My thoughts on Bill 18

Bill 18 is a piece of legislation that will come into effect in Manitoba this spring. The bill contains provisions that are geared towards limiting bullying in schools, which is a grand ambition, indeed, considering bullying far predates education, or even civilization itself. But bullying in schools is a problem that needs to be addressed, on that every rational person can agree. However, there is one provision in the bill that has stirred up some controversy, namely the provision that requires school administrators to allow students to set up any sort of support group that they wish, such as the gay-straight alliances that have become popular in some schools. Several religious groups in Manitoba are protesting this idea, complaining that forcing their faith-based schools to permit such gay-straight alliances encroaches on their religious freedom, as there are a few passages in the Judeo-Christian bible that can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality.

It’s hard to believe that with all the progress we’ve made in civil rights throughout the course of history that gays still have to put up with the amount of crap that they do. In Canada we like to think that we don’t have second-class citizens, but I think that gays are a prime example of how much further we still have to progress to be the inclusive society we like to think we are. We like to pat ourselves on the back because we gave gay people the right to marry each other, but the fact that we even entertain the kind of debate revolving around Bill 18, that we lend any sort of credence to these people who claim that it is their religious right to be intolerant of gays, and not simply decry and punish it as hate speech, is frankly quite shocking. I believe that this should not be a debate about religious freedom; this should be a public chastising of a bunch of people who I think are behind the times.

In my personal opinion, it’s not as though there is even any merit to the religious freedom argument. It is plain to see that it is a matter of personal feelings of homophobia, and not a case of a Christians trying to follow their dogma to the letter. For example, Timothy 2:12 states “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” So if these fundamentalists were really just trying to follow the bible to the letter as they state, obviously according to this bible verse they would oppose having female teachers in their schools. But there are female teachers and they don’t oppose it. So why pay heed to one bible verse but decide that the other is simply outdated misogyny? I think that answer should be obvious.

It would be bad enough if these people were only intolerant of gay people because they believed some obscure verses out of an outdated allegorical text to be the divine unquestionable word of god, but they don’t even have that to hide behind. For whatever reason, it seems that these people want to dislike gay people, and they’ll cling to whatever flimsy justification they can find to do it. One can’t help but think that if the people in these religious communities were more focused on biblical concepts like “love thy neighbour” instead of some archaic verse out of Leviticus about a man lying with another man, maybe we wouldn’t even need this provision in Bill 18 in the first place.

And that brings us back to the main issue. Because this wasn’t supposed to completely be about combatting homophobia, was it? It was about bullying. The religious element in these schools may be wrong to try to prevent students forming gay-straight alliances, but the question we really need to ask is, are these alliances an effective way to stop bullying? And unfortunately, the answer is no, not really.

The sad fact of the matter is, even though the bullying of gays has garnered most of the media spotlight lately, bullying takes many forms and affects many different kinds of people, and it is equally devastating for every single one of them. Whether a kid is fatter, skinnier, smarter, dumber, taller, shorter, quieter, louder, richer, or poorer than most of their peers, there’s a good chance they will incur some form of bullying. All it takes is one little thing that’s different about you – maybe you wear glasses or braces – and that’s all the other kids need to single you out. Sometimes the bullying is fleeting and isn’t all that serious, but sometimes it is chronic and devastating, and leaves kids feeling ostracized and isolated, all because they’re a little different.

And therein lies the nobility of the ideas of groups like gay-straight alliances, of giving these kids who feel outcast a place of support, a place where they can accentuate how they’re different and be proud of it, but that is also the flaw. A group of kids banding together under one banner and standing against the rest of the school may offer support to those kids, but it does nothing to bridge the gap between them and the other students. In fact, it digs the trenches even deeper. And what about the other groups of kids who are bullied? This bill isn’t just about protecting gay students from bullies, after all. So will we next have an alliance for overweight kids, short kids, and for kids who wear glasses? Is that not just tribalism? Such divisiveness hardly seems like a healthy environment for anything, never mind one fit for children to be educated in.

