The thorny question of LGBTQ rights has long been a hotbed for controversy in this country. Though Canada recognized same-sex marriage as a right in July 2005, becoming just the fourth country in the world to do so, legal battles have raged in the ensuing years—and perhaps nowhere has the debate been more intense than in our schools.
For those in the Hanover School Division, the controversy has never been more acute than in the last few years. Throughout the summer of 2013, a very public, and at times very ugly, debate erupted in Manitoba, particularly here in the rural southeast, when the NDP government sought to pass Bill 18, which established a legal framework to deal with bullying. A key measure of the bill proposed that students should have the right to form gay/straight alliances in their schools.
This did not go over well in places like Steinbach, which found itself in the provincial (and national) spotlight. Steinbach is a predominantly Christian community, and the backlash was swift. Fiery sermons were delivered in Sunday services. Prayer vigils were held in school gymnasiums. Protestors took to the streets.
The Hanover School Division (HSD), which Niverville is part of, is headquartered in Steinbach. While parents, pastors, politicians, and prognosticators of all types made their voices heard, Hanover announced it would support and comply with Bill 18. In September, Bill 18 passed into law and the public discourse faded to a dull roar.
Flash forward three years, and that roar has once again gained volume. On April 6, a local parent appeared in front of the Hanover School Division board, opening wounds which still hadn’t healed.
“In the last number of months, my child was bullied at a Hanover School Division school because of my sexual orientation,” Michelle McHale began. “In an attempt to have the bullying stopped, I spoke with the school principal and a division superintendent. These discussions exposed discriminatory practices occurring within the division relating to sexual orientation and family status.”
McHale says she was not specifically bringing forward a bullying complaint, but rather challenging discriminatory practices which she learned about in the process of speaking to school officials about the bullying. The crux of her problem: educators in Hanover have been directed not to discuss or acknowledge sexual orientation in the classroom.
“Homosexual practices intentionally not being discussed in sex education, where heterosexual practices are discussed, is discrimination,” McHale said.
She also pointed out that different treatment of an individual or group on the basis of any protected characteristic, including homosexuality, is explicitly prohibited by the Manitoba Human Rights Code.
Two weeks later, HSD responded to McHale’s request by defending its policies and emphasizing its compliance with the standards set out in the Manitoba Provincial Physical Education/Health Curriculum. They argued that, according to provincial guidelines, sexual orientation is classified as “sensitive curricular content” that can be handled at the discretion of division officials.
“Our Sensitive Content teachers have all been instructed to answer factually when asked any questions about sexual orientation,” HSD wrote in their statement. The division gives its educators three options for dealing with such questions: (1) instructing the student to see them after class to pursue the subject, (2) referring the student to a resource teacher or counsellor, or (3) providing the following explanation: “We live in a diverse world and why a person likes or is attracted to one person and not the other is one of life’s great mysteries. We should always be respectful of every person’s human rights, diversity, and dignity.”
Finally, HSD clarified that teachers are required to inform the student’s parent or guardian that their child discussed the subject of sexual orientation with them. “Hanover School Division respects the role of the parents or guardians as the primary educators of their children,” the statement reads, “especially in the areas pertaining to family life.”
In short, Hanover’s decision was to implement no changes.
“I was disappointed,” McHale revealed in an interview conducted in May. “They kind of came out and said, ‘We feel like we’re on solid ground.’ But they didn’t acknowledge the specific requests or give rationale for why they decided not to change anything… I think one of the things that disappointed me most is that, given the turnaround time, there was no possible way they could have reviewed the research that I provided to them.”
This research included fact-based evidence about the value and importance of handling LGBTQ issues with a more open hand. One document in particular, The Every Teacher Project on LGBTQ-Inclusive Education in Canada’s K–12 Schools: Final Report, published earlier this year by The Manitoba Teachers’ Society (see link on next page), provides more than 160 pages of data gathered by leading researchers. Another key document is the 152-page Every Class in Every School: Final Report on the First National Climate Survey on Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia in Canadian Schools (also linked).
Additionally, McHale’s research shows that contacting parents and guardians in response to a request about sexual orientation or gender identity can be dangerous and irresponsible. She points to numbers which show the high rate of suicide amongst LGBTQ young people, which many researchers attribute to poor acceptance from their families and communities.
She says that other school divisions in Manitoba operate under less restrictive policies than the ones in place in Hanover, and the difference in policies between neighbouring school districts highlights the problem of discriminatory practices.
“[In other divisions,] there’s no direction to educators saying, ‘Do not discuss homosexuality in classrooms,’” says McHale. She points out that LGBTQ content in the Winnipeg School Division is integrated into the whole curriculum, including in math textbook problems. “There’s books in schools that talk about different families, people with two moms, two dads, that kind of thing.”
