How should Jagmeet Singh best address Quebec's proposed new secularism law?

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What do others think? Should Jagmeet Singh say, "I oppose requirements to uncover one's face!"?

I think that Quebec MP's have the right as elected officials to state their views just as municipal leaders can and should speak out. Mulcair as an elected Quebec MP and public figure from both provincial and federal politics has every right to speak on any issue affecting the rights of his fellow citizens.

Singh as part of the minority affected by this type of legislation also has the moral authority to speak on an issue of fundamental rights affecting others of his faith in Quebec.

Yes krop, I know he has the right and the moral authority and whatever to speak on this. I got that. That's not what this thread is about.

The question is: SHOULD he speak against this - as the leader of a federal party?

And I asked the further question: Should Jagmeet Singh demand, today, that Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta abolish their separate Catholic schools (which are "public" schools)? Should he demand that they stop discriminating in recruitment and in hiring of teachers on the basis of religion?

That's what I think this question is about.

Oh, and should he loudly condemn the "uncovered face" rules that CAQ and the Liberals and everyone else in Québec have bought into, and which is part of this same CAQ legislation? He never said a word about that, whereas Mulcair had the nerve to do so. Should he, yes? No?

Is Jagmeet Singh in support of the Islamophobic opposition to the niqab and burka? No? Then how about saying so?

See, it's not so simple.

brookmere

Unionist wrote:
And I asked the further question: Should Jagmeet Singh demand, today, that Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta abolish their separate Catholic schools (which are "public" schools)?

First of all it is the policy of the respective provincial branches of the NDP (and Singh had been deputy leader of one of them) that these schools be continued. So I wouldn't expect Singh to have a sudden change of heart (IMHO if he really had a problem with the policy he wouldn't have taken the position of deputy leader) or express it publicy even if he did.

Second there is a big difference between supporting a historical and constitutional privilege of one religious group and further marginalizing other religious groups, who are already the targets of white supremacism, by taking away their constitutional right to equality.

And let me make it clear I don't like provincial NDP support of separate schools one bit.

 

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Unionist wrote:
And I asked the further question: Should Jagmeet Singh demand, today, that Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta abolish their separate Catholic schools (which are "public" schools)?

First of all it is the policy of the respective provincial branches of the NDP (and Singh had been deputy leader of one of them) that these schools be continued. So I wouldn't expect Singh to have a sudden change of heart (IMHO if he really had a problem with the policy he wouldn't have taken the position of deputy leader) or express it publicy even if he did.

Second there is a big difference between supporting a historical and constitutional privilege of one religious group and further marginalizing other religious groups, who are already the targets of white supremacism, by taking away their constitutional right to equality.

And let me make it clear I don't like provincial NDP support of separate schools one bit.

 

You buried the lead: your point that this is usually a constitutional mechanism where it still remains is important. Provinces that used to divide these by religion have usually moved to language where the constitution did not prevent this.

But there is a part of this driven by political necessity to be entirely truthful. In Ontario seperate school support is by affiliation of taxpayers and not based on enrolment. This is incredibly unfair. opposing it is a thrid rail because this is a lot of people who would be angry to give up the advantage they have since tehre are more people choosing seperate school support without children than those with it so those with children in seperate schools have more money to work with.

I agree the system stinks. All children should have the same support from the taxpayer. It is incredible that this difference in support -- equality -- has not already been eliminated byt the constitution. The reason is that the constitution actually protects the inequality. Thus it is institutionalized at the highest level.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree the system stinks. All children should have the same support from the taxpayer. It is incredible that this difference in support -- equality -- has not already been eliminated byt the constitution. The reason is that the constitution actually protects the inequality. Thus it is institutionalized at the highest level.

The constitution protected Catholic public schools in NL and QC as well. Both provinces requested a constitutional amendment in 1997 to eliminate that privilege and discrimination, and that was that. Nothing stops Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta from doing the same thing tomorrow (or say, Monday) - except the fact that no party has the nerve and principle to eliminate this discrimination against non-Catholic students and teachers, and by the same token to eliminate fully-public-funded religious education controlled by the Church.

Unionist

brookmere wrote:

Unionist wrote:
And I asked the further question: Should Jagmeet Singh demand, today, that Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta abolish their separate Catholic schools (which are "public" schools)?

