By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, June 27, 2013
Bill 18 and ABCs
I've been thinking again about Bill 18, i.e., the Selinger government's proposed anti-bullying legislation for schools. I strongly favour anti-bullying legislation, but I still think Bill 18 is problematic—and needs revision.
I have three major concerns.
1. Bill 18 threatens to increase divisiveness and bullying.
Bill 18 makes it seem that a pro-LGBTQ political correctness is minimizing the importance of non-LGBTQ children. (LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer.)
According to Winnipeg Free Press ("Teachers, Province to meet," May 28, 2013), Manitoba's minister of education Nancy Allan said the following (to Manitoba teachers who want education curricula to reflect sexual orientation themes): "The most important thing for us right now is to have safe and caring school environments for LGBTQ youth." But, because Allan was referring to Bill 18, she should have said this: The most important thing right now is to have safe and caring school environments for ALL youth—especially those who are targeted by bullies.
Perhaps I am being unfair to the minister (after all, the minister was addressing sexual orientation issues). Yet, the fact remains that, as presently worded, Bill 18 explicitly addresses only a few groups which together constitute a small minority of bullied students. Bill 18 weakly attends to the huge majority of at-risk children who have the characteristics actually targeted by bullies: body shape, school grades, cultural background, language, religion, and income. (For substantiation, see the 2006 study by Yau and O'Reilly [p. 21] of 105,000 Toronto students.) Aren't these children important, too?
At this juncture, one might object that LGBTQ youth are, say, 5 times more likely to suicide than non-LGBTQ youth. In reply, we should note that, as serious as this suicide rate is, an at-least-as-serious question remains: What about the fact that the number of students who are not LGBTQ is much, much greater than 5 times the number of LGBTQ students? Aren't the many more non-LGBTQ youth who are prone to suicide important, too?
In other words, I agree with Don Hutchinson (a lawyer with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada), who raises the following concern: "In singling out some groups of students for special status, Bill 18 inherently creates a second class of students—those who are bullied for reasons other than the categories identified in the legislation. These measures are divisive rather than inclusive. The clubs mandated by Bill 18 do not reflect the needs of the substantial number of students who are most often bullied. This approach may in fact increase the frequency of bullying by isolating and segregating students—sending them to separate corners, as it were." ("EFC Releases Analysis Critical of Manitoba's Bullying Bill," May 1, 2013.)
2. Bill 18 threatens freedom of speech.
We should ask: What about those youth whose moral views are of a more traditional, conservative sort? Bill 18 threatens to mistreat these youth merely for expressing a view critical of, say, same-sex sexual practice. Isn't it also important for these youth to have a safe and caring school environment?
Bear with me as I clarify. On Bill 18's present wording, bullying occurs when someone's comments should be known to cause "distress" to another's "feelings." But this wording shuts down serious moral dialogue.
If a student (whether same-sex attracted or not, whether religious or not) respectfully argues that gay sex is morally wrong or unwise or unhealthy—and makes a strong case via public reason and evidence—then this student will undoubtedly distress the feelings of those who deeply disagree. The result is that Bill 18 turns our student into a bully, when in fact he/she isn't a bully.
Also, without even first hearing the student's argument, for our government to dismiss the merit of our student's argument is to beg the question, which is a logical fallacy. (To beg a question is to assume as proven that which is at issue, which is a violation of good reasoning.)
Surely, this is unfair. Surely, too, this will distress the feelings of our student. Thus, Bill 18 becomes guilty of bullying.
(And what about parents who express a conservative moral view? Do they become bullies—and get bullied—too? I suspect lawyers will have a grand time untangling this legal-logical mess—at taxpayers' expense!)
3. Bill 18's explicit requirement to allow students to form "gay-straight alliance" clubs, clubs that in some private schools will endorse behaviours that contradict the school's charter statement of moral or religious principles, threatens to undermine the exercise of religious freedom of those schools.
Clearly, via Bill 18 some religious schools will be legally forced by the state to allow on the school’s campus the flourishing of an organization that may promote what the school believes should not be promoted. Is this an encroachment by the state onto the religious freedom of its citizens, i.e., a violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (Enter: The lawyers.)
We must be careful to respect religious freedom rights while also respecting other fundamental human rights. But granting special legal favours to gay-straight alliance clubs may impinge on religious freedom and may, when coupled with the previous two concerns, fuel further divisiveness and bullying.
Here, for starters, are some divisive questions: What about granting special legal favours to other student clubs? What about granting special legal favours to alliance clubs for ex-gays or students with unwanted same-sex attractions?
Surely, Bill 18 is not a reasonable recipe for respecting rights.
What, then, should we do? I suggest assigning legal-requirement status to a more general, more inclusive student club—not a gay-straight alliance club, but an anti-bullying club.
If anti-bullying is our goal, and if we are interested in promoting an inclusive society that maximizes respect for fundamental human rights, wouldn't it be wise to establish a student organization wherein all vulnerable children are protected and stronger children are encouraged to protect and nurture the vulnerable, whether the vulnerable are gay, straight, tall, short, or whatever?
Anti-bullying clubs—ABCs—surely every school—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Secular, Sikh, or whatever—could promote these. The Canadian Red Cross has a general anti-bullying program readily available for school use. Why not ask the Red Cross for aid?
In conclusion, I am 100 percent against bullying and I am 100 percent in favour of good anti-bullying legislation—that's why I think Bill 18 needs revision.
Bill 18 is supposed to be about stopping the bully. This means that the most important thing right now is not to use Bill 18 to promote LGBTQ political agenda in our schools. Rather, the most important thing right now is to use Bill 18 to promote a safe and caring school environment for all youth who are targeted by bullies.
