission jurisdiction to take complaints for statements or publications “likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
Unfortunately, in their long-awaited package of reforms, government MLAs won't amend or repeal s.3 because “Albertans need a balance between freedom of speech and responsibility.”
Actually, no, we don't. What we need are leaders with the political courage to enact the necessary reforms protecting free speech and refocusing the human rights commission on its core mandate, that is, dealing with discrimination in employment, housing, and services. Failure to do so leaves the Commission open to further attack from critics who would like to see it disbanded altogether rather than reformed.
Lately, there were encouraging signs that Lindsay Blackett, Alberta's Minister responsible for human rights, was showing such courage and ethical leadership. He suggested that fixing s.3 was all but done because people “should have the ability to say what they say and somebody should have their ability to have the counter argument. That is what a free and open society does."
But now, in response to the government's decision to do nothing about s.3, he says “I can have my opinion but, when it comes to caucus, the caucus decision goes forward," and he compares the failure to achieve legislative change on a fundamental point of principle to not getting a pair of skates he once wanted.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Not only does the proposed legislation fail to protect free speech, it also would enshrine a parental opt-out clause that is a slippery slope to legal and administrative chaos.
The proposed amendment grants parents or guardians the right to exempt their child from “courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises . . . [that] include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.”
Parents could object to almost anything on these grounds - say, a history lesson on the Protestant Reformation or a literature course on that randy Shakespeare. The Premier even admits that parents could remove children from courses dealing with evolution.
For every parental objection, there could be human rights cases against teachers, administrators or school boards for failing to notify parents about any lesson that falls afoul of this excessively broad and vague provision.
The administration of the opt-out would also be unwieldy: how could advance notice be given for every single lesson or class discussion dealing with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation?
Besides, the Education department already mandates advance notice and an opt-out for clearly specified courses dealing with human sexuality (i.e., sex education), so why enshrine it in fundamental human rights legislation and open the door to exemptions to the entire curriculum?
Did the media firestorm over recent hate speech cases concerning gay marriage and the Mohammed cartoons not teach us anything about broad human rights clauses catching far too much in even the most well-meaning net?
We are pleased that proposed amendments include finally writing “sexual orientation” into Alberta's human rights legislation, ten years after the Supreme Court so ordered. This brings Alberta up to date with every other Canadian jurisdiction. While symbolically important, such cosmetic changes to the wording of the Act are not enough.
Real ethical leadership demands the courage to protect free speech and that the proposed parental opt-out be sent to the dustbin of history where it belongs. The Alberta government's proposed changes to the human rights legislation deserve a failing grade.