First of all it is the policy of the respective provincial branches of the NDP (and Singh had been deputy leader of one of them) that these schools be continued. So I wouldn't expect Singh to have a sudden change of heart (IMHO if he really had a problem with the policy he wouldn't have taken the position of deputy leader) or express it publicy even if he did.

I didn't ask whether Singh would demand the abolishment of separate Catholic schools. I am perfectly aware that he will never be allowed to do so. I asked whether he should do so - because what he should do is the topic of this thread.

And the reason this issue arises is because Singh (like the other federal parties) have chosen to publicly oppose a piece of legislation which is within provincial jurisdiction. That legislation is abhorrent to people of principle. But so, surely, is a fully publicly funded separate system of schools, for one religious faith only. So now that he's talking, should he keep talking and take a stand of principle? Or would that be too risky?

lagatta4

How about feminist opposition to the niqab and the burka, which are very, very different in nature from a headscarf? They disappear women; they aren't simply a sign of modesty or piety.  No, I don't think they should be banned unless there is a legitimate security concern. The notorious Bloc ad was bigoted targeting of Muslim women, although the overwhelming majority of them don't wear it. 

However the practice comes out of deep misogyny - the same misogny one sees in some fundamentalist Jewish groups that also "disappear" women in publications. I'm sure there must be similar misogyny among fundie Christians. I'm simply not exposed to them in a major city - they tend to crop up in more rural areas.

It is a false problem here; there are scarcely handfuls, if that, of niqabis and it is not something young girls are likely to take on to annoy their more secular parents.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree the system stinks. All children should have the same support from the taxpayer. It is incredible that this difference in support -- equality -- has not already been eliminated byt the constitution. The reason is that the constitution actually protects the inequality. Thus it is institutionalized at the highest level.

The constitution protected Catholic public schools in NL and QC as well. Both provinces requested a constitutional amendment in 1997 to eliminate that privilege and discrimination, and that was that. Nothing stops Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta from doing the same thing tomorrow (or say, Monday) - except the fact that no party has the nerve and principle to eliminate this discrimination against non-Catholic students and teachers, and by the same token to eliminate fully-public-funded religious education controlled by the Church.

I agree. The political landscape is different in the more conservative provinces. I will say that the situation in Quebec is different inasmuch as the system was very broken with two minority systems clearly wasting money so it was easier to get the religious people to give it up. But the point is that Quebec might actually be more secular than Ontario. (This is apart from its attack on Muslims which is what its so-called secular law is).

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

How about feminist opposition to the niqab and the burka, which are very, very different in nature from a headscarf? They disappear women; they aren't simply a sign of modesty or piety.  No, I don't think they should be banned unless there is a legitimate security concern. The notorious Bloc ad was bigoted targeting of Muslim women, although the overwhelming majority of them don't wear it. 

However the practice comes out of deep misogyny - the same misogny one sees in some fundamentalist Jewish groups that also "disappear" women in publications. I'm sure there must be similar misogyny among fundie Christians. I'm simply not exposed to them in a major city - they tend to crop up in more rural areas.

It is a false problem here; there are scarcely handfuls, if that, of niqabis and it is not something young girls are likely to take on to annoy their more secular parents.

Religious extremists alwasy use the other's extremists to make their points. The whole so-called secualr law in Quebec is about waving the Niqab and Burka (which are truly unpopular) to create a more general anti-muslim attack that is primarily on the Hijab which is more similar to what my mother wore or the Queen often wore.

I do not think that there is any practical issue of people in the public service serving the public from behind a Burka or Niqab but that is the vision the CAQ is selling to ban the Hijab. Too many in Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, don't even know the difference.

swallow swallow's picture

lagatta4 wrote:
I'm sure there must be similar misogyny among fundie Christians. I'm simply not exposed to them in a major city - they tend to crop up in more rural areas.

Do they? Have never seen any in rural Quebec myself. So I am curious.

Sean in Ottawa

By the way -- Singh's Turban is not an overt religious symbol and not one he can take off. This may become a legal case for someone in Quebec.