All forms of bullying are wrong. Therefore, we should craft anti-bullying legislation that clearly protects not just some victims of bullying but all victims of bullying, without creating new victims.
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College.The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence. )
22 comments:
Hi Dr. V., and thanks for yet another article - I appreciate and enjoy your blog/column!
That said, I respectfully disagree on all three of your points, and further find that they seem to echo some common misinformation about the wording of Bill 18 and its implications.
For the record, the bill can be found in its entirety here: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/40-2/b018e.php
I'll go through point by point:
1. Bill 18 only singles out LGBTQ students in the sense that it specifically mentions gay-straight alliances as an example of the type of anti-bullying group that students must be allowed to form. Yes, Nancy Allen was talking about issues of sexuality in the meeting referred to, but this bill is certainly not limited to issues of sexuality! Other things mentioned include gender, race, and disability. It is not the bill itself that singles out sexuality, as much as those opposed to the bill.
2. There IS such thing as accidental bullying - not every bully is conscious that they're being a total jerk! I can look back on my own behaviour in elementary school and realize that I was terrible to people who were smaller than me (which was everyone), but I thought that I was a good person. I wish that there had been someone at that time to help me see that my behaviour was inappropriate, or at least that it was hurting other people (because sometimes even being truthful can be hurtful, and even inappropriate). This is what the bill is picking up on when it says that bullying is behaviour that "is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, distress, or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem..." etc.
This definition of bullying does not leave out unintentional bullying. Believing you're in the right doesn't make bullying acceptable, and telling someone what you believe to be the truth in a way that it hurts them, intentionally or not, is inappropriate. The most hurtful bullying is that which is based on truth, or perceptions of truth: one child telling the whole playground that Billy's father is an alcoholic hardly makes for a comfortable existence for Billy, even if it is true. Telling everyone that Amy is morbidly obese may be clinically accurate, and surely obesity is a problem we should all be concerned about, but doing so is certainly very mean. We know better than that.
We also know better than to out someone, stereotype them, or morally shame them in public. Stigma comes with breaking social norms, especially ones attached to laws, but we know very well that it's harmful to attach a social wrong to a person as a defining attribute. Even if we believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, moralising at people (especially in a public place, like a school) introduces or increases social stigma. We know better than to do that.
(Continued...)
(Part 2)
Now, this need not shut down all debate! It's possible to talk about issues without stigmatizing people or singling anyone out. You can talk about homosexuality without criticizing anyone just as much as you can talk about Dr. Morgentaller without calling him a "murderer" - even if you believe him to be one. It's called tact, something that is often missing in debates. That's not to say that this law couldn't be invoked by someone who felt mistreated by what was intended to be a general and genuine discussion; but then the issue is whether or not the discussion was indeed genuine and general, or rather, whether it was "intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, etc."
There is room for interpretation of this law, which is absolutely necessary when dealing with people: if we lock down the definition of bullying so tightly that it cannot possibly be misinterpreted, we'll be leaving people vulnerable because there will always be loopholes. Allowing room for interpretation allows us to approach a situation as rational human beings.
So, in short, yes the definition is vague - but not in any way that actually threatens free speech. We're still free to debate issues, we just need to be sensitive to others when doing so. If only this logic were present in the House of Commons!
3. Does religious freedom include the freedom (or right) to censor others? This bill says absolutely nothing about inhibiting the beliefs, practices, or sacred spaces of any religion; only that others be allowed the ability to safely talk about bullying in conjunction with whatever issue is at the root of said bullying.
A school, even a private one, is never really private. As long as school attendance is mandatory by law (which I believe it is), the state (which mandates school attendance) is somewhat responsible for what occurs in schools. Further, as they are citizens, the state is responsible for the welfare of students. The idea that a "private" school can do whatever it likes because it's "private" is simply incorrect. There will always be limitations on rights, even religious rights - and that's a good thing. (Insert comparison to other "religious rights" that we currently disagree with, such as polygamy or Sharia law: the religious status of an action does not trump the safety or rights of those affected by that action)
(Continued...)
(Part 3)
But what's more, this law concerns student-led groups. If students, as members of a school, object to a certain doctrine (which is not even necessarily the case with a gay-straight alliance), stopping them from promoting their own view or understanding of that doctrine (or even their opposition to it) is the same type of censorship that was argued against in point 2 above. Now, in most cases a member of an organization who is vocally opposed to their own organization would either leave the organization or be kicked out; but students are legally mandated to attend, and in the case of private schools, must also be required by their parents to do so at that particular school. So we're left with a catch-22: we don't want them to exercise their own free speech within our institution, but we can't kick them out (or let them leave) either.
This is framed as a clash of rights: Christian religious rights vs. the free speech rights of children. But again, is it a religious right to control what people in your school are able to talk about? Is it a religious right to black-list certain student groups, to take down their promotional posters or prohibit them from making themselves known? Is it a religious right to control the ideas that your children come into contact with (if that were even possible)? I fail to see how this prohibits or inhibits any religious thought, discussion, or activity of any kind; it only grants others the safety to hold their own views in our midst.
You say "What about granting special legal favours to other student clubs?" The bill does that, quite explicitly; it only uses the term "gay-straight alliance" as an example, but does not privilege it over any other student-led anti-bullying group. Perhaps they should not have used that example, but it's clear that they expected the law to be interpreted in ways that excluded such groups and wanted to head that off.
