We called it.
When Pembina Public School (PHPS) trustees decided to allow three schools, Pembina North Community School (PNCS), Busby School and Dunstable School to continue its practice of reciting the Lord’s Prayer we knew in all likelihood the issue would be heading to court.
We knew that one way or another it would end up in court.
Or at least it would have, if PHPS trustees had decided, to continue to support the practice. And it is one they would have most likely lost and at great financial expense.
The issue began in the fall of 2015, when the PHPS received a call from a parent concerned over the practice.
After receiving the complaint they embarked on an investigation process, which included polling the parents. The majority of parents at all three schools said they were in favour of the practice. Administration of these schools also recommended the practice continue.
PHPS officials said they had the legal authority to allow prayer in school citing Section 17 of the Alberta Act which allows prayer in schools, under certain conditions, the main one being if school boards directed schools to do so.
Which they basically did when they voted 6-1 a few weeks later to instruct Busby School to resume reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
However, the decision did not please all parents and a complaint was filed against Pembina Hills Public Schools under the Alberta Human Rights Act about the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at local schools. And perhaps this individual should be commended for doing so. For the last number of years, Alberta Education has been working to become more inclusive. While proponents of school prayer might argue any child, or adult for that matter, will be it is hardly inclusive. Something trustee Jan Hoffart noted when she cast her opposing vote. Having students leave the room or being identified, as one who “doesn’t pray” was being exclusive, not inclusive, she said. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC), has also basically said in, an unanimous ruling in 2015, that public institutions cannot open with a prayer.
The ruling stated it is not the text or content of the invocation that is the issue, but the very act of prayer that violates that neutrality.
Prayer, itself is a religious practice, “even if it is said to be inclusive, it may nevertheless exclude non-believers,” the SCOC judgment said.
After the ruling a number of municipalities suspended the act of reciting a prayer before council meetings, including Calgary and Edmonton.
Not all municipalities are following Calgary and Edmonton’s lead, including both Barrhead municipalities. The question is whether continuing with tradition worth the potential consequences?
