November 19th, 2008 was a historic day for Edmonton’s Imperial Sovereign Court of the Wild Rose (ISCWR) as they had the honor of being introduced to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta.
This was the first time such an organization had been presented in the visitor’s gallery. Days before, much discussion took place between the ISCWR, their NDP hosts and the Sergeant-at-Arms about protocol and decorum with regards to how the Court would be dressed. The Sergeant-at-Arms researched Alberta Legislature and British traditions. It was determined acceptable for ISCWR to enter into the building in full drag and regalia. The crowns would have to be removed upon entering the Visitor’s gallery, as the only exceptions protocol allowed for head adornment were for religious purposes and for the Queen of England and Canada.
The Court asked for an exception to the rule, as H.M.I.S.M. Marni Gras explained. “We explained what the crown means to our organization. Then, history was made. The staffers, watching our entry on the security monitors, approached the Speaker of the House. It was then that I got special permission to wear my crown inside the Assembly chamber. It will be moment I will treasure forever.”
After their introduction, “all of the members banged on their desks in the traditional welcome of the Legislative Assembly. Many of the members of all parties waved and smiled in our direction. It was surreal, it was special, it was an honor.”
Then the Legislature got down to business and illustrated while in public, the government may appear Progressive, they are in theory still very Conservative. It’s been over ten years since the Delwin Vriend case in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Alberta’s Human Rights laws will be interpreted as protecting the GBLT community (even if the province does nothing to amend said laws).
Our society has changed over the past ten years. Yet one thing has remained consistent – the Alberta government’s refusal to write sexual orientation directly into the law.
Or as Liberal M.L.A. Kent Hehr (Calgary-Buffalo) puts it: “…they are going against what the Supreme Court told them to do. They are making a statement by saying, no, we’re not going to do this…yeah, yeah, yeah, we might have to protect these people under law, and we’re gonna do that, but tell you what…we’re not going to write this into our legislation…we’re not going to be bullied into doing this when we don’t believe it’s right. That’s essentially what the Alberta government is saying by not following the Supreme Court recommendation to write it into the Human Rights legislation. They’re basically just thumbing their noses at it.”

It’s not like it would be difficult to change the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. They could get a change through the Legislature in one day, as the Opposition would be in full support. Additionally, in some ways the government seems gay friendly. You have them granting funding for organizations like Camp fYrefly (a camp for sexual minority youth). The webpage for the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission discusses discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying it’s “read in” to the Act anyway. So what’s wrong with actually adding it to the Act?
One of the possible reasons why it’s not done: the Tories are pandering to ultra-right wing social conservative voters. NDP M.L.A. Rachel Notley (Edmonton-Strathcona) agrees, saying the government thinks that “maybe they got a base of support, a core of support in rural Alberta…who are opposed to it. And they (the government) don’t have what I would characterize as the political or ethical strength to do what I do believe the majority of them has come to understand to be the right thing.” This is despite the fact other provinces - that presumably also have social conservatives - seem to have no problem amending their respective Human Rights legislation to include sexual orientation.
Laurie Blakeman, Liberal MLA for Edmonton Centre agrees there is the concern about some social conservatives; handling them requires patience and strength in your convictions. Ms. Blakeman has dealt with people like this, and adds “there are people out there who really genuinely in their heart of hearts, deep in every fiber of their being do not believe in this (GBLT rights). They can be pretty aggressive in putting forward their point of view. So you’ve got to be equally adamant and vigilant in upholding it.”
Unfortunately, strength in doing the right thing would probably not come from the current Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, Lindsay Blackett. Not only is he a rookie cabinet minister, he’s a novice M.L.A., having been voted in just this past election. Couple that with being given what the government characterizes as a really low priority ministry and you have someone who has minimal power, and probably doesn’t know how to use it in the back halls of the Legislature.
These back halls are important because Ms. Blakeman sees the current provincial P.C. caucus as deeply divided. In public they may be one happy family, but backstage it’s divided on a number of lines – urban versus rural, big versus small business, Red Tory versus social conservative. There are 50 back benchers, some of whom are adamantly socially conservative. If the government were to amend the Act, while it would appease the Red Tories, it would give the ultra-right wing section of the party a cause to fight. Most politicians prefer the knives to come at you from the front, not the back.