4. I know you only had three points, but I want to take a moment to address something that's been implied (sometimes subtly, sometimes not) by many of the responses to Bill 18 - the notion that pastors, teachers, or other Christian leaders will be charged with a crime if they preach or teach about homosexuality in any sort of seemingly negative light. We must remember that this bill does not make it illegal to do so, no matter how strong we read its stance to be. This bill is merely updating a law that requires schools to have an anti-bullying policy. The law outlines what constitutes bullying for the sake of the school's policy, and does not allow the school to limit student-led attempts to combat bullying. This bill in no way allows for someone to be charged with a crime because of what they say about homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. At worst, a teacher who talks about homosexuals in a negative and insensitive matter will be on violation of their school's own anti-bullying policy, and will be subject to internal discipline. In that sense, this bill is absolutely nothing new: teachers and pastors should always be accountable to others for what they say, and as I said above, we already know better than to speak insensitively about matters that we know (or ought to know) can be very hurtful.
As always Dr. V, I appreciate any feedback and challenge to my reasoning :)
Jeff
Thanks for your comments, Jeff. I will ponder before I reply.
[Note: What follows is a comment from Carson Rogers, posted on my public Facebook page, June 27, 2013. I'm copying Carson's post to Apologia, so I won't have to repeat my replies to the concerns Carson raises.]
From Carson Rogers:
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/40-2/pdf/b018.pdf
Above is the bill in question. You raise some very good points but while reading threw this version of the bill it seems some of your arguments do not apply. Your first argument about creating a divisiveness is good. But the Bill does not really make a point of putting LGBT teens above any others. It seems to encompass all students who are bullied fairly in section 1.8 where they say they want to promote the following, (i) gender equity,(ii) antiracism,(iii) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people who are disabled by barriers, or (iv) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities; and (b) use the name "gay-straight alliance" or any other name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils. To me none of that really promotes a special status to LGBT youth and denies rights to other students, it seems to blanket cover a lot of issues straight and homosexual teens face. It also does not force the gay straight alliance on any school, it simply promotes the use of one to promote equality, It makes no mention of schools being forced to have these programs that may go against there belief systems. Your second argument states that Frees speech will be attacked due to a very grey are defintion of bullying saying "bullying occurs when someone's comments should be known to cause "distress" to another's "feelings". I could not find that use for a definiton of bullying anywhere in the Bill. This edition of the bill outlined bullying as "(a) is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property; or (b) is intended to create, or should be known to create, a negative school environment for another person." To me those all seem fairly legitimate violations of someones rights, and none of those acts are considered free speech. Nothing in the bill makes me think that free speech or good conversation wlil be punished. If you truly support anti-bullying measures I really think this is actually good start for anti-bullying and In this version of the bill I failed to see a lot of the problems you pointed out. This is a good bill trying to protect youth (Which not much is done for the youth these days so I am for anything that empowers them) so i hope people actually take a look at the actual bill and make an unbiased decision, regardless of your view on homosexualtiy.
Hi Carson,
Thanks for the link to the PDF version of Bill 18. I'll reply to your comments in piecemeal fashion.
Carson wrote:
Above is the bill in question. You raise some very good points but while reading threw this version of the bill it seems some of your arguments do not apply. Your first argument about creating a divisiveness is good. But the Bill does not really make a point of putting LGBT teens above any others. It seems to encompass all students who are bullied fairly in section 1.8 where they say they want to promote the following, (i) gender equity,(ii) antiracism,(iii) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people who are disabled by barriers, or (iv) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities; and (b) use the name "gay-straight alliance" or any other name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils. To me none of that really promotes a special status to LGBT youth and denies rights to other students, it seems to blanket cover a lot of issues straight and homosexual teens face.
Hendrik's reply:
I'm glad that you think my argument about creating divisiveness is good. By explicitly including some categories and not explicitly including others, Bill 18 does in fact set itself up to be understood divisively. That's significant. Bill 18's creation of divisiveness is a huge problem, and it's good that you see this. With Don Hutchinson (the lawyer I quote in part 1 of my column), I'm concerned that this divisiveness may increase bullying. (See too the article by Robb Nash, below.)
I'll add a couple of comments about the divisive influence of LGBTQ political correctness. (Note: Whether or not you agree with my view about the divisive influence of LGBTQ political correctness, our agreement about the overall divisiveness of Bill 18 should still stand.) Notice that Section 41(1.8) doesn't explicitly include the major categories that account for the vast majority of children actually targeted by bullies: compare the list from Yau & O'Reilly with Bill 18's list. Yau & O'Reilly list body shape, school grades, cultural background, language, religion, and income. Bill 18's section 41(1.8) explicitly lists gender, race, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, plus mentions gay-straight alliances. The persons covered by Bill 18's categories are important, to be sure, and should be protected from bullies. But now consider the fact that Bill 18's list accounts for a small minority of the children who have the characteristics actually targeted by bullies, plus keep in mind that, of what's explicitly mentioned in Bill 18, LGBTQ concerns figure quite prominently. Now couple this with Minister of Education Nancy Allan's comment about the safety of LGBTQ youth being "most important" (and couple this with the broader goal of the Manitoba Teachers' Society to have all education curricula reflect LGBTQ interests). I think it's reasonable to be at least a wee bit suspicious that Bill 18 is part of a political agenda that (wittingly or not) elevates the importance of LGBTQ political correctness. It's certainly not unreasonable, given the evidence of disparate proportions of emphasis in the proposed legislation vis-à-vis the evidence from Yau & O'Reilly. In other words, I think that, for the sake of LGBTQ kids, we need to be careful of possible negative reactions to the LGBTQ political maneuvering by adults. We need to ensure that Bill 18 doesn't increase divisiveness and thereby inadvertently fuel further bullying. As it's written, Bill 18 does threaten to increase divisiveness and thereby also threatens to fuel further bullying.
