en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3013335 Comments by sebiewinks http://www.godless.biz/2011/05/03/access-to-kids/#IDComment148792683 Paul - "may" in general legislative interpretation principles means it is discretionary, not compulsory. The use of "may" in the relevant section of the legislation relates to the implementation of SRI in public schools, which the dept has interpreted as meaning "must". It would be interesting to see the legal advice they say was provided which says the Act must be interpreted in this way. As a parent who will be opting out her child, why should I be forced to choose between allowing my child to be subject to irrational nonsense which will teach her to feel guilty about being human or having her ostracised and rendered 'different' from her class mates. If parents want their children in SRI, then they can go to bloody church or whichever structure they worship in, or they should stop wanting to have their cake and eat it too - let my child undertake secular ethics instruction when the others go and learn about the flying spaghetti monster. Wed, 4 May 2011 12:51:29 +0000 http://www.godless.biz/2011/05/03/access-to-kids/#IDComment148792683