While new to the position, Minister Blackett seems to have been educated in the Conservative school of deflection. Repeated questions regarding GBLT rights and the legislation has provided different answers, all essentially issued forth with the Sir Humphrey Appleby-esque non-answer answer of “we’re reviewing it”. Ms. Blakeman has asked in the Legislature if the Minister was either reviewing the Act, reviewing the Commission, reviewing their multicultural fund, or whether he’s reviewing all of the above. Ms. Blakeman said if she was going to ask another question, she’d ask “What – exactly - ARE you reviewing here?”
Both Ms. Blakeman and Mr. Hehr are unsure whether the Minister Blackett himself understands the nature of the request. In fact, recently the junior Minister stuck his foot in it with an answer that sounded like he was pitting one minority against the other – or to quote from Hansard:
Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, to assume that we are discriminating against Albertans because we haven’t gone forward with legislation assumes that there’s nothing else that’s of importance to Albertans. What about those people, those new immigrants that come to our province, that have problems with respect to their employment or where they’re planning to live? We look at the whole commission and human rights in that vein to encompass all 3.5 million Albertans, not just one group.
Ms Blakeman: That’s to play one group against another.
Ms. Blakeman found this reply troubling. Furthermore, even when Mr. Hehr offered the example of his and the Minister’s experience with discrimination (Mr. Hehr is quadriplegic, and the Minister is a person of colour), the comparison didn’t shine a light of reason. It only served to anger the Minister at Mr. Hehr for his use of such a tactic.
The average person may wonder - if the Supreme Court told Alberta it has to “read in” protection for GLBT individuals, what’s the big deal in requiring it be added to the Act?

It’s true the Supreme Court ruling forced the Alberta government to offer the services of the Human Rights commission it had previously refused to offer. They have to offer the protection services through the commission around employment, housing and access to government programs and services. If a citizen reports that she is a lesbian and has been discriminated against for housing purposes (for example) the commission must work with that citizen.
Nevertheless, there is a case for explicitly stating that sexual orientation is covered in the Act. “The argument that I have always made,” Ms. Blackman said, “if you don’t know if you are covered, how do you know to go and ask for the help? They (the government) are still discriminating against a group of people if they do not let these people know they are covered.” She is especially concerned for younger people, as they are not as familiar with the rights and freedoms they may be allowed, and often only learn through experience. If they don’t know they are explicitly protected, they may not know they can seek justice.
Mr. Hehr adds “what about the average Albertan who has not been schooled in the rights or responsibilities under the charter of rights and freedom? Or possibly just the redneck employer who says ‘I wanna get rid of this guy, let’s go see the statue’ and takes a quick look, and says ‘I can fire him because of this’. I don’t know if everyone is as keen to what the law means.” Having it in the Act reinforces it on the legal front and also shows to the world that Alberta has moved on; we are an accepting and open community that respects different ways of life.
Having sexual orientation outlined specifically in the Act is ten years overdue. Maybe after the Vriend ruling at the Canadian Supreme Court in 1998, tempers were too hot to reword the legislation. Now we’ve moved to a lukewarm condition where the Conservatives are GBLT-friendly in the everyday running of the government, and are welcoming to GBLT visitors to the Legislature, as we saw with the Edmonton Court earlier. Unfortunately, at the legal level the Conservatives are dragging their heels, and the average citizen may well wonder if we will soon see sexual orientation added to the Act.
It might be possible if the government has the courage and intelligence. Ms. Notley notes that this government has very strong hands on the levers of control right now, and really, they are underestimating the majority of Albertans on this issue. On the other hand, Ms. Blakeman doesn’t think they want to write it in. “I think there’s divisions in that caucus where there are members who genuinely don’t support this. After the series of questions I’ve asked, and Rachel has asked, and Kent has asked I think it’s pretty clear they’re not going to do anything.” She adds she doesn’t think there will be real advancement until there’s a change in government, or a larger opposition to hold the government accountable.
Time and space constraints did not allow for any rebuttal from the government, however, we will be following up with them to see if they have a reply to this article in January’s issue.