(Continued below.)
Carson wrote:
It also does not force the gay straight alliance on any school, it simply promotes the use of one to promote equality, It makes no mention of schools being forced to have these programs that may go against there belief systems.
Hendrik's reply:
About gay-straight alliance (GSA) clubs, notice that the above section of Bill 18 (in a part you don't quote) requires a GSA club if it's asked for, i.e., notice the words "must accommodate pupils who want…" This is problematic for two reasons (I focused on the second in my column): (1) it puts school authority in the students' hands instead of the school's, which is a concern for parents and teachers who want some significant say in a school's running; and (2) in the case of some private schools it will require ("must accommodate") the allowance of a group that may promote what contradicts the school's moral/religious principles, which is a concern for religious freedom rights. It's interesting to note that several Christian schools already have GSA clubs without Bill 18 forcing them in this. I think, then, that it's better not to force GSAs for the sake of respect for religious freedom. And, for the sake of protection of all youth—including LGBTQ youth—I think that it's better to require the more general ABCs (anti-bullying clubs) instead.
Carson wrote:
Your second argument states that Frees speech will be attacked due to a very grey are defintion of bullying saying "bullying occurs when someone's comments should be known to cause "distress" to another's "feelings". I could not find that use for a definiton of bullying anywhere in the Bill. This edition of the bill outlined bullying as "(a) is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property; or (b) is intended to create, or should be known to create, a negative school environment for another person." To me those all seem fairly legitimate violations of someones rights, and none of those acts are considered free speech. Nothing in the bill makes me think that free speech or good conversation wlil be punished.
Hendrik's reply:
About my concern for freedom of speech, notice that the propositional content of my claim—that "bullying occurs when someone's comments should be known to cause 'distress' to another's 'feelings'"—is in fact contained in the portion of Bill 18 you've quoted. See section 1.2(1)(a): "In this Act, 'bullying' is behaviour that…should be known to cause…distress…to another's…feelings."
(Note: I've distilled the disjuncts from the larger disjunction ["or" sentence] from the section you cite. For a disjunction to be true, only at least one of its disjuncts needs to be true. This is elementary logic. I'm pretty sure that I taught you this bit about disjunctions in the philosophy course you took with me, since I usually do an introductory lecture on logic in all my courses.)
(Continued below.)
Carson wrote:
If you truly support anti-bullying measures I really think this is actually good start for anti-bullying and In this version of the bill I failed to see a lot of the problems you pointed out. This is a good bill trying to protect youth (Which not much is done for the youth these days so I am for anything that empowers them) so i hope people actually take a look at the actual bill and make an unbiased decision, regardless of your view on homosexualtiy.
Hendrik's reply:
Please know that I am 100 percent in favour of protecting ALL youth from bullying, regardless of what my (or anyone's) views are concerning homosexuality (etc.). I believe that if we are making anti-bullying legislation then we should craft it carefully, so we actually protect all students from bullies without creating new victims. That's why I have set out the concerns about Bill 18.
I hope that my replies are helpful. Best regards.
P.S. Regarding your second sentence, I think "reading threw" makes the act of reading much more athletic than it actually is. "Reading through" would be more appropriate. :-) More proof-reading would be appropriate, too. :-)
P.P.S. Here is a link to Robb Nash on Bill 18, for further reading (about divisiveness).
Jeff Wheeldon, I'll respond to your comments in piecemeal fashion.
Jeff wrote:
Hi Dr. V., and thanks for yet another article - I appreciate and enjoy your blog/column!
That said, I respectfully disagree on all three of your points, and further find that they seem to echo some common misinformation about the wording of Bill 18 and its implications.
For the record, the bill can be found in its entirety here: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/40-2/b018e.php
I'll go through point by point:
Hendrik's reply:
Thanks for your comments and the link. I'll respectfully reply, point by point.
(Continued below.)
Jeff wrote:
1. Bill 18 only singles out LGBTQ students in the sense that it specifically mentions gay-straight alliances as an example of the type of anti-bullying group that students must be allowed to form. Yes, Nancy Allen was talking about issues of sexuality in the meeting referred to, but this bill is certainly not limited to issues of sexuality! Other things mentioned include gender, race, and disability. It is not the bill itself that singles out sexuality, as much as those opposed to the bill.
Hendrik's reply:
Bill 18 specifically mentions gay-straight alliances, as you note, but, as you fail to note, Bill 18 also specifically mentions (and here I quote from Bill 18) "all sexual orientations and gender identities." Surely, given our culture's background assumption of hetero-normativity, this puts LGBTQ students into focus.
Yes, as you say, "this bill is certainly not limited to issues of sexuality," but, as I've argued in my column, my concern has to do with emphasis—disproportionate emphasis—and the divisiveness that may very well result.
To save me some time (and energy) in re-explaining my column's concerns regarding emphasis, permit me to repeat what I said to Carson Rogers (above):
"By explicitly including some categories and not explicitly including others, Bill 18 does in fact set itself up to be understood divisively. That's significant. Bill 18's creation of divisiveness is a huge problem…. With Don Hutchinson (the lawyer I quote in part 1 of my column), I'm concerned that this divisiveness may increase bullying. (See too the article by Robb Nash, below.)