Community Leaders React
In our communities, opposition to these issues usually comes from a very heartfelt and sincere place, and there can be no question that the recent public discourse is, for the most part, helpful in allowing people to process their points of view.
Though many church leaders differ in how best to respond to the LGBTQ community and legislation that may favour their cause, most still conclude that the issue stands in direct conflict with core biblical principles.
“As Christian leaders, we must train fellow believers that, while we live according to the Bible, someone who is not a Christian cannot be held to those beliefs,” says Jason Kehler, youth pastor of the Fourth Avenue Bible Church in Niverville. “While we agree as Christians that these types of lifestyle choices constitute sin… this does not mean that we attack a person, but rather that we continue to love and respect them, without forcing our beliefs onto the other person.”
Kehler believes that a good, healthy debate within the Christian community is necessary and that Christians have a moral responsibility to voice their position by attending forums, contacting their MPs, and praying for government leaders. But he warns that sometimes the actions of well-meaning individuals or church groups can have a detrimental effect.
Roger Armbruster, President of Canada Awakening Ministries, holds a similar view. “The church should not be involved in trying to impose its beliefs by the law of the land on those who do not believe the same as Christians,” Armbruster says. “[We need to] demonstrate that beliefs which express themselves in loving your enemies are not in the same category as beliefs which advocate loving only those who agree with us, and demonizing them when we disagree.”
Southland Church in Steinbach, while declining to be interviewed for this article, has in the past been among the more vocal voices against LGBTQ-friendly policies. In fact, many Southland parishioners now sit on the board of the Hanover School Division.
Other leaders stand firmly in support of LGBTQ rights. Steinbach Neighbours for Community (SNC) is a community-based group of educators, pastors, and civic and church leaders formed in 2014, in the wake of the Bill 18 debate. Their goal is to generate open dialogue on LGBTQ issues and provide resources for members of that community, and their allies, who need support.
“Our goal is to [create] a safe and welcoming place,” says Val Hiebert, SNC spokesperson. “We want to help facilitate giving a voice to those who have been voiceless. We are aware of many LGBTQI [I standing for intersex] members in our community who have been deeply harmed by the nature and tone of some of the discourse in this area, and are feeling isolated. It is our desire to welcome them into our communities and our churches as full and equal members.”
McHale says that she often hears from community members who privately are very sympathetic to LGBTQ issues, but in public they are too often afraid to show their support.
“I’ve heard a lot of that lately,” McHale says. “I support you, I’d like to stand up for you, but I can’t because I have a business, or I can’t because… lots of reasons. I mean, it’s a lonely place to be… I want to be understanding of people’s comfort levels. But on the other hand, what is more important to you? What other people think, or standing beside someone who feels completely alone and completely isolated because of who they are? We know the suicide rates among the LGBTQ community are high. There’s a pain there.”
The Aftermath
In the weeks following McHale’s initial request, she has faced a wide array of responses, most of which has been positive. Through Facebook, she has received messages of support from all across the country.
There’s also been at least one death threat.
“I was surprised, and maybe naively, about the personal attacks,” says McHale. “I naively thought that the majority of the anger would be about the fact that we were trying to do this. But not personally attacking me. Even though you can think yourself logically out of that, it still impacts. The death threat was interesting. Honestly, there’s no area of our lives that this hasn’t touched.”
Hanover’s initial dismissal of McHale’s request doesn’t seem to have ended the discussion. At an HSD board meeting on May 4, 17-year-old Steinbach-area student Mika Schellenberg appealed for the division to reconsider its position.
In a CBC report, Schellenberg said, “Even after the meeting [in April], right afterwards, I thought it would be good to have a student’s perspective if the issue got turned down, and then they turned it down very quickly.”
Schellenberg was particularly concerned about the policy stating that teachers must out students to their parents. Her request garnered a standing ovation from the packed boardroom.
HSD has not yet issued a response to Schellenberg. However, they have announced that the subject will be discussed openly at a June 7 meeting of the school board, which will be open to the public.
What’s Next?
McHale suggests that public sentiment is changing, but it’s hard to evaluate how much and how fast. “It’s hard to know what kind of conversations are happening outside of social media. It’s hard to know who’s challenging whom.”
This shift in sentiment will soon be put to the test. On July 9, Steinbach will have its first Pride event. The sidewalk march for equality down three blocks of Main Street will begin at the Steinbach United Church and move toward city hall, where a rally will be held. The rally will be attended by community leaders.
Steinbach is the fourth community in Manitoba to have its own Pride event, following Winnipeg, Brandon, and Thompson.
“I think it has the potential to be huge,” McHale says. “Maybe not. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.”
