Is there a principled, progressive case for continued support for funding separate schools?

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

Lord Palmerston wrote:
And in this 23% are apparently many non-Catholic babblers who have this delusional idea that Catholics are an oppressed group and won't feel comfortable in "Protestant" schools

Who?  Who are the many non-Cathoilc babblers who have that delusional idea? 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

wage zombie wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:
And in this 23% are apparently many non-Catholic babblers who have this delusional idea that Catholics are an oppressed group and won't feel comfortable in "Protestant" schools

Who?  Who are the many non-Cathoilc babblers who have that delusional idea? 

What about the many catholic ones then?  Why are they so unnerved at the idea of sitting as equals and socializing with their fellow Canadians?

Honestly, I've been very proud of stances the NDP has taken in the past and admittedly it's an issue close to the NDP.  But I lose respect more and more as principled arguments are turned into polisleeze.

Especially at babble.  It's TOS promote a progressive board and frankly these threads haven't followed it. 

Progressive when we want.  I know I'm guilty of offences but I don't go posting it on here too often.

I doubt if the NDP opposed some other UN declarations, it would be defended as vigorously here.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

The majority opnhion in Ontario has always opposed public funding foir Catholic schools.. Hell, the majority opinion in Ontario and much of Canada  has opposed the existence of Catholics sicne the Conquest. It has as generally been a small number of" progressives"  like the ONDP and Liberalsm who supported funding Catholic schools against the Orange Order reactionary Tories and majority opinion..  

As those with a basic education knowm much of the history of this country is based on the struggles of French and Catholics to preserve their identity- culture, language, religion.schools,  againt those who would assimilate them.  And the struggle against the majority opinion in Ontario, assimilation of Catholics  is why education may be a provincial area but  the federal government and the courts have the right and duty tto intervene to protect denominational schools and the rights of the minority.

 

. i

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

We don't have to worry about "assimilation" of the Catholics. Catholics are the most powerful single religious denomination in Canada. Catholics hold political and economic positions of great power and influence at all levels of Canadian society and government.

And that's the only reason we are still funding Catholic schools.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I goto sleep at night saying it's so easy to see the logic of it and to me it's a progessive 101 issue that's ignored because catholics hold privilege even at babble.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So Peter, I presume you support funding for all religious schools then?  Could you clarify your position.  Mine is one public system, equal to everyone, no religion.  None of this historical baggage and issue twisting.

It's just logic 101, either none or all.  I'd prefer not all but that would be a more honest and respectable answer.

riffraffrenegade

No the ONDP will never take Leeds Grenville. My vote never counts. But to suggest that anybody not Catholic is an Orangeman just doesn't hold true.

So far out in Leeds Grenville, the individual school councils that have passed motions in support of One School System all have Catholics sitting on council. It is interesting because it is the Catholics that have to convince the others that it is OK and NOT anti-Catholic to vote in favour. We have only had two people abstain from voting (I'm not sure but I don't think either were Catholic), otherwise all votes have been unanimous.

What is anti-Catholic about wanting schools welcoming of children of all faiths and none? What is anti-Catholic about saying that surely we are more alike than we are different; for heaven's sake in small communities most of us are related to families at "the other" school. What is anti-Catholic about wanting to preserve rural communities? What is anti-Catholic about pointing out that you can't build a real school community when you are trawling for students from further and further away and that we shouldn't allow JKs to spend three hours on a bus daily? Though maybe we shouldn't question the latter as it's the only government-funded before & after school care available...

Yes, no doubt it would be an about face and a real slap in the face to older Catholics who fought so hard for fair Catholic school funding. Some of my fondest childhood memories are attending the school fundraiser at St. Margaret's Church in Glen Nevis, ON so I have an inkling of how difficult it was. That history of fundraising and stretching a dollar still serves Catholic schools well; and is something public schools out of necessity are figuring out only lately. Again, it took the two Catholics sitting on our public school council to convince the others that yes we could have a Fun Fair too and no it didn't matter what some Catholics at the other school in town thought. It took FIVE YEARS to convince them it was OK!!

Nobody foresaw what declining birth rates would mean one generation after full funding.....or did they??

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Nothing's anti-catholic about it, just equality.  Nice post riffraffrenegade

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

So Peter, I presume you support funding for all religious schools then?  Could you clarify your position.  Mine is one public system, equal to everyone, no religion.  None of this historical baggage and issue twisting.

It's just logic 101, either none or all.  I'd prefer not all but that would be a more honest and respectable answer.

