The Parkland Institute’s report on “parental rights” is heavily ideologically slanted. It repeatedly frames parental involvement as a threat to children’s well-being, assumes bad faith on the part of parents and policymakers, and cherry-picks anecdotes—often from the U.S.—while ignoring Canadian legal frameworks that balance children’s rights with parental guidance. It conflates routine educational transparency with medical care access, overstating risks to vulnerable youth. Below, we break down the report’s claims and set the record straight.

1. Claim: “‘Parental rights’ is being deployed to justify legislative changes that restrict inclusive practices…” (p. 4)

Refutation: Alberta’s amendments require parental notification and opt-in consent only for instruction mainly and explicitly about gender identity, sexual orientation, or human sexuality. Incidental references are not covered, maintaining inclusivity while respecting parental involvement.

2. Claim: “These measures… often override children’s rights and ignore the perspectives of supportive parents…” (p. 5)

Refutation: Canadian law balances children’s rights with parental guidance. Alberta’s policy aligns with this principle, ensuring parental engagement without undermining children’s rights.

3. Claim: “Conservatives generally disagree… that children may have rights independent of what their parents may decide is best for them.” (p. 7)

Refutation: This overgeneralizes. Canadian legal frameworks, including the mature minor doctrine, recognize children’s rights independent of parental decisions.

4. Claim: “Such framing of parental rights… is a clear threat to the rights of vulnerable children.” (p. 6)

Refutation: The policy actually protects children by ensuring parents are informed and involved. Presenting it as a “clear threat” ignores the benefits of parental engagement and legal safeguards.

5. Claim: “Parental opt-in for instruction on gender and sexuality… curtailing access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and youth.” (p. 8)

Refutation: Educational policies do not regulate medical care. Access to gender-affirming care is governed by healthcare policy, not school curricula.

6. Claim: “Conservative governments… moved to enshrine a conservative view of ‘parental rights’ in law.” (p. 9)

Refutation: Alberta’s changes are procedural—requiring notice and opt-in—not ideological. The policy simply formalizes parental involvement in education.

7. Claim: “Parents angered by the government overriding their right to support their children’s access to gender-affirming health care.” (p. 8)

Refutation: This conflates education with healthcare. Alberta’s educational policy does not interfere with parental involvement in medical decisions.

8. Claim: “Complaints [about school library materials] actually came from [advocacy groups]… familiar to anyone who has been following… Moms for Liberty’s attacks on books.” (p. 10)

Refutation: Advocacy group involvement doesn’t negate the legitimacy of parental concerns about content. The policy ensures parents are informed, regardless of who raises issues.

9. Claim: “The law… does not give parents the right to override their children’s rights.” (p. 11)

Refutation: True, but incomplete. Canadian law emphasizes balance. Parents still play a key role in guiding their children, especially regarding sensitive educational content.

10. Claim: “Public education… beset by moral panics and wedge issues.” (p. 12)

Refutation: Labeling legitimate parental concerns as “moral panic” is dismissive. The policy simply promotes transparency and communication between schools and families.

 

 

Bottom line: The Parkland report is ideologically driven, cherry-picks anecdotes, and overstates risks while ignoring Canadian law and the benefits of parental engagement. Alberta’s policy seeks balance, transparency, and respect for both parental and children’s rights—exactly what a fair, neutral approach should do.

References