"I'll add a couple of comments about the divisive influence of LGBTQ political correctness…. Notice that Section 41(1.8) doesn't explicitly include the major categories that account for the vast majority of children actually targeted by bullies: compare the list from Yau & O'Reilly with Bill 18's list. Yau & O'Reilly list body shape, school grades, cultural background, language, religion, and income. Bill 18's section 41(1.8) explicitly lists gender, race, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, plus mentions gay-straight alliances. The persons covered by Bill 18's categories are important, to be sure, and should be protected from bullies. But now consider the fact that Bill 18's list accounts for a small minority of the children who have the characteristics actually targeted by bullies, plus keep in mind that, of what's explicitly mentioned in Bill 18, LGBTQ concerns figure quite prominently. Now couple this with Minister of Education Nancy Allan's comment about the safety of LGBTQ youth being 'most important' (and couple this with the broader goal of the Manitoba Teachers' Society to have all education curricula reflect LGBTQ interests). I think it's reasonable to be at least a wee bit suspicious that Bill 18 is part of a political agenda that (wittingly or not) elevates the importance of LGBTQ political correctness. It's certainly not unreasonable, given the evidence of disparate proportions of emphasis in the proposed legislation vis-à-vis the evidence from Yau & O'Reilly. In other words, I think that, for the sake of LGBTQ kids, we need to be careful of possible negative reactions to the LGBTQ political maneuvering by adults. We need to ensure that Bill 18 doesn't increase divisiveness and thereby inadvertently fuel further bullying. As it's written, Bill 18 does threaten to increase divisiveness and thereby also threatens to fuel further bullying."
(Continued below.)
Jeff wrote:
2. There IS such thing as accidental bullying - not every bully is conscious that they're being a total jerk! I can look back on my own behaviour in elementary school and realize that I was terrible to people who were smaller than me (which was everyone), but I thought that I was a good person. I wish that there had been someone at that time to help me see that my behaviour was inappropriate, or at least that it was hurting other people (because sometimes even being truthful can be hurtful, and even inappropriate). This is what the bill is picking up on when it says that bullying is behaviour that "is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, distress, or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem..." etc.
This definition of bullying does not leave out unintentional bullying. Believing you're in the right doesn't make bullying acceptable, and telling someone what you believe to be the truth in a way that it hurts them, intentionally or not, is inappropriate. The most hurtful bullying is that which is based on truth, or perceptions of truth: one child telling the whole playground that Billy's father is an alcoholic hardly makes for a comfortable existence for Billy, even if it is true. Telling everyone that Amy is morbidly obese may be clinically accurate, and surely obesity is a problem we should all be concerned about, but doing so is certainly very mean. We know better than that.
We also know better than to out someone, stereotype them, or morally shame them in public. Stigma comes with breaking social norms, especially ones attached to laws, but we know very well that it's harmful to attach a social wrong to a person as a defining attribute. Even if we believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, moralising at people (especially in a public place, like a school) introduces or increases social stigma. We know better than to do that.
Now, this need not shut down all debate! It's possible to talk about issues without stigmatizing people or singling anyone out. You can talk about homosexuality without criticizing anyone just as much as you can talk about Dr. Morgentaller without calling him a "murderer" - even if you believe him to be one. It's called tact, something that is often missing in debates. That's not to say that this law couldn't be invoked by someone who felt mistreated by what was intended to be a general and genuine discussion; but then the issue is whether or not the discussion was indeed genuine and general, or rather, whether it was "intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, etc."
There is room for interpretation of this law, which is absolutely necessary when dealing with people: if we lock down the definition of bullying so tightly that it cannot possibly be misinterpreted, we'll be leaving people vulnerable because there will always be loopholes. Allowing room for interpretation allows us to approach a situation as rational human beings.
So, in short, yes the definition is vague - but not in any way that actually threatens free speech. We're still free to debate issues, we just need to be sensitive to others when doing so. If only this logic were present in the House of Commons!
(Continued below.)
Hendrik's reply:
I appreciate your acknowledgment of the vagueness of Bill 18's definition of bullying and your attempt to justify the vagueness. I'll cut to the chase: I think that law should be carefully worded and clear, not ambiguous or vague. As it stands, Bill 18 is not carefully worded (it even has a typo!) and it's not clear (i.e., there's considerable ambiguity and vagueness of an inappropriate sort; see John Stackhouse's criticisms, too). This doesn't mean we must write laws that, as you say, "cannot possibly be misinterpreted." Rather, this means that via careful, clear, non-ambiguous, and non-vague language we do our best to reduce the probability that the law will be misinterpreted and misused by human beings who are rational yet prone to err and prone to lord power over others.
For further discussion of definitions, I recommend Trudy Govier's book A Practical Study of Argument, 7th ed. (Wadsworth/ Cengage, 2010). Govier's book is a widely-used university textbook for Critical Thinking courses (I use Govier's book in my Critical Thinking course).
(Continued below.)
Jeff wrote:
3. Does religious freedom include the freedom (or right) to censor others? This bill says absolutely nothing about inhibiting the beliefs, practices, or sacred spaces of any religion; only that others be allowed the ability to safely talk about bullying in conjunction with whatever issue is at the root of said bullying.
Hendrik's reply:
"This bill says absolutely nothing about inhibiting the beliefs, practices, or sacred spaces of any religion"? Explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes. The bill requires a respect for human diversity policy that "must accommodate" students who want, say, a GSA club, which could be a club that, in the case of a private religious school, promotes what contradicts the school's religious principles concerning sexual practice. And Nancy Allan has made it clear that the bill is intended to apply to all schools, including religious schools.
