GSAs COME UNDER SCRUTINY AT ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL
Some shocking revelations were exposed Monday at the Alberta Court of Appeal in Calgary regarding the lack of reasonable parameters governing Gay Straight Alliance clubs at Alberta schools.
Jay Cameron, a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) and the appellant in this case, revealed evidence that shows children in one GSA were taken off school grounds by an adult “facilitator” who is not a staff member at the school and doesn’t even have children attending the school.
The facilitator took children to the facilitator’s home and to other schools with GSAs, driving them in a personal vehicle without the parents’ consent or knowledge. As is mandated under the Alberta government’s Bill 24, it is against the law to inform parents of their child’s involvement in a GSA.
You don’t have to be an applicant in this case to be alarmed by such revelations.
The JCCF is appealing a ruling by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Johnna Kubik, who ruled on June 27 against granting an interim injunction that would have stayed sections of the school act prohibiting principals from using their discretion to tell parents about their child attending a GSA. They also sought to prohibit Alberta’s Minister of Education, David Eggen, from defunding or deaccrediting schools for non-compliance with GSA legislation.
Cameron also told the three Appeal Court Justices — chair Frederica Schutz, Bruce McDonald and Dawn Pentelechuk — that in another case, a 13-yearold boy who was a member of a GSA was taken off of school grounds to a GSA conference.
The boy was told that “his mother would not know if he attended a GSA conference and miss all of his classes,” said Cameron, who is representing 26 religious schools, including Christian, Sikh and Jewish schools, that object to the secrecy provisions of GSA legislation, arguing that it violates two sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Section 7, which only permits interference with a parent’s role after due process, on a case-by-case basis, and Section 2, the fundamental right to freedom of religion.
Cameron pointed out that at the off-site GSA conference, the boy said he “watched a demonstration on how to put a condom on a banana; he was given materials with a space ship shaped like a giant penis with a caption ‘explore your anus’; (and), he was given a 50-page flip book with stepby-step instructions on how to have sex, with what appears to be an older individual,” Cameron told the court packed with about 60 people inside the room and another 60 outside, where the proceedings could be followed on a screen. Court heard the boy was also given 153 condoms. Cameron said the boy did not learn about sexually transmitted infections at the conference but had to learn that information from his mother once she found the graphic materials in his room. The Crown objected to that evidence being considered in the appeal.
Later, Crown attorney Kristan McLeod told the court that parents are supposed to be told when their children are taken off of school grounds.
And therein lies the rub of this legislation. There are no controls over what materials are provided and by whom or even whether kids can leave the school without parental consent.
“It is our respectful submission that young children should not be provided with graphic flip books on how to have sex; there is a line between where that is appropriate and where it is not and right now there are no parameters,” Cameron added.
He pointed out that parents need not be religious to believe “it’s wisest not to have sex at an early age with multiple partners” and that the GSA legislation, as it stands, jeopardizes the safety of Alberta’s children, especially the most vulnerable, and undermines parents’ ability to support and protect their own children.
All of the justices repeatedly asked questions of the Crown about Eggen threatening schools with having their funding and accreditation removed, if they don’t comply with Bill 24.
Justice Kubick had ruled back in June there was no evidence a school’s funding or accreditation was at risk. Clearly, now it is.
One of the interveners in the case, lawyer Brendan MacArthurStevens, made many compelling points from the opposite side.
“Many students will have joined GSAs over the past year in reliance on the enhanced privacy protections the legislation provides,” he said on behalf of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre.
“Pulling the rug out from under these students and temporarily stripping these enhanced privacy protections away . . . would be grossly unfair to this vulnerable population,” he argued.
Prior to the passage of Bill
24, principals and teachers had discretion to withhold from, or tell information to, parents on a caseby-case basis. Parents who were likely to react negatively to their child being gay would not be told.
In short, with the way this legislation is written now and how it is being practised, kids are being put at risk keeping secrets from parents, in cases where parents should know. Surely, some middle ground with this legislation can be found that returns some discretion into the mix.