Bill 18 and ABCs

APOLOGIA
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. )

MTS President and Bill 18

Apologia, etc.

By Hendrik van der Breggen

MTS President and Bill 18

In "The President's Column" (The Manitoba Teacher, April/May 2013, p. 4), Manitoba Teachers' Society president Paul Olson provides both a helpful and not-so-helpful look at the controversy surrounding Bill 18, the Selinger government's proposed anti-bullying legislation.

Olson is helpful in listing the concerns raised by critics of Bill 18: "The definition of bullying is too vague. The bill encroaches upon religious freedoms. It focuses on one type of bullying more than others. It puts people at risk of frivolous, vindictive accusations."

Olson is helpful in reminding us that, sadly, "Many of our kids are afraid to go to school." Olson reports that fear is rampant among students, undermining their education and well being.

Olson is helpful in reminding us that our responsibilities and obligations "exist in a hierarchy"—some are more important than others, so we must prioritize. Student safety and well being should be at the top of our hierarchy.

But Olson is also not helpful.

Olson lists the critics' concerns with Bill 18 but doesn't assess them. Are the concerns legitimate, or not? Why, or why not?

Apparently, Olson just lists the concerns to dismiss them. Olson ends his column with the following: "If someone has something in their personal values hierarchy that's more worthy of our focus than 'Our Kids are Scared,' then I'll look forward to hearing that explained at the Leg. But they'd better speak slowly and use small words, because I'm pretty sure I'll have a lot of trouble keeping up."

Olson seems to be suggesting that "Our Kids are Scared" (i.e., students are living in fear of bullies) trumps critics' concerns about Bill 18, thereby suggesting a dichotomy: Either we accept Bill 18 or students will live in fear.

But this is a false dichotomy.

Because Olson doesn't present an assessment of the critics' concerns in his column, a third option remains: Revise Bill 18 to reflect some or all of the critics' legitimate concerns so the bill does a better job of ensuring that no student lives in fear.

Surely, no critic of Bill 18 wants any student to be afraid to go to school. To suggest otherwise is uncharitable—and doesn't help.

P.S. For a look at some of the critics' concerns, see (for starters):

● Bill 18 Needs Revision (Hendrik van der Breggen)

● Bill 18 and ABCs (Hendrik van der Breggen)

● Bill 18 Perspective (Robb Nash)

● Citizens Concerned about Manitoba Bill 18 (Facebook group with 2000+ members)

● EFC Releases Analysis Critical of Manitoba's Bullying Bill (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

● Falling Short: Manitoba's Bill 18 (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

● NDP Bullying Law Is Bad Legislation (Rodney Clifton & John Long)

● Religious Leaders, Politicians, Principals Unite Against Manitoba's 'Anti-Bulling' Bill 18 (LifeSiteNews)
● Why Would Mennonites Oppose Anti-Bullying Laws? (John Stackhouse, Jr.)

Bill 18 needs revision

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 7, 2013

Bill 18 needs revision

Manitoba's government has proposed anti-bullying Bill 18: The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools). I favour anti-bullying legislation, but I think Bill 18 is deeply problematic—and needs to be revised.

Here is my summary of the problems with Bill 18.

1. Bill 18 neglects 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.) These children are important, too—and should be explicitly included in Bill 18.

2. Bill 18 labels as "bully" anyone who makes an off-the-cuff remark that causes distress or hurt feelings. This threatens to turn innocent, harmless comments into the equivalent of serious offences. Steinbach MLA Kelvin Goertzen asks (rhetorically), "If you were to tell [my 6-year-old son] that the Winnipeg Jets weren't a very good hockey team, his feelings would be hurt…but is that really bullying?" Answer: No.

3. By elevating the seriousness of innocent, harmless comments (or even minor albeit unintentionally hurtful remarks) to the same level as deliberate and truly serious offences (i.e., clear and obviously dangerous bullying), Bill 18 also threatens to trivialize the truly serious offences. Bill 18 doesn't just lift up as serious what isn't serious; it may pull down as not serious what is serious.

:-)4. Bill 18 promotes a pro-gay ideology or moral philosophy at the expense of those who hold moral or religious principles to the contrary. In effect, because moral or religious principles critical of same-sex sexual behaviour may cause distressed or hurt feelings, Bill 18 renders illegal the expression of a moral-religious position that views same-sex sexual behaviour as sinful or wrong—and in effect Bill 18 defines as bullies those who hold this view.

But, surely, it's false that all people who argue that same-sex sex is sin or wrong are bullies. Surely, too, it's unfair to arbitrate a moral-philosophical debate via legislative fiat instead of moral-philosophical argument.

5. Bill 18's requirement to allow students to form "gay-straight alliance" clubs—clubs that in the case of some private schools will endorse as a good some behaviours which contradict the school's charter statement of moral principles or religious doctrines—serves to undermine the exercise of religious freedom of those schools.

In other words, via Bill 18 religious schools are legally forced by the state to allow on the school’s campus the flourishing of an organization that promotes what the school believes should not be promoted.

Principal Bryan Schroeder, of Brandon's Christian Heritage School, puts the matter this way: “[Bill 18] really takes the power away from [religious] parents and [religious] school communities to raise up children according to the values that they want to see them raised up in." Surely, this is an encroachment by the state onto the religious freedom of its citizens—i.e., a violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please note: Religious freedom isn't merely the freedom to worship at the church of one's choice; it's also the freedom to establish communities and schools which actively abide by the religious adherents' deeply held moral principles.

Please note, too: According to psychologist Mark Yarhouse, in his book Homosexuality and the Christian, a person’s self-identity need not be constructed in terms of what Yarhouse calls the "gay script," i.e., the contemporary socio-cultural expectation that if one has same-sex attractions then the attractions constitute the core of one's personhood and thus engaging in same-sex behaviour is crucial for self-actualization. Significantly, according to Yarhouse, there are alternate scripts, i.e., scripts that don't make sexual attractions central to one's identity as a person. This means that Bill 18 would render illegal a religious school's advocacy of these alternate scripts, and thereby Bill 18 would "cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress" to—i.e., bully—same-sex attracted students who wish to reject the "gay script."

6. At this juncture, one might suggest that reverse bullying against religious schools and persons who disagree morally with same-sex sex is socially just or at least the lesser-of-two-evils, so students with same-sex attractions don't end up dead or otherwise abused because of the absence of a supportive gay-straight alliance club.

In reply, it should be acknowledged that the abuse or death of any student is a tragedy and thus we should make every reasonable effort to protect the vulnerable, including those who have same-sex attractions.

In reply, too, it should also be observed that the suggestion of a gay-straight alliance club assumes that all other reasonable means to stop bullies and assist the bullied have been exhausted. But what about the establishment of, say, an anti-bullying club?

That is, what about establishing a student organization wherein all vulnerable children are protected and the stronger children are encouraged to show leadership in the protection and nurturing of the vulnerable?

And why can't this anti-bullying club operate within the moral boundaries of the religious school?

Anti-bullying clubs—ABCs—surely every school should promote these!

In conclusion, all forms of bullying are wrong. Therefore, we should encourage our government to craft anti-bullying legislation that protects not just some victims of bullying but all victims of bullying—without creating new victims.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

FOR FURTHER READING:

1. By the Numbers: Rates and Risk Factors for Bullying: A Brief Examination of Canadian Bullying Statistics (Ottawa: The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada/Centre for Faith and Public Life, April 2012).

2. Bill 18 Perspective by Robb Nash (Steinbach Online, March 1, 2013).

3. Is being gay like race? by Hendrik van der Breggen (The Carillon, June 21,2012).