His religion does not allow the cutting of the hair. The Turban is a culturally adapted long hair management system to abide by the prohibition agaisnt cutting the hair. The issue against Sihks with this law is the state looking to force them, effectively, to cut their hair. Otherwise something like a Turban is needed -- they cannot just remove it when at work.

lagatta4

Singh has been photographed without his turban - beautiful head of hair by the way.

Swallow, a friend who lives and works in the Eastern townships was talking about fundie evangelists (francophones) who are "home schooling" their kids. Home schooling is legal, the question is both competency and following the syllabus.

Francophone evangelicals might seem strange, but not really any more than Hispanophone and Lusophones in countries south of here. They think the Pope is too progressive!

Certainly women around the Mediterranean were scarved, Christians and Jews as much as Muslims. When I was studying in Italy, I took the train to meet friends in Calabria, in the deep South. Women of a certain age wore large black scarves - the only difference from the ones Muslim women in the nearby Maghreb wore was that the latter tended to wear pale colours - better adapted to the hot, arid weather in both places. Most of those Calabrian women would be dead by now - this was over 30 years ago.

Unionist

lagatta4 wrote:

Singh has been photographed without his turban - beautiful head of hair by the way.

Agreed!

That was at age 8, when he stopped cutting his hair (a bit late, by traditional Sikh standards).

This one is more recent (last week, in an interview with Frédéric Bérard, of Journal Métro):

 

swallow swallow's picture

Thanks lagatta. Plenty of home-schoolers, sure. Those that I know who are home-schooling the kids do so for non-religious reasons, but I know some do for religious reasons. It's odd, and the kids often rebel against it the religious aspects later. 

Catholic friends from South Asia used to insist that Catholic Christianity required women to cover their heads. They would not easily be persuaded otherwise! I speculate that the requirement for Muslim women to cover their hair would fade over time, but will instead grow as it's attacked by this sort of law. 

Why is the battleground always women's bodies? 

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

Singh has been photographed without his turban - beautiful head of hair by the way.

Swallow, a friend who lives and works in the Eastern townships was talking about fundie evangelists (francophones) who are "home schooling" their kids. Home schooling is legal, the question is both competency and following the syllabus.

Francophone evangelicals might seem strange, but not really any more than Hispanophone and Lusophones in countries south of here. They think the Pope is too progressive!

Certainly women around the Mediterranean were scarved, Christians and Jews as much as Muslims. When I was studying in Italy, I took the train to meet friends in Calabria, in the deep South. Women of a certain age wore large black scarves - the only difference from the ones Muslim women in the nearby Maghreb wore was that the latter tended to wear pale colours - better adapted to the hot, arid weather in both places. Most of those Calabrian women would be dead by now - this was over 30 years ago.

sorry not meaning to say it cannot come off but if you see the length you can see how impossible it is to function without it in a work environment. It is not like a cross on the neck you can stick in a drawer and put on at 5 pm.

brookmere

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In Ontario seperate school support is by affiliation of taxpayers and not based on enrolment....

In Ontario taxpayer affiliation determines only who you get to vote for in school board elections. All school property taxes go directly to the provincial government. It is however a fact that the Catholic system gets more funding per student from the provincial government - the main reason likely being that it has smaller schools on average.

The Green Party of Ontario openly advocates getting rid of the separate school system.

It should be mentioned that there is a case currently going through the courts (in Saskatchewan, but with implications elsewhere) where is it is being argued that allowing Catholic schools to take non-Catholics and receive funding for them - something which is not constitutionally guaranteed - violates the rights of non-Catholics by bleeding their schools of funding.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

swallow wrote:

Catholic friends from South Asia used to insist that Catholic Christianity required women to cover their heads. They would not easily be persuaded otherwise!

I recall that back in the 1950s, when I was forced to go to mass every Sunday in Hamilton, the rule was that men were required to remove their hats in church, and women were required to wear hats in church. I even remember women who had forgotten to bring a hat using a couple of bobby pins to stick a kleenex on top of their heads in order to be allowed in.

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In Ontario seperate school support is by affiliation of taxpayers and not based on enrolment....

In Ontario taxpayer affiliation determines only who you get to vote for in school board elections. All school property taxes go directly to the provincial government. It is however a fact that the Catholic system gets more funding per student from the provincial government - the main reason likely being that it has smaller schools on average.