 From my own direct experience and studes, including the material I posted just recently, I  know the issue  of public funding of Catholic schools in Ontario doesn't just break down to a yes or no, as it seems a lot of Babblers want..  But to the extent  it doesbreak dwon that simplisticaly  I see the forces of ignorance and bigotry on the no side and the educated and progressive forces on the yes side.(with honourable exceptions)  I am on the yes side.

 I have also done my part t0 have a debate in the ONDP examing all alternatives and invited Babblers to jopin that debate. I.d have posted  things we could discuss -for exampel an expansion of the MENTORS program, now operational in The Toronto School board, that  ensures a Mulsim presence in our public shcool system.  I have suggested comparative religion classes or the use of public schools after regular hours for religious instructions as possible areas to explore. . funding. And yes, I think  we should talk to the guy who went to the UN. But these do not seem things Babblers want to discuss,

 

 

.Clear enough?

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Clear as mud.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

And to be clear, the bigots and ignorant are the cathocrits.

wage zombie

What's a cathocrit?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Those that don't do unto their neighbours as they would themselves.

Fidel

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I doubt if the NDP opposed some other UN declarations, it would be defended as vigorously here.

Whenever the NDP drones on endlessly that the UN is chiding Ottawa for the umpteenth time for allowing so much child poverty and violating women's rights, I make sure to point that out here.

Isnt Ernie Eves from Orangeville?

Lord Palmerston

And these "Cathocrits" include Catholic politicians Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Fidel wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I doubt if the NDP opposed some other UN declarations, it would be defended as vigorously here.

Whenever the NDP drones on endlessly that the UN is chiding Ottawa for the umpteenth time for allowing so much child poverty and violating women's rights, I make sure to point that out here.

 

Correct Fidel, I said oppose not support.  I'm all in agreement for those issues as well.  Like their declaration on catholic school funding, they are progressive.

 

So, why your hypocrisy now Fidel, that was a weird statement for you to make.

Unionist

Kids are sent to Catholic school so that they will marry Catholic kids of the opposite sex.

While I fully support their right to marry anyone they choose, it seems rather odd for the state to finance that kind of ongoing segregation.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Kids are sent to Catholic school so that they will marry Catholic kids of the opposite sex.

While I fully support their right to marry anyone they choose, it seems rather odd for the state to finance that kind of ongoing segregation

Now that you mention it, I think it's odd, too. But old line parties like doing the odd. Oddities all around across Canada. They rarely do even or even equal. And I find it odd that this particular oddity is found to be the most odd. Our's is an oddball northern Puerto Rico unlike any other.

Lord Palmerston

It's funny how Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath [url=//http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=18a42b14-3371-4d44-b517-c... use the same excuses to avoid discussion about ending Catholic school funding, saying the "real" issue is the funding gap and infrastructure.[/url]

Quote:
Both the Liberals and NDP argue the public has no interest in enduring a long and rancorous constitutional debate.

"People have not been lining up at my door for the past year saying, 'Let's have a constitutional debate,' " Ms. Wynne said yesterday. "They've been lining up asking about fixing the funding formula for special education or getting more arts teachers into the schools, or getting the buildings repaired. Those are things we've been working on."

But Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, director of the CCLA's Freedom of Expression Project, said just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be done. She also noted both Quebec and Newfoundland have stopped funding religious schools in recent years.

"If the argument is that getting a constitutional amendment going would be a whole lot of work, then I think it's worth the effort," she said.

But I guess unlike the Liberals, the NDP are known for keeping their promises.

 

madmax

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Why are cathocrits awarded priviilege when the UN say's it's discriminatory. 

   And just how long did the UN debate on school funding last? Who were the presenters and who provided the defence of the public school system. Was this driven by groups who wanted their religions funded by Canadians? 

The UN resolution says Canada discriminates in the school system...

I say the Canadian School system is one of the best in the world. I would say the Canadian School system has less discrimination in it, then the system in the US and it provides a better education.

Our problem is not driven by the UN resolutions, and school boards are using the UN resolution as a leveraging chip.  

The Problem is that schoolboards are facing situations where two shools are half empty and their is declining enrollment. They also face the problem that Public School Boards are making decisions that are not attracting students and then wondering why students and parents of non Catholic Backgrounds are queing up to go to the Catholic Schools.

Eventually in many areas, one board or another will become unsustainable.  The pressure from the Public School Boards is to end the Catholic School system.

