|
Canadian Supreme Court ruling:
Teaching about same-sex parenting in public schools
Sponsored link.
Quotations:
 | "The family is one of the most fundamental expressions of our
humanity, and families in all their myriad forms are entitled to
constitutional protection. Children with lesbian or gay family-members are
harmed by the deliberate exclusion of their families from the curriculum
at a time when all their other classmates are learning about their
families." Susan Ursel, lawyer for "Families in Partnership" before
the Canadian Supreme Court. 1 |
| "This [book banning] is not about intolerance. It is about 5 to 6
year old children. The appellants want to be able to teach about
homosexual families, devoid of moral content. But you can't pretend that
these books have no moral content. They do, and parents have a right to
teach their own moral code....The intention of the books is proselytizing. I'm not suggesting recruitment, but putting forward a worldview of the
morality of this kind of relationship that is inconsistent with many
people's moral perspective." John Dives, lawyer for the Surrey School
Board. 1 |
| "If any family form of which any religious group disapproves can be
excluded from the curriculum, the list of approved families may be quite
short." Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 1 |
About rights cases in North American courts:
It would seem that many decisions by the Supreme Courts of both the U.S. and
Canada relate to a conflict of rights -- as the Canadian Supreme Court wrote
in this case: an "Accommodation or Balancing
Between Competing Interests" is required. 1 For example:
| The right of a logging company to pursue its profit-making objectives
by building an access road through lands considered sacred by Native
people. |
| The right of followers of a syncretistic religion, Santeria, to kill
chickens and other small animals during their religious services, in
opposition to revulsion at the idea of animal sacrifice by many Florida
citizens. |
| Granting equal rights and protections to gays and lesbians, in opposition to those who
feel -- on religious grounds -- that homosexuals should be legally
discriminated against, and that the heterosexual majority should be given
special privileges. |
In 2002-DEC-20, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on one of these civil rights
matters. The case involved a conflict between:
| A minority of teachers, parents, and others in Surrey, BC, who wanted
positive images of same-sex committed relationships and parenting to be
taught to kindergarten children in the public schools, and |
| A large majority of Surrey parents and others who, largely for
religious reasons, wanted the children in the local public school to
isolated from discussion of same-sex family structures in the public
schools. |
Surrey is "a sprawling, rapidly growing city of 350,000 southeast of
Vancouver. Approximately one-half of [its]... residents are members of a
racial or ethnic minority." 3
Surrey is known for a high concentration of
incidences involving religious intolerance.
Book banning by the Surrey School Board:
In 1997, teacher James Chamberlain wanted to use three books in his Kindergarten and Grade One
classes as resources. They describe same-sex couples who are raising
children. The books were
"Asha's Mums," 7 "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads"
8 and
"Belinda's Bouquet." 9 The books had not
been pre-approved by the provincial Ministry of Education, so Chamberlain
had to apply to the Surrey School Board for approval to use them. "The books
feature children who have two moms or two dads. The parents from
Chamberlain's classroom read the books and made a presentation to the school
board in favor of their use. Seventeen of twenty families from Chamberlain's
classroom signed a petition which they presented to the trustees asking for
the books to be approved. The Board refused to allow the books to be used
anywhere in the District because there were parents who complained that
their religious beliefs would be offended by acknowledging in the classroom
that there are children who have same gender parents." The vote was
4 to 2. Their decision resulted in about 5,000 letters
supporting the ban, and about 1,000 in opposition. 10 In a
public opinion poll conducted by Campbell Goodell Traynor Consultants
Ltd. on behalf of school board lawyers, 61% of area adults were found to
agree that the "three proposed books dealing with same- sex couples
should not be used in kindergarten and grade 1 classrooms under any
circumstances." 14
The court case Chamberlain et al v. Surrey School Board:
Five teachers and Rosamund Elwin, author of Asha's Mums, initiated a
lawsuit. "Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics and Protestants are among those
who...filed 65 affidavits in the Supreme Court in support of the school
board’s decision. One affidavit was submitted by 32 evangelical churches. As
a parent of young children, says Surrey Alliance pastor Garry Bruce, he
wants to take the responsibility himself for teaching his children about
lifestyles. 'I don’t want to give the responsibility to the teachers'."