It should be mentioned that there is a case currently going through the courts where is it is being argued that allowing Catholic schools to take non-Catholics and receive funding for them - something which is not constitutionally guaranteed - violates the rights of non-Catholics by bleeding their schools of funding.

Sorry this is not correct. The education system in the province is funded in two distinct ways -- about two thirds through the provincial government which supports based on enrolment and a third through municipal taxes (actually 35%). This is directed to the local school board you designate. So no, it does not just affect your trustee voting. I am sorry that I did not make clear this distinction between local and provincial taxes. Municipal taxes do not go to the province to be divied up but are paid by your municipality to the school board designated. This is separate from the provincial funding (pardon the pun).

By the way most people think that all the funding is by enrolment or that all the funding is by designation. This is incorrect but common. Here it is explained by a person who was corrected and replied:

https://www.canadianatheist.com/2015/07/public-funding-of-catholic-schoo...

These property owners do not have to have school age kids to warp the basis of equal funding.

Frankly if we were to allow any designation it should be only based on people who have kids in school but of course this would result in enrolment only as a basis -- like the 2/3 coming from the province.

I hope this explains better the situation and the reason Catholic schools have this funding. Catholics, regardless of having children are pressed through church to designate Seperate schools. As well anyone in the Seperate system is directed to do the same.

This whole thing is complicated as well by the fact that many in that system are not Catholic but are allowed to go there due to the fact that they can be asked for more money and many go becuase that system has more money per student becuase of this designation circus at the municipal level.

Equal support for education  based on enrolment would of course fix this. Eliminating seperate schools altogether would also.

brookmere

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The education system in the province is funded in two distinct ways -- about two thirds through the provincial government which supports based on enrolment and a third through municipal taxes (actually 35%). This is directed to the local school board you designate.

This is the current system which has been in place for 20+ years. Total funding for each board is based on enrolment:

Under the present system, the government sets a uniform rate, based on a current-value assessment system, for the education portion of property taxes for all resi­dential properties in the province. It sets a rate that varies by municipality for the education portion of business property taxes. Municipalities collect the education portion of property taxes for the school boards in their communities. The Ministry of Education, using the student-focused funding formula, determines each board’s overall allocation. Property tax revenues are considered to form part of the allocation, and the Province provides additional funding up to the level set by the funding formula.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/task02/2.pdf

brookmere

Unionist wrote:
I didn't ask whether Singh would demand the abolishment of separate Catholic schools. I am perfectly aware that he will never be allowed to do so. I asked whether he should do so - because what he should do is the topic of this thread.

He shouldn't because he has no policy mandate to do so. The federal NDP has no policy on this issue so he should repect the provincial policies. More broadly, I think the elimination of separate schools needs to be initiated at the provincial level out of political necessity and I don't think a blanket policy by any federal party one way or the other would be appropriate.

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The education system in the province is funded in two distinct ways -- about two thirds through the provincial government which supports based on enrolment and a third through municipal taxes (actually 35%). This is directed to the local school board you designate.

This is the current system which has been in place for 20+ years. Total funding for each board is based on enrolment:

Under the present system, the government sets a uniform rate, based on a current-value assessment system, for the education portion of property taxes for all resi­dential properties in the province. It sets a rate that varies by municipality for the education portion of business property taxes. Municipalities collect the education portion of property taxes for the school boards in their communities. The Ministry of Education, using the student-focused funding formula, determines each board’s overall allocation. Property tax revenues are considered to form part of the allocation, and the Province provides additional funding up to the level set by the funding formula.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/task02/2.pdf

Did you notice that the article you posted simply makes the point that boards used to set the school tax themselves and set different rates? That is what changed with the new formula. Public and seperate schools do not get to set the rates.

The multiplier in terms of where you send your taxes is still a variable based on where individual tax payers send their municipal taxes. This still means that the seperate system can get a bigger base (at the set rate) than they have students compared to the public system.

Nothing here contradicts anything I said.

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I didn't ask whether Singh would demand the abolishment of separate Catholic schools. I am perfectly aware that he will never be allowed to do so. I asked whether he should do so - because what he should do is the topic of this thread.