Jeff wrote:
A school, even a private one, is never really private. As long as school attendance is mandatory by law (which I believe it is), the state (which mandates school attendance) is somewhat responsible for what occurs in schools. Further, as they are citizens, the state is responsible for the welfare of students. The idea that a "private" school can do whatever it likes because it's "private" is simply incorrect. There will always be limitations on rights, even religious rights - and that's a good thing. (Insert comparison to other "religious rights" that we currently disagree with, such as polygamy or Sharia law: the religious status of an action does not trump the safety or rights of those affected by that action)
Hendrik's reply:
Of course there are limitations on rights. But in a multicultural society this means that it's important to strive for a balance that's fair to all. It seems to me that if our goal is to stop bullies via new legislation, which is what Bill 18 is supposed to be about, then we should proceed in such a way that the new legislation respects existing human rights—personal safety rights and religious rights. As I've argued, the legislative requirement of a general anti-bullying club respects existing rights, whereas the legislative requirement of gay-straight alliance clubs, in the case of some private schools, doesn't.
(Continued below.)
Jeff wrote:
But what's more, this law concerns student-led groups. If students, as members of a school, object to a certain doctrine (which is not even necessarily the case with a gay-straight alliance), stopping them from promoting their own view or understanding of that doctrine (or even their opposition to it) is the same type of censorship that was argued against in point 2 above. Now, in most cases a member of an organization who is vocally opposed to their own organization would either leave the organization or be kicked out; but students are legally mandated to attend, and in the case of private schools, must also be required by their parents to do so at that particular school. So we're left with a catch-22: we don't want them to exercise their own free speech within our institution, but we can't kick them out (or let them leave) either.
This is framed as a clash of rights: Christian religious rights vs. the free speech rights of children. But again, is it a religious right to control what people in your school are able to talk about? Is it a religious right to black-list certain student groups, to take down their promotional posters or prohibit them from making themselves known? Is it a religious right to control the ideas that your children come into contact with (if that were even possible)? I fail to see how this prohibits or inhibits any religious thought, discussion, or activity of any kind; it only grants others the safety to hold their own views in our midst.
You say "What about granting special legal favours to other student clubs?" The bill does that, quite explicitly; it only uses the term "gay-straight alliance" as an example, but does not privilege it over any other student-led anti-bullying group. Perhaps they should not have used that example, but it's clear that they expected the law to be interpreted in ways that excluded such groups and wanted to head that off.
Hendrik's reply:
If we are looking to stop bullying via legislation, then, if we can, we should craft legislation that stops bullies while also respecting existing legal rights. A general anti-bullying club would do that. An ABC would protect all children, allow freedom of speech, and protect religious rights (whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.). This doesn't rule out GSAs; it simply doesn't put them on a legislative pedestal. So I disagree with you: to explicitly mention GSAs in law (even merely as an example) does privilege such a group. I suspect that there would be all sorts of concern about privileging if Bill 18 explicitly mentioned Ex-Gay-Straight Alliance clubs.
(Continued below.)
Jeff wrote:
4. I know you only had three points, but I want to take a moment to address something that's been implied (sometimes subtly, sometimes not) by many of the responses to Bill 18 - the notion that pastors, teachers, or other Christian leaders will be charged with a crime if they preach or teach about homosexuality in any sort of seemingly negative light. We must remember that this bill does not make it illegal to do so, no matter how strong we read its stance to be. This bill is merely updating a law that requires schools to have an anti-bullying policy. The law outlines what constitutes bullying for the sake of the school's policy, and does not allow the school to limit student-led attempts to combat bullying. This bill in no way allows for someone to be charged with a crime because of what they say about homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. At worst, a teacher who talks about homosexuals in a negative and insensitive matter will be on violation of their school's own anti-bullying policy, and will be subject to internal discipline. In that sense, this bill is absolutely nothing new: teachers and pastors should always be accountable to others for what they say, and as I said above, we already know better than to speak insensitively about matters that we know (or ought to know) can be very hurtful.
As always Dr. V, I appreciate any feedback and challenge to my reasoning :)
Jeff
Hendrik's reply:
Re: "We must remember that this bill does not make it illegal to [speak negatively about homosexuality], no matter how strong we read its stance to be." No matter how strong we read its stance to be? Surely your claim is false if we read Bill 18's stance strongly in terms of my argument about Bill 18's threat to freedom of speech.
As I've pointed out, I believe that anti-bullying legislation is important and I believe it's important to ensure that we craft anti-bullying legislation that does the work it's supposed to do: i.e., clearly protect not just some victims of bullying but all victims of bullying, without creating new victims of bullying. Your criticisms haven't persuaded me. I still think that Bill 18 has the problems that I've outlined in my column: i.e., Bill 18 threatens to increase divisiveness and bullying, it threatens freedom of speech, and it threatens (in some cases) religious freedom.
With all due respect, Jeff, I think that your embrace of vagueness in the law's wording not only is quite mistaken but also guts your assurances that the bill will be appropriately understood and wielded by those in power.
I hope that my replies are helpful.
Best regards.
Thanks for your replies Dr. V. It's taken me a while (I've been moving!), but I have a few responses (one at a time).
Dr. V wrote:
Bill 18 specifically mentions gay-straight alliances, as you note, but, as you fail to note, Bill 18 also specifically mentions (and here I quote from Bill 18) "all sexual orientations and gender identities." Surely, given our culture's background assumption of hetero-normativity, this puts LGBTQ students into focus.
Yes, as you say, "this bill is certainly not limited to issues of sexuality," but, as I've argued in my column, my concern has to do with emphasis—disproportionate emphasis—and the divisiveness that may very well result.
Jeff's reply:
I don't see any particular emphasis on issues of sexuality in the bill. Perhaps if we read Nancy Allen's comments in other contexts alongside this bill, we might see an emphasis on sexuality - but her comments elsewhere probably emphasize the issue of sexuality because it is divisive.
There was a time when laws against racial segregation (or slavery!) were divisive. When treating women as "persons" was divisive. Thank God someone had the guts to be divisive. A history of heteronormativity should not prohibit us from merely including issues of sexuality in our lists of things that people should not be bullied about.