15
The trial judge ruled that the Board's ban
breached the School Act which required the schools to be run on "strictly
secular" and not "significantly influenced by religious
considerations". The School Board's costs, including a substantial award
to the plaintiffs, exceeded $500,000 CDN by this time. The Board successfully
appealed to the BC Court of Appeal in 1999. That court delivered an
ambiguous ruling that although
the board refused to approve the books for general classroom use, that the
books could, if available in school libraries, be used on an as-needed basis
in the professional judgment of teachers. 1
Education Minister Paul Ramsay was concerned about the harassment of gay students,
and children of gay parents, in B.C. schools. He warned the school board
trustees that he would not allow further intolerance by them. This prompted
thirty Baptist, Pentecostal and Lutheran churches in his Prince George
riding to launch a petition for his recall. They criticized him as being
"pro-gay" and "anti-family." 6
Supported by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other groups, the petitioners
appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard the case on 2002-JUN-12.
In a 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada overruled the lower
court's ruling. They decided that the need for tolerance and an understanding of diversity
outweighed the desires of the parents and school board trustees. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote, in part: "Parental
views, however important, cannot override the imperative placed upon the
British Columbia public schools to mirror the diversity of the community and
teach tolerance and understanding of difference." 11
They decided that in a
conflict between those who would marginalize and discriminate against
same-sex committed relationships, and those who would support the right of
same-sex families to coexist alongside opposite-sex families, that the school board should teach
inclusiveness and diversity. The court ruled that the school board "violated the
principles of secularism and tolerance" implicit in Section 76 of
British Columbia's School Act, which requires them to provide a "secular
education." The court argued that "Section 76 does not limit in any
way the freedom of parents and board members to adhere to a religious
doctrine that condemns homosexuality. [However, the law]... "does
prohibit the translation of such doctrine into policy decisions by the
board, to the extent that they reflect a denial of the validity of other
points of view." Chief Justice McLachlin wrote: "Instead of
proceeding on the basis of respect for all types of families, the board
proceeded on an exclusionary philosophy, acting on the concern of certain
parents about the morality of same-sex relationships, without considering
the interest of same-sex parented families and the children who belong to
them in receiving equal recognition and respect in the school
system....Freedom of religion is not diminished, but is safeguarded, by the
state's abstention from favoring or promoting any specific religious creed."
11 The court has ordered the school board to reconsider its decision.
Some has speculated that the board will review the books during 2003,
conclude that the books are simply not age-appropriate for students in
kindergarten and Grade 1, and vote to continue the ban.
Sponsored link:
Reactions by conservative Christian groups:
These groups feel that since most parents in the area are opposed to
tolerance towards, and equal recognition of, same-sex committed relationships, that their school
board should be allowed to insulate their children from information on those
relationships.
| Janet Epp Buckingham, spokesperson for the Evangelical Fellowship
of Canada, a conservative Christian group, said: "The result of the
majority decision is that if religious parents have moral objections to
material taught in schools, there is no room for them to have any
meaningful accommodation. The only accommodation the chief justice
mentions for religious parents is the option of leaving the public system
altogether. This is not an acceptable option if public schools are to be
welcoming to all." 11 |
| The Catholic Civil Rights League wrote that "the court's
reasoning fails to recognize that the allowance of such materials likewise
offends others in a pluralistic society, who have reason to expect that
their views will not be trumped by the promotion of gay parenting
relationships by gay-activist educators as normative." 11 |
| Anna Marie White, spokesperson for the Fundamentalist Christian group,
Focus on the Family Canada, said, "Once again, the rights of
parents have been steamrolled by an activist judiciary showing complete
intolerance for the views of the many Canadians with deeply held religious
convictions. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that
regardless of significant parental concern, their children will be subject
to an unwelcome and complex sexual issue." Noting that the provincial
government has recently included more parental involvement in the school
system, she said: "This decision strikes directly against that
principle. We urge the provincial government to immediately amend the
School Act to ensure that the values held by many parents that they teach
at home are not being contradicted in the classroom." 11 |
| Surrey parent Linda Rasmussen, past head of the Canadian Family
Action Coalition's B.C. chapter, and a parent in Surrey said: "I'm
very disappointed at our court system. If they start pressing this kind of
alternative family that is not considered right by Sikhs, Muslims, etc., I
don’t think parents will hesitate to move them to private schools so they
do have more say in what goes on in the classroom." 16 |
Reaction by other groups:
| John Fisher, spokesperson Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere
(EGALE) said: "The court also concluded 'tolerance is always
age-appropriate.' The Supreme Court of Canada today ruled that learning
about difference actually enhances children's education, that kids benefit
when they learn respect for those who are different." 12 |
| In a statement, Fisher wrote: "The court today has affirmed the
right of children in same-sex parented families to see themselves and
their families reflected in the school curriculum. This is an unequivocal
victory not only for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Canadians and
their families, but for all Canadians, in that it affirms the right of
children to a bias-free curriculum that teaches the values of equality,
tolerance and respect for diversity that we as a society hold so dear."