He shouldn't because he has no policy mandate to do so. The federal NDP has no policy on this issue so he should repect the provincial policies. More broadly, I think the elimination of separate schools needs to be initiated at the provincial level out of political necessity and I don't think a blanket policy by any federal party one way or the other would be appropriate.

Agreed - pain without gain and without an guiding principle given the jurisdiction. Bad idea for Singh who already started at the provincial level. I cannot see him disrespecting provincial jurisdiction like this.

Unionist

brookmere wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I didn't ask whether Singh would demand the abolishment of separate Catholic schools. I am perfectly aware that he will never be allowed to do so. I asked whether he should do so - because what he should do is the topic of this thread.

He shouldn't because he has no policy mandate to do so. The federal NDP has no policy on this issue so he should repect the provincial policies. More broadly, I think the elimination of separate schools needs to be initiated at the provincial level out of political necessity and I don't think a blanket policy by any federal party one way or the other would be appropriate.

Fair enough. Can you please refer me to the federal policy mandate which enabled Singh to comment on the CAQ bill? Or was he following the QNDP policy - perhaps you could help me find that?

By the way, great breaking news - the QS national council has not only voted to reject the CAQ bill (which they have opposed all along because of the application to teachers) - they have also for the first time rejected Bouchard-Taylor! I'm so happy.

swallow swallow's picture

Wonderful news on QS.

 

NorthReport

So happiness on both fronts the NDP and QS. Great!

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I didn't ask whether Singh would demand the abolishment of separate Catholic schools. I am perfectly aware that he will never be allowed to do so. I asked whether he should do so - because what he should do is the topic of this thread.

He shouldn't because he has no policy mandate to do so. The federal NDP has no policy on this issue so he should repect the provincial policies. More broadly, I think the elimination of separate schools needs to be initiated at the provincial level out of political necessity and I don't think a blanket policy by any federal party one way or the other would be appropriate.

Fair enough. Can you please refer me to the federal policy mandate which enabled Singh to comment on the CAQ bill? Or was he following the QNDP policy - perhaps you could help me find that?

By the way, great breaking news - the QS national council has not only voted to reject the CAQ bill (which they have opposed all along because of the application to teachers) - they have also for the first time rejected Bouchard-Taylor! I'm so happy.

I think it is a false comparison you made. But sure if you need an answer then consider that the Constitution is a national institution as well as a provincially relevant issue. Human rights are national. Rights to mobility and employment and from discrimination are a little different than the funding of seperate schools (Point: Seperate schools are not allowed to prevent non Catholics from going to them).

There is a difference between comment from a federal leader and interference to effect a change as well. The standard for comment is not that high when it comes to these things.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Can you please refer me to the federal policy mandate which enabled Singh to comment on the CAQ bill? Or was he following the QNDP policy - perhaps you could help me find that?

I think it is a false comparison you made. But sure if you need an answer then consider that the Constitution is a national institution as well as a provincially relevant issue. Human rights are national. Rights to mobility and employment and from discrimination are a little different than the funding of seperate schools (Point: Seperate schools are not allowed to prevent non Catholics from going to them). [my emphasis]

Are you not aware that Ontario separate schools only hire Catholic teachers!? That's only an infringement on "provincial" human rights, not "national" ones?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a difference between comment from a federal leader and interference to effect a change as well. The standard for comment is not that high when it comes to these things.

Singh's "comment" was public opposition to a bill tabled by a provincial government which was not yet defeated, adopted, or even debated. That's more innocuous because it was a negative rather than a positive attempt to effect a change? Give me more examples of a federal NDP leader publicly opposing provincial draft legislation, please. 

cco

I suppose Quebecers should be grateful Singh's not taking his cues from Andrew Coyne, who's calling for the feds to dust off the disallowance power.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Can you please refer me to the federal policy mandate which enabled Singh to comment on the CAQ bill? Or was he following the QNDP policy - perhaps you could help me find that?

I think it is a false comparison you made. But sure if you need an answer then consider that the Constitution is a national institution as well as a provincially relevant issue. Human rights are national. Rights to mobility and employment and from discrimination are a little different than the funding of seperate schools (Point: Seperate schools are not allowed to prevent non Catholics from going to them). [my emphasis]

Are you not aware that Ontario separate schools only hire Catholic teachers!? That's only an infringement on "provincial" human rights, not "national" ones?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a difference between comment from a federal leader and interference to effect a change as well. The standard for comment is not that high when it comes to these things.