You mention that there are other things that are not included, and that this excludes some from the protection of the bill. Those included in this bill are consistent with those included in legislation against discrimination. Yes, some are left out of the bill, but that doesn't mean that they should be left out of a school's anti-bullying plan; the law only mandates that we not discriminate against certain groups when we fight bullying; it does not mandate that we leave anyone out, but makes sure that we include people that some of us have reasons for excluding.
Hendrik's reply:
"This bill says absolutely nothing about inhibiting the beliefs, practices, or sacred spaces of any religion"? Explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes. The bill requires a respect for human diversity policy that "must accommodate" students who want, say, a GSA club, which could be a club that, in the case of a private religious school, promotes what contradicts the school's religious principles concerning sexual practice. And Nancy Allan has made it clear that the bill is intended to apply to all schools, including religious schools.
Jeff's reply:
How is this anything but censorship? Can a school really control what its students think about or talk about? This in no way requires the school itself to promote GSAs, but only that GSAs be allowed to promote themselves on the premises because they would be a group led by students of that school. It's not giving some outside group with an agenda unlimited access to the school's space and resources; it's only requiring that students be allowed the freedom to talk about and promote causes and issues they care about, without censorship. That's a huge difference. So again, I ask, is freedom of religion the freedom to censor or control the thoughts of our children? Because that seems to be a core issue here that nobody's talking about.
Hendrik's reply:
If we are looking to stop bullying via legislation, then, if we can, we should craft legislation that stops bullies while also respecting existing legal rights. A general anti-bullying club would do that. An ABC would protect all children, allow freedom of speech, and protect religious rights (whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.). This doesn't rule out GSAs; it simply doesn't put them on a legislative pedestal. So I disagree with you: to explicitly mention GSAs in law (even merely as an example) does privilege such a group. I suspect that there would be all sorts of concern about privileging if Bill 18 explicitly mentioned Ex-Gay-Straight Alliance clubs.
Jeff's reply:
Again, are we reading the bill, or are we reading a suspected trajectory of future legislation? The biggest problem with Southland's response to the bill is that it's largely a conspiracy theory, and I just don't buy it. Why should we assume that an Ex-Gay Alliance wouldn't be allowed? I don't agree that GSAs are privileged by being mentioned (again, I think they're mentioned because of a lack of privilege, i.e., if they weren't mentioned specifically they would probably be automatically excluded by many interpreters), but perhaps that example should have been omitted.
Regardless, the worst thing we can be in this situation is insecure, and that's exactly how we Christians are coming off when we start talking about this bill in light of our suspicions, instead of taking it as it is. As it is, I see nothing threatening to religious rights or viewpoints in it.
I should say that I completely agree that ABCs would be a great thing! In fact, they already exist: this legislation only updates existing legislation that requires all schools to have anti-bullying policies in place. This bill exists to make sure that certain issues are not excluded from those policies, as doing so would be discrimination. It mentions student-led anti-bullying clubs because, thankfully, they now exist (and probably didn't when the original legislation passed) - and GSAs have been very successful as anti-bullying clubs. That doesn't mean that GSAs will become the only ABCs, but only that we can't exclude them on principle, as that would be discriminatory.
Hendrik's reply:
Re: "We must remember that this bill does not make it illegal to [speak negatively about homosexuality], no matter how strong we read its stance to be." No matter how strong we read its stance to be? Surely your claim is false if we read Bill 18's stance strongly in terms of my argument about Bill 18's threat to freedom of speech.
Jeff's reply:
I'm sorry Dr. V, but I just don't find your argument about freedom of speech convincing. I think what you're arguing for is actually the ability to censor others. If we all have the freedom of speech, then we all have the ability to challenge the speech of others - and our opinions can, and must, be both challenged and accountable.
There are people who still hold to racist notions, but when they do so in tactful ways (as much as that is possible), though they may be deemed controversial, they break no laws (I think of a Waterloo professor who published a booklet a few years ago about the characteristics of "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" races - he's still teaching). I'm not at all concerned about the limitation of religious speech, so long as that speech remains respectful of others. I think we're capable of having discussions about homosexuality in respectful ways, and I think that a GSA is a place where such discussions can take place.
Hendrik's reply:
With all due respect, Jeff, I think that your embrace of vagueness in the law's wording not only is quite mistaken but also guts your assurances that the bill will be appropriately understood and wielded by those in power.
Jeff's reply:
I have no illusions that every law will be misapplied and misinterpreted by those in power. In this case, perhaps I'm less concerned about having the upper hand when the inevitable misapplication of power occurs. As a straight white Christian male, I've always had the upper hand; if there's any chance that legislation will end up harming someone, I'd rather it be me than someone else - and I think that Christ demands no less of me.
Does that mean that the legislation must pass as it is currently worded? By no means! Only that the objections to it do not necessarily stand, and that I'd rather have imperfect legislation that removes some of my own privilege than a lack of legislation that allows others to be harmed. Perhaps I don't have enough faith in the ability to produce perfect legislation, but that's where I'm at: this is good enough to serve its intended purpose. Perhaps we'll get "religion" into the next update.
Thanks for your thoughts, as always :)
Jeff
Jeff,
I suspect that a personal face-to-face conversation would be more helpful than what's going on here. Maybe when you get settled into your new house, I'll invite myself over for a visit! :-)
In the meantime, I'll reply to some of the comments you've left, with the hope that what I write is helpful. At the very least, what I write should help us achieve clarity about where we differ.
You wrote: "I don't see any particular emphasis on issues of sexuality in the bill." All I can say is: You are rattling my chain here, right? If not, please reread what I've written.