13 |
| Adrian Telford, spokesperson for Heterosexuals Exposing Paranoia
(HEP) -- a local group which was created to fight the book ban said: "It's
about the kids that have two moms or two dads and them not feeling that
they can share that. That’s always what was in my mind ... was those
little kids sitting there, and how the board never, ever thought about
that. All they thought about was the parents that were opposed to it." |
| The B.C. Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) "has called on Surrey
school trustees to work with teachers to ensure that the decision is
brought to fruition in the classroom." 16 |
| James Chamberlain, the teacher who originally brought the books before
the board, simply said that he is anxious to teach about acceptance in his
classroom. |
| Murray Warren, a Grade 3 teacher in Coquitlam and a member of the
Gay and Lesbian Educators of B.C. said that the court's decison: "...sends
a clear message to school boards across the country that every child and
family deserves to be treated with respect and equality and dignity. It
sends a clear message that families who have two moms [or] two dads,
children who have come from same-gender parent families, are just as
important as any other kinds of families." 17 |
References used:
- "Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36," Text of the
Supreme Court decision, 2002-DEC-20, at:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
- John Fisher, "Surrey hearing - Supreme Court of Canada,"
Egale, at:
http://www.galebc.org/bookbanreport.htm
- Peter Caulfield, "B.C. community condemns murder of Sikh," The
Canadian Jewish News, 1998-APR-30, at:
http://www.cjnews.com/
- Nrinder Nindy Kaur Nann, "A community divided?," The Peak,
1997-JAN-27, at:
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/
- "Denial of Parole to 'Surrey Skinheads' responsible for the
murder of a Sikh Cleric: Nirmal Singh Gill," at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Gill/
- Noel Wright, "Battling the tyrants of the mind"
online at: Committee for the Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), a Holocaust
denial group, at:
http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/
- Rosamund Elwin & Michele Paulse, "Asha's Mums," Women's Press, (2000).
Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
- Johnny Valentine, "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads," Alyson Publications
(1994).
Read reviews or order this book
- Leslea Newman, "Belinda's Bouquet," Alyson Publications, (1991).
Read reviews or try to obtain this out of
print book. Another, more popular, book by Newman is in print and is readily available: "Heather Has Two
Mommies," Alyson Publications, (10th anniversary edition, 2000-JUN).
Read reviews or order this book
- "Top Court To Hear Surrey Book Banning Case," Gay
and Lesbian Educators of B.C. (GALE-BC), at:
http://www.galebc.org/bookban.htm
- Art Moore, "Law of the land: Canada OKs pro-'gay' books for kids.
Parental views cannot override imperative of tolerance, diversity."
WorldNetDaily, 2002-DEC-28, at:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp
- "Supreme Court says B.C. school board wrong to ban same-sex books,"
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2002-DEC-20, at:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/
- Ben Thompson, "Banning Gay Books On Religious Grounds Wrong
Supreme Court Of Canada Tells School," 2002-DEC-20, Lesbian and Gay
Equality Project, at:
http://www.equality.org.za/news/
- "BC Supreme Court nixes school ban of homosexual pushing books
for kids,"
Lifestyle Daily News, 1998-DEC-17, at:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/
- Debra Fieguth , "Surrey school board taken to court over
gay-parent books. Five- and six-year-olds don’t need to hear about
same-sex parenting in classrooms, board argues." Christian Week, at:
http://www.christianweek.org/
- Sheila Reynolds, "Books split opinion," The Surrey Leader,
2002-DEC-20, at:
http://www.surreyleader.com/portals-code
- Wendy McLellan, "Court strikes down gay-book ban. Surrey School
Board wrong to exclude three tomes from classroom," Canada.com,
2002-DEC-22, at:
http://www.canada.com/
Additional references:
Copyright © 2002 by the Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2002-DEC-28
Compiler: B.A. Robinson
| |
|
Page Translator: