Ra Rint a ie bm Case Cen dis Andrew Carroll & Barbara Hubert EL magine for a minute that all blue-eyed 2 “individuals were discovered to have some horrific flaw, a base trait at the core of their beings. A flaw which permeates them entirely, so repugnant to mainstream lociety that our lawmakers, educators and decision- makers feel compelled to eradicate any and all races of these blue-eyed monsters from our ools, literature and laws. Now imagine that you are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Do you see yourself reflected in our laws, terature or educational institutions? If the Citizens Research Institute and Surrey School Board have eir way you never will. In their bid to ban same- ex literature from Surrey classrooms, these two stitutions are saying that gays, lesbians and isexuals (GLBs) are either too repugnant to icknowledge or, more disturbing, that they ouldn’t exist at all. Censorship, in its most basic form, threatens the lemocratic foundations upon which our lives are uilt. On July 31, 1997, James Chamberlain, arents, students, the author of Ashas Mums, and thers became Canada’s ambassadors for free speech d democracy by launching a landmark case with the BC Supreme Court against the banning of ree books depicting same-sex couples. This portant venture will set precedents for all school oards in BC and across Canada. The question set before our Supreme Courts is mple. Do local school boards have the authority p override statutes created by our country’s highest uthorities. The School Act says “It is the goal of a emocratic society to ensure that all its members eceive an education that enables them to become ersonally fulfilled and publicly useful...the urpose of the British Columbia school system is to nable all learners to develop their individual otential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and ttitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, emocratic and pluralistic society...” In April and May, 1997, the Surrey School oard passed motions stating that all administra- on, teaching and counselling staff be informed at resources from gay and lesbian groups such as e Gay and Lesbian Educators (GALE) were not pproved for use or distribution in the Surrey chool District. In the meeting that followed, James Chamber- in, a gay teacher working in the Surrey School District, submitted three books depicting same-sex arents, for use as part of a unit on families for indergarten and grade one students. His intention as to demonstrate the diversity of families within e context of an “age appropriate theme.” The ooks? Asha’ Mums, Belindas Bouquet and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads. Fucking iho We Want to sifice 1976 | a an Eel aie de a >mocracy rimination “When someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked into a mirror and saw nothing.” The trustees voted 4-2 for banning the books. While convincing arguments for approving the books were presented by GALE-BC, the BC Civil Liberties Association and parents from Mr. Chamberlain’s classroom, no arguments were presented for banning the books. An argument for banning the books was put forward by trustees at a subsequent meeting in an attempt to gain retroac- tive support for their decision to ban the books. They voted to send home a survey to all parents of children in the district stating that the majority of trustees felt the books were inappropriate and asked parents “Do you agree with the use of materials such as books, videos and/or presentations from the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC for classroom instruction for Kindergarten through Grade 7?” Outraged parents questioned the unnecessary costs of sending out the survey. They also felt the ~Adrienne Rich expenses were in the range of $70,000 to $80,000, but because of the Surrey School Board’s request to extend the trial, from two days asked for by the petitioners to nine days, the expenses forthe __ plaintiffs has almost doubled to $120,000. BC _ teachers’ associations and the BC Teachers’ - Federation (BCTF)—who at their last Annual General Meeting voted 655 to 10 for eliminating homophobia and heterosexism in BC public schools—donated $46,000 towards expected legal expenses. Plaintiffs have also raised money through personal donations, selling T-shirts and various fund-raising events. A GLB association located in Surrey will be holding a Valentine’s dance at the Fleetwood Community Centre to raise additional funds. The trial will consist of affidavits—no witnesses ‘will be heard in the court room. The arguments put forward by the plaintiffs will be that banning these books constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation which is contrary to the Charter of Human Rights (section 15) and contrary to freedom of expression. “The Surrey School Board doesn't have a leg to stand on” says Chamberlain, “Because their case is based on two weak argu- ments—that the books are against parents’ rights to teach their children morality and that the books are not age appropriate.” If the case is successful and the book ban is overturned, it will set a precedent for all of BC’s school boards. No longer will school board trustees be able to ban books depicting gay and lesbian parents. In the event that the court case doesn't succeed, Chamberlain plans to bring more books forward to be approved by the school board and will encour- age parents to do the same. In the meantime, James Chamberlain cannot read books portraying same sex parents in his classroom because he fears that the Surrey school board will fire him if he does. At the school where Chamberlain teaches now, there have been no complaints about his teaching skills nor about his involvement in the court case. “I’ve - only received positive support,” he says. Unfortunately, other supporters of the bid to oppose book banning by the Surrey School Board have not had the positive encouragement that Mr. Chamberlain has had. Diane Wilcott, from the Surrey District Parents’ Advisory Council, and founding member of Heterosexuals Exposing wording of the survey was biased, inaccurate and discriminatory. Shortly after, the District Parents Advisory Committee voted to urge trustees to rescind the survey, Even the BC Human Rights Commission declared the survey discriminatory as it singled out gays and lesbians as an identifiable group for discrimination. After the BC Teachers’ Federation released the results of an independent survey, conducted by MacIntyre and Mustel Reasearch, that showed 73% of parents in BC favour teaching tolerance of homosexuality, the Surrey School Board, finally, was forced to rescind their survey. And in July 1997 the first case in British Columbia's history chal- lenging a school district’s right to ban books was lodged. The case will be heard on June 29, 1998, by the BC Supreme Court. Original estimates of legal Paranoia—a group of Surrey mothers opposed to the book ban—was asked to resign because she is one of the petitioners in the court case against the Surrey School Board. A small number of vocal parents accused Wilcott of pushing a personal political agenda. When Diane resigned there was an uproar against her resignation. “I'd like to tell you Continued page two