Singh's "comment" was public opposition to a bill tabled by a provincial government which was not yet defeated, adopted, or even debated. That's more innocuous because it was a negative rather than a positive attempt to effect a change? Give me more examples of a federal NDP leader publicly opposing provincial draft legislation, please. 

A couple of practical questions on the Ontario schools issue, asked by a non-Ontarian:

1) Does the ONDP tend to have greater support than average in areas with a heavily Catholic population? I assume this is not the case, given that the most Catholic region is, AFAIK, Eastern Ontario, where the voters still see elections as an exclusively Liberal v. PC choice;

2) If not, is the thinking that the ONDP will never make a breakthrough in Eastern Ontario if it doesn't accept continued separate state schools, out of a belief that Eastern Ontario francophones care more about their kids getting a Catholic education at state expense than they do about any other issue?

3) If the answer to the first two questions is "no", is it that ONDP "strategists" assume that opposing the separate schools would get the party crushed at the polls for some other reason?

voice of the damned

^ As a possibly relevant historical aside to Ken's questions above, wasn't it the provincial NDP under Bob Rae in the 1980s who championed the extended funding of Catholic schools in Ontario?

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:

As a possibly relevant historical aside to Ken's questions above, wasn't it the provincial NDP under Bob Rae in the 1980s who championed the extended funding of Catholic schools in Ontario?

Public funding was extended to Catholic high schools under Bill Davis' majority PC government in the 1980s. Prior to that, for all of Ontario's history, only Catholic elementary schools had been funded. I wouldn't say that the NDP, which was at that time the 3rd party, "championed" the extended funding, but shamefully they supported it, as did the Liberals.

 

NorthReport

You can't just leave out the reason for it.

Pierre Trudeau cut a deal with Bill Davis over the Constitution and the price Trudeau paid was for Ontario to have Catholic schools right through the end of high school.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What do others think? Should Jagmeet Singh say, "I oppose requirements to uncover one's face!"?

I think that Quebec MP's have the right as elected officials to state their views just as municipal leaders can and should speak out. Mulcair as an elected Quebec MP and public figure from both provincial and federal politics has every right to speak on any issue affecting the rights of his fellow citizens.

Singh as part of the minority affected by this type of legislation also has the moral authority to speak on an issue of fundamental rights affecting others of his faith in Quebec.

I assume then that you support any federal politician as having a right to provide an opinion on any part of the country even an area that they do not come from. A leader seeks to represent all of Canada and opinions on regional questions are relevant.

I see no problem with this. Of course it needs be with respect for the region's own view and jurisdiction but certainly an opinion should actually be expected.

"I assume then that you support any federal politician as having a right to provide an opinion on any part of the country even an area that they do not come from. "

Please don't assume anything. I was very specific please reread my comment. I do not agree with that statement and frankly I thought I was conveying the very fucking opposite so go figure.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What do others think? Should Jagmeet Singh say, "I oppose requirements to uncover one's face!"?

I think that Quebec MP's have the right as elected officials to state their views just as municipal leaders can and should speak out. Mulcair as an elected Quebec MP and public figure from both provincial and federal politics has every right to speak on any issue affecting the rights of his fellow citizens.

Singh as part of the minority affected by this type of legislation also has the moral authority to speak on an issue of fundamental rights affecting others of his faith in Quebec.

I assume then that you support any federal politician as having a right to provide an opinion on any part of the country even an area that they do not come from. A leader seeks to represent all of Canada and opinions on regional questions are relevant.

I see no problem with this. Of course it needs be with respect for the region's own view and jurisdiction but certainly an opinion should actually be expected.

"I assume then that you support any federal politician as having a right to provide an opinion on any part of the country even an area that they do not come from. "

Please don't assume anything. I was very specific please reread my comment. I do not agree with that statement and frankly I thought I was conveying the very fucking opposite so go figure.

I have no idea why you thought this.

Singh is not from Quebec.

Further, I disagree that a federal MP has to be from an affected minority to speak out on human rights isssues happening anywhere in Canada. The Charter of Rights is a national document and federal political leaders ought to have an opinion when it is being discussed.

