Earlier in the week Premier Notley said “… under no circumstances will we enforce or condone a sexual health curriculum that normalizes an absence of consent,” but did not provide a reference to what she took issue with in the proposed Catholic Curriculum. As was discovered after her statements, this was because there was nothing in the curriculum to have given her the impression that absence of consent was being taught.
Last Wednesday the 25th, I shared on my facebook page Jason’s Kenney’s defense of the Catholic Curriculum, and I mentioned how Notley had brought up consent, and I wished for some clarification from her on what idea of consent should be taught. I’ve since spent the better part of a week reading comments of hate for Catholic Education, and rebutting accusations that I was spreading fake news. The premier of Alberta can insinuate that Catholic’s want to teach that rape is OK, based on literally nothing, but ask her to explain her idea of ‘consent’ and suddenly, you are the bad guy.
Why is Notley’s idea of consent important? Well during the brouhaha, Notley also said “Parents have the right — and they have had the right for a very, very long time — to pull their kids from curriculum and education around sexual health. And they will continue to have that right.” I found that statement interesting, as it is clearly not true, and her own government is working on removing a parents right to know. CHAT wanted to make sure that was very clear during municipal elections. It also seems interesting that Notley brought up ‘opt-out’ while talking about ‘consent.’ Parental consent seems to be important enough to her definition to bring it up at the same time.
It is very clear that Notley and the NDP have a completely different idea of what consent means, after all, she thinks the Catholic’s idea is that it is ok to force your spouse. What does she base that on? Clearly not anything written in the proposed catholic curriculum. She also doesn’t think parental consent for 5-17 year old’s is necessary to instruct kids on things as complex as transgenderism, Eggen is planning to put that all through the curriculum, so opting out is no longer going to be an option. So how does Notley define consent? Who gets to give it? According to Eggen, the student. (IE the CHILD) Is Notley’s idea the same as Eggen’s? We are left only to speculate. Well, let’s hope it doesn’t line up with Sweden’s. After all, Sweden’s is the holy grail of tolerance and diversity. (A couple of other words that Notley needs to define her understanding of.)