There’s no doubt that gay-straight alliances have offered support to kids who really needed it, but if we really want to tackle bullying at its core we need to find a way to start bringing kids together by accentuating the things they have in common, instead of just standing proudly behind their differences.

7 Comments on "My thoughts on Bill 18"

  1. Willie McTavish | March 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm |

    About your “…thoughts on Bill 18”
    While your end points were thought provoking, I do not think your attack on people who have a disagreement with the current bill is justifiable. In fact it seemed quite bully-ish.
    If there were a school where parents could send their kids that were in their line of beliefs, let’s say vegetarians, and it vegetarianism was incorporated into their curriculum, core values and outreaches. Then someone came along and was trying to force them to support and promote a meat lovers club. That wouldn’t be right. I think most would agree to that.
    So why is it a shock that some people would be upset if they feel they may be forced to accommodate a lifestyle that is in violation with their very core beliefs?
    Now in your article you use terms like, homophobia and intolerant about people who have concerns about this bill. The people I know who appose Bill 18 as it is written neither hate homosexuals nor are intolerant of them. Those words are inaccurate and a little hurtful. They have no desire to hate, persecute, discriminate or bully ANYONE who is different. But they do have the right to disagree with something, and I feel, not to be forced to accommodate a lifestyle they disagree with. We wouldn’t force P.E.T.A. to host a fur lovers club, why do it to someone else.
    In your dealing with the Bible, I can appreciate if you choose not to believe or follow it but mishandling it that way to try and prove a point is poor scholarship. The verse you quoted out of 1Timothy 2:12 about female teachers. The teaching Paul was referring to had to do with teaching in the church. And that teaching is the teaching of doctrine, not mathematics or social studies. Also the verse talks about teaching over a man, not a child. So female teachers are fine and that is why we have no problem with them. Not because we pick and choose which verses to believe. Also, the verses pertaining to homosexuality are not “archaic” as you state. There are plenty of verses that are quite clear. 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Romans 1:26-27 for those who care to look.
    If you chose not to believe that, that’s ok. It is your choice, just like I choose mine. I believe that the bill as it is currently written can force some to go against their core beliefs, and that should be important to all Manitobans.
    But remember, in your disagreement with my disagreement be careful you don’t become that which you hate, a bully.

  2. Alex Passey | March 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm |

    I don’t know what your definition of intolerance is, but in reality, that is exactly what the bible is preaching, both in Leviticus and Timothy. To any person who is not wrapped up in dogma, telling a woman she may not presume to teach a man is misogyny, no matter what the subject is. Also, telling a man that he may not lie with another man as he would a woman, is homophobia. If these are your core beliefs, you are intolerant, plain and simple. You also seem to misunderstand the word archaic. Yes, the verses are very clear in their meaning, and that meaning is archaic, meaning outdated or antiquated.

    The argument that I am being intolerant by not tolerating intolerance is disingenuous at best. You can think me a bully if you like, but the dogma you’re defending promotoes treating certain minorities as second class citizens, and worse it tries to make it seem like that is the way some all powerful being wants it to be. That is bullying on a divine scale, and if that doesn’t call for harsh words of opposition, then I don’t know what does.