Furthermore, I have the impression that you know some things about law and would probably know that case law on the Charter and provincial legislation and legal decisions in one part of the country have bearing on the interpretation of law and legal opinion anywhere in the country -- as well as court decisions. Developments in legislation and legal decisions in Canada are relevant to all Canadians and party leaders should not be expected not to speak up if they have an opinion -- even if they are not from an affected group or from that province.

The federal leader also is leader of candidates and MPs from all parts of the country and does not just speak personally but on behalf of a party with members in each part of the country..

brookmere

NorthReport wrote:
Pierre Trudeau cut a deal with Bill Davis over the Constitution and the price Trudeau paid was for Ontario to have Catholic schools right through the end of high school.

The extension of funding to high schools was a unilateral move by Ontario and the federal government had nothing to do with it. The Ontario legislation was in fact passed in 1985 while Mulroney was PM. The 1982 Constitution did contain a waiver of seperate schools from the Charter of Rights, which applied to all provinces that had them, including at the time Quebec and Newfoundland. It's reasonable to assume that Davis wanted this waiver but it's just as reasonable to assume that the other premiers concerned wanted it too.

http://www.ocecn.net/catholic_education/significant_events.htm

Unionist

*

NorthReport

Bill Davis was a huge support to Trudeau during the patriation process, and there was was a reason for it.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/patriation-of-the-constitution

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

Bill Davis was a huge support to Trudeau during the patriation process, and there was was a reason for it.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/patriation-of-the-constitution

But you originally wrote:

Pierre Trudeau cut a deal with Bill Davis over the Constitution and the price Trudeau paid was for Ontario to have Catholic schools right through the end of high school.

"The price Trudeau paid" makes it sound as if Trudeau was really hepped up about defunding Catholic schools, until Davis bargained him into giving up that goal. Even if "no religious schools" was a likely interpretation that courts would later place on the Charter, I doubt it was something PET was specifically aiming for.

 

Unionist

Could someone please confirm that Catholic public schools in Ontario only hire Catholic teachers?

NorthReport

There is no inconsistency there. And prior to being Premier Bill Davis was Ontario’s Minister of Education

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Davis

Badriya

Unionist wrote:

Could someone please confirm that Catholic public schools in Ontario only hire Catholic teachers?

Unionist, I can only confirm for the Ottawa Catholic School Board, but suspect it is the same across the province.

One of the required documents to apply for a long-term occasional (LTO) position, the step before being able to apply for a  permanent position. 

current Pastoral Letter from your Roman Catholic Parish Priest (original only, no older than one year from the date of your LTO List application) OR a completed Pastoral Reference Form which must indicate that the candidate is a practicing Catholic and a member of the parish (original only, copies are not acceptable, no older than one year from the date of your LTO List application)

https://www.ocsb.ca/lto/

Badriya

brookmere wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Pierre Trudeau cut a deal with Bill Davis over the Constitution and the price Trudeau paid was for Ontario to have Catholic schools right through the end of high school.

The extension of funding to high schools was a unilateral move by Ontario and the federal government had nothing to do with it. The Ontario legislation was in fact passed in 1985 while Mulroney was PM. The 1982 Constitution did contain a waiver of seperate schools from the Charter of Rights, which applied to all provinces that had them, including at the time Quebec and Newfoundland. It's reasonable to assume that Davis wanted this waiver but it's just as reasonable to assume that the other premiers concerned wanted it too.

http://www.ocecn.net/catholic_education/significant_events.htm

The reason Bill Davis extended full funding to Catholic Schools was that Emmett Cardinal Carter threatened to campaign actively against Tories if he didn't.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/catholic-schools/article...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean at 84. I disagree and lets leave it at that. I am afraid to engage any further on this subject since you have already put my profession into play and I don't want to be that personal when I am just trying to express my OPINION not a point of law.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean at 84. I disagree and lets leave it at that. I am afraid to engage any further on this subject since you have already put my profession into play and I don't want to be that personal when I am just trying to express my OPINION not a point of law.

I certainly did not intend to do such a thing. Sorry.

NorthReport

Sean and krop

FWIW We can all diasagree on occasion but you both make many constructive contributions here so thanks very much to the both of you

Pages