You point out that laws against racial segregation and against treating women as full persons were at one time divisive (to which you said "thank God," and to which I say "Amen"), and you seem to suggest, via an implicit analogy, that the divisiveness over sexuality (understood by comments made by Nancy Allan) somehow favours Bill 18. I think that the suggested/ implied analogy is faulty. (I suspect that the analogy is inadvertent and half-baked, but it does seem to lurk in the background.) The concern with racial segregation and women's lack of rights was that the old laws were divisive and so should be changed (again: "Thank God someone had the guts to be divisive," you wrote; to which I say "Amen"). My concern with Bill 18, however, is that the NEW proposed law (without revisions) is divisive and so should be changed. In other words, in the case of racial segregation and women's lack of rights, the old laws went against treating people equally, but in the case of bullying, the new law goes against treating people equally. At least this last bit is what I'm arguing for here—and I'd like my readers to remain clear on this.
You acknowledged in a previous comment that the wording of the law is vague, yet you go on to inject the wording with specific meaning. This is called having one's philosophical cake and eating it too. :-)
Re: Censorship. Your how-is-this-anything-but-censorship charge is off target. As I've pointed out, the bill requires a respect for human diversity policy that "must accommodate" students who want, say, a GSA club, which could be a club that, in the case of some private religious schools, promotes what contradicts the school's religious principles concerning sexual practice. This isn't about censorship; rather, it's about who is in charge of children's education. Maybe my previous answer to Carson (above) will help: "About gay-straight alliance (GSA) clubs, notice that the above section of Bill 18…requires a GSA club if it's asked for, i.e., notice the words 'must accommodate pupils who want…' This is problematic for two reasons (I focused on the second in my column): (1) it puts school authority in the students' hands instead of the school's, which is a concern for parents and teachers who want some significant say in a school's running; and (2) in the case of some private schools it will require ('must accommodate') the allowance of a group that may promote what contradicts the school's moral/religious principles, which is a concern for religious freedom rights."
(Continued below.)
Jeff, you ask: "are we reading the bill, or are we reading a suspected trajectory of future legislation?" For the record: I am reading the bill, I am reading it very carefully, plus I am looking at logical implications of the bill's wording. Sometimes the wording of legislation justifies more than is initially intended by inadvertently adding gobs of logical grease to the intellectual tracks that lead to unintended negative consequences. As I've argued over and over again, Bill 18 is divisive (because of its very apparent legal favouritism to some groups), Bill 18 threatens freedom of speech (because its definition of bullying is way too broad), and Bill 18 threatens freedom of religion in some schools (because it requires the allowance of a GSA when an all-inclusive ABC would do the job).
Jeff, you wrote: "I have no illusions that every law will be misapplied and misinterpreted by those in power. In this case, perhaps I'm less concerned about having the upper hand when the inevitable misapplication of power occurs. As a straight white Christian male, I've always had the upper hand; if there's any chance that legislation will end up harming someone, I'd rather it be me than someone else - and I think that Christ demands no less of me."
In reply, I have two points.
First, that there is a known tendency for laws to be misapplied and misinterpreted by those in power is a very strong reason to insist on carefully worded legislation. As I and other critics have argued, Bill 18 has considerable room for improvement in its wording. Surely, then, we should make improvements to reduce the probability of misapplication and misinterpretation before the legislation is passed (instead of subsequently engaging in costly legal wrangling or, what is worse, having innocents suffer various unintended negative consequences).
(Continued below.)
Second, although I appreciate your willingness to lay down your rights for others, I think you're misframing the issue, or at least your approach is not how I'm framing the issue. For my part, my intent is to ensure that the law protects the rights of innocent others, regardless of whether or not those others are straight white Christian males (who may or may not have "always had the upper hand"). As I've indicated in my column, I'm trying to do three things. (1) I'm trying to protect children who actually have the characteristics that bullies target. LGBTQ children are a part of this group, yes, but they're only a small part of this group. There is also a vast majority of other children who have the characteristics that are actually targeted by bullies, characteristics listed by Yau and O'Reilly: body shape, school grades, cultural background, language, religion, and income. These other children are important, too, and we must ensure that no legislation inadvertently slaps them with some sort of second-class status in terms of bullying protection. (2) I'm trying to protect the freedom of speech of all persons (not merely that of straight white Christian males). Bill 18, as presently worded, threatens free speech of everyone, and not just on sexual issues. For example, see section 1.2(1)(a): "In this Act, 'bullying' is behaviour that…should be known to cause…distress…to another's…feelings." As a definition, this is plainly and simply too broad—it easily includes in its field of reference much that shouldn't be included. (Note: In case a reader doesn't understand the disjunction in Bill 18 from which I've distilled the quoted definition of bullying, please keep in mind this rule of logic: For a disjunction/ "or"-statement to be true, only at least one of its disjuncts needs to be true.) (3) I'm trying to protect the religious freedoms of all religious schools—not only schools run by Christians, but also schools run by Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. In other words, I'm trying to speak up for the many children and adults of different faiths and worldviews which Bill 18 threatens to marginalize and treat unjustly. My concern, then, is about the innocent third party, whether the third party is straight, gay, white, black, tall, short, Sikh, or whatever.
Surely, if we can make Bill 18 a better anti-bullying bill before it's passed, then we should. I believe that wisdom and love of neighbour call on us to do this.
Jeff, I'm going to have the last word here. I'm on sabbatical so I'd like to focus on other matters (and not get distracted by the comments on this column). Perhaps we can discuss these matters in person, after I've got my sabbatical projects completed. It would be fun to see your new house. :-)
Best regards,
Hendrik
Post a Comment