Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » Bill To Protect Youth in Schools Denied Beause it Protects ALL Groups

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Bill To Protect Youth in Schools Denied Beause it Protects ALL Groups
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OLYMPIA, Wash., May 1 - A bill aimed at curtailing bullying and harassment in schools stalled out in the Legislature after Christian conservatives complained that it amounted to a gay rights measure.
   
     The bill would have require school districts to set up policies against harassment, bullying and intimidation, and would have ordered the state to develop a model policy as a guide. It also would have required districts to train employees and volunteers in the prevention of bullying.
     But many of those who lobbied against the measure claimed it amounted to censorship of their right to condemn homosexuality.

- See the rest of the article here -

Now, in the age of school shootings, and massive harassment for students all around, doesn't this strike you as terribly destructive?

If things get to the point where we are unable to place protective measures in place because it would give ALL groups and youth those protections as well, something has gone horribly wrong.

More from the article, which poiunts out that thankfully, the bill is not yet dead in the water,

 "It hasn't died yet," said Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, a Bothell Democrat who sponsored the bill at the request of Locke and Gregoire. McAuliffe said she remains optimistic since both chambers' budget proposals included some funding to support such a measure by helping schools pay for training.  
    "We (wrote) it so it did not protect any group, it protected all kids."
     With the revision, Quall expected the bill to sail through.
     "So what's the problem? That's what I'd like to know," Quall said. "In its current form there's probably not as much enthusiasm for the bill because the bill now kind of protects people's rights to be a bully as long as it is an expression of their religious convictions."

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

"If you're a bird, be an early early bird --
But if you're a worm, sleep late." - Shel Silverstein


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
morganlh85
Activist
Member # 785

Icon 1 posted      Profile for morganlh85     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It denies them their right to condemn homosexuality???

Well, don't stop there. I suppose we shouldn't deny a racist's right to condemn being a non-white person. We shouldn't deny a man's right to condemn being a woman. We shouldn't deny a skinny person's right to condemn obesity.

I hope this doesn't only sound ridiculous to me. Basically, they're saying that we should protect people from being bullied, but of course the Christians should have the right make fun of the gay kids. That's sick.


Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Right............................................................. strange how Christians are so willing to condone bullying on religious. In fact its not strange, its a hypocracy beyond parody! Even our controversial Baptist has managed to make his feelings clear about homosexuality wothout actively condemning anyone here. So it isnt much to ask that people do not insult people directly whatever their beliefs.
Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(Would that that were so. We have simply had to edit out the direct flames and condemnations because they were hurtful and violative of our guidelines.)
Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaffer
Activist
Member # 2105

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gaffer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That is a major bummer. The world is so weird.
Posts: 356 | From: Phoenix--name that plurally | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clav
Activist
Member # 678

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clav     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thought I'd add my bit to this discussion. At the Uni of Bath we have absolutely brilliant equal opportunity and safe space guidelines (which I won't go into now, but are very comprehensive), that all staff, students, clubs and societies have to adhere to. This includes meaning that no club is allowed to have, either explicitly or implicitly, any ideals that would break this.
A result of this is that the Christian Union are not allowed to be recognised as an official club (note there are still catholic, anglican, baptist, hindu etc socs with a chaplaincy centre on campus, Bath Uni Christian Union was just what this specific grop wanted to be called) since part of their manifesto was to protest against homosexuality etc. ie. a fundamentalist christian activist group, as far as I understand.
I'm not sure of my feelings on this (freedom of expression v feeling of safety, debate could go on for ages), but is the sort of thing that they are worried abut happening in the US? As far as I can tell the people still have freedom to worship as they choose (therefore religious freedom), they just can't impose views on others. And what's the prob with that? Why should people be able to intimidate others (which is surely breaking the freedom of expression for others, and also against the 'peace and love' message religions (esp. christianity) try to put themselves forward as having)?
Calvin (my posts go on too long. Sorry)

Posts: 54 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not at all, many of my posts have gone on longer than that and in much more rambling (how is anybody supposed to understand this) nature.

i suppose in ure example it would depend what "their manifesto was to protest against homosexuality" actually means. Does it mean that they will personally believe that homosexuality is wrong because we have to accept that view or is it go out and intimidate homosexuals to "protect" the community? BTW the most genuinely religious person I know (he is Christian) is completely fine with homosexuality (though not personally involved in it). Christiantiy is all about equality and tolerence so it just seems so outrageous that they will support the insulting and attacking of homosexuals.


Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ThisGuy
Activist
Member # 968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ThisGuy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
People can be very twisted and illogical creatures.

I find religion often feeds that. I know people who are caring, tolerant, and generally good people - and good Christians. (And you won't hear me say that about many pious Christians!)

But at the same time, some (not all) are seriously homophobic.

The funniest argument I ever heard was that "the anus is not designed for that". And yet he'd use his mouth to kiss people. ;p

------------------
Hersband


Posts: 915 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Etch
Activist
Member # 182

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Etch     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I believe strongly in the freedom of speech. I believe that if a kid wants to say that homosexuality is wrong then let him. Where that becomes wrong is when he is attacking someone specifically.

I have find it weird that when a liberal bashes on conservatives its ok but when conservatives bash on liberals its not. Many conservatives (not all) are not specifically attacking any one liberal, but their views in genereal. That is freedom of speech and should NOT be taken away. Just like the freedom for liberals to try and discredit conservatives should not be taken away.

If that bill is aiming at protecting kids from specific abuse against them, and not their views, then i think it needs to be passed. If it is to make it so that a kid cant express a controversial view then its wrong and needs to be revised.


Posts: 523 | From: Ashland, Oregon, US | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3