  3. Willie McTavish | March 27, 2013 at 7:14 am |

    Well my understanding of the notion of intolerance was an “…incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure” and according to that I am not. I bear and endure other peoples opinions and lifestyles and decisions every day. And I might add without belittling or bullying them. I just happen to disagree with some of them, and that is my right just as it is yours. I am not arguing it is not their right to live as they see fit, but to force others who do not agree with it to help promote it as a major violation of what it means to be Canadian.
    If there were a school that was whole heartedly atheistic and that was the very core of who they were and what they taught. Then the government came in and tried to force them to host and support classes on creationism there would be a riot, and a lot of people would support it. So how much easier is it when people just want to discuss the issues without being badgered or mocked?
    Regarding being called a homophobe. The definition a phobia from my understanding is to be afraid of something. I am not afraid of homosexuality or anything it entails. Believe it or not I know and work with plenty of homosexuals and we get along fine. I do not hate them, bully them or anything along those lines. I don’t agree with sleeping together before marriage or abortions either. Does that make me fornifobic or an abortionaphobe? Would that mean anyone who does not agree with my core beliefs a Christaphobe, a fear of Jesus Christ? And if so does that make them intolerant? I am just asking for some consistency here.
    Being equal in rights does not always mean being equal in role or responsibility. It is not misogyny as you would claim, you can just ask my wife. She will tell you, it is not oppressive or bully-ish. But there is a freedom in it. But if you do not believe it I guess you cannot understand it.
    Just because something is old does not mean it is archaic. If it was it would fade away into nothingness, but the opposite is true in this case. The good news about Jesus is spreading more and more around the world. Everyone I know who becomes a Christian would tell you it is not antiquated or outdated, but brings life. But as I said, unless you believe it you cannot understand it.
    I fear we are deviating from the point though. My point is that to force someone to publicly (or privately) support and promote a view that goes directly against their core beliefs is wrong. And it is not just Christians who have a problem with it. We are not against anti-bullying legislation just the bill as it is currently written.

  4. Alex Passey | March 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |

    You are correct, all of that really did deviate from the point. I’ll move past all of that except the whole teaching creationism in an atheist school part, that I can’t let slide. Because all human learning is based on the scientific method, and creationism cannot make the claim that it is based on any such thing, so it only has a place in institutions of fate, not of learning. So you’re really not even comparing apples to oranges in that analogy, you’re comparing apples to dust in the wind.

    But yes, back to the main point, and that is that no one is trying to promote homosexuality. Allowing gay kids in schools who feel threatened and out of place in the place where they are being educated to form a support group is not promoting anything except for security and unity, both of which should be far higher on a Christian’s list of priorities for his fellow man, whether they are gay or not. You say you tolerate all these things, yet you’re more concerned with the faculties right to disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds than you are with providing gay students with a tool that may help them feel secure and safe, which is a far more basic right than something as frivilous as religion. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

  5. Willie McTavish | March 28, 2013 at 7:01 am |

    Mmmmm, I do like cake.
    Teaching creation in an atheist school was an example to show my point. There are plenty of other scenarios to show the same thing. For the record I work in science, biomedical electronics, and know all science and the scientific method. And in my opinion it takes just as much faith (if not more) to believe in evolution as is it does creationism. But, that is a discussion for a different day.
    I happen to go to a Church which is also a school, and when a new student is applying to come on board they, including the parents, meet with the principle and teacher and go through everything the school is about and then they have the choice to attend or not. It is not like the school keeps their beliefs a secret and then one day they spring the Bible and its teachings on an unsuspecting student. They know what to expect going in, no one is forcing them to attend that school. In fact there are many decidedly un-Christian students who go there and they are not bullied, the faculty would not allow it, period.
    Disapproving of the homosexual lifestyle and helping a student feel safe and secure is comparing apples to oranges. Our school has had a strict no bullying policy long before Bill 18 was even a thought in someone’s head. You can love and protect someone without agreeing with what they believe. In fact that is what love is.
    We may never see eye to eye on homosexuality, but I do not believe that is the point of this all. It is about forcing someone, an entire people group, in fact many people groups. Don’t forget it is not just Christians who have a problem with Bill 18 the way it is written. But about attempting to force these people to help promote a lifestyle they simply cannot. And having the bill the way it is written could in fact derail the entire anti-bullying push, which for many is probably desperately needed.

  6. Willie McTavish | March 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm |

    Ooops, correction I do not know ALL science and the scientific method. I know ABOUT science and the scientific method. All this cake talk is distracting me.

  7. Alex Passey | March 28, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

    Yes, it is pretty clear we’re never going to see eye to eye. I suppose my final thought will have to be that if one group is allowed to deny another group anything that they feel would make them feel safer and more secure from bullies in schools, then the whole spirit of the bill will already have been derailed.

Comments are closed.