Quote:

At their annual meeting today in Huntsville, Ontario's public school boards are scheduled to debate and vote on a resolution to cut off public funding for Catholic schools.

Actually, the resolution, put forward by several boards, calls for "one publicly funded school board system in the province for each of Canada's official languages." But if implemented, it would mean the end of funding for Catholic boards.

The resolution may not pass; the executive council of the Ontario Public School Boards Association (OPSBA) has come out against it and proposes a counter-resolution stating it opposes advocacy of a single publicly funded system "at this time."

Even if the resolution does pass, the government has already said it will be ignored.

 

Quote:

Proponents of the resolution say it is being driven primarily by declining enrolment, which puts financial pressure on school boards.

It is not uncommon in small towns, for example, to find two half-empty elementary schools, one public and the other Catholic. Both may face closure, but combined they could stay open.

"It's a very real challenge to keep schools open," says Bill Johnston, vice-chair of the Grand Erie public board (Brant, Haldimand and Norfolk counties). "Are we really that far apart from the Catholics that our kids can't go to the same schools?"

While acknowledging that declining enrolment is a problem, OPSBA president Rick Johnson doubts whether blowing up the current dual system is worth the trouble, given that 650,000 children are now attending Catholic schools.

 

 

 

Michelle

No "blowing up" necessary - just leave the schools intact at first and remove all the religious instruction first.  Let the kids keep going there if they want to.  Then once the religion is gone, remove all religious qualifications for teachers and students.  Then once the religion is gone from the schools, stop separating the taxes and pay for each school from one pot.  Then amalgamate the school boards.

Once the religion is gone, the kids will gravitate towards the schools that are closest (rather than the schools that are religious or non-religious) and blending will eventually happen.

Fidel

Well at least theyve chosen to avoid the more neoliberalized "we cant afford to fund seperate schools" theme. And we can be sure there are no supporters of those highly politicized policies in this thread. Or if there are, they probably wouldnt admit it.

Like the UN says, it's about equal access and removing religious instruction from public schools. And we always-always take note of when the UN chides Canada for our backward federal and provincial policies, fer sure fer sure. 

madmax

Lord Palmerston wrote:

53% (at least) of Ontarians support one system, so can it be mainly in conservative rural Protestant ridings?  I agree the NDP won't be picking up Haliburton and Leeds-Grenville as a result of supporting one school system.  But so what?  Support for one system is much wider than in conservative rural Protestant ridings so it is absurd for you to imply that small-town, Orange Order anti-Catholic bigots are its primary base of support.

  You must enjoy being rude. You are calling Conservative voters who support one school system, "Orange Order Anti Catholic Bigots". The same position that you support. Are you an "Orange Order Anti Catholic Bigot"?

To expand on your position. The NDP won't pick up a single  seat  anywhere, anyplace, by advocating the elimination of the Separate school board.  

Quote:
The election was not "only" about education funding, although it was an important issue, even if the ONDP wished it weren't.   Too bad they weren't listening to popular opinion.  The Greens massively increased their vote due to their stance on one school system, although most people didn't know much about the Greens as they weren't in the debates and didn't get nearly as much media coverage.
   The 2007 election campaign became a ONE ISSUE campaign, and perhaps you missed it, the leverage issue that caused John Tory to run for cover and change PC policy in the middle of a campaign. The PCs LOST the election on Education, and the Liberals who held the same position as the NDP won.  If the NDP wanted to do worse, they would split the protest vote with the GP. If they could get any of it. The Protest was coming from many disgruntled Conservatives who neither supported the Dual system, let alone its expansion. They also wouldn't support the NDP regardless of its position on School funding or a single school system.  The Liberal Vote, held, the NDP vote grew, and the PC vote Fell.

If the NDP finished as low as the Ontario Green Party, they too would have no Seats and be in single digit support. 

Once you get into double digits, the concept of diminishing returns becomes more apparent. The more money you have to spend to get less and less of the vote, that is needed to win a riding. 

Quote:
 Meanwhile only 23% support the status quo - yet you seem to be of the belief that the NDP will be wiped out if they take a stance that is principled, progressive and popular. 
It is not popular. If it was popular, the Ontario Liberals would do it. If you ask people their opinion, they are happy to give it to you. However, when push comes to shove, you will not find this 53% mobilizing for the destruction of the Catholic School system.  However, you will find the 23% mobilizing hard, in the fight of their lives to defend what they received in 1985. It would not be given up without a fight.

Sorry, but the NDP would be unlikely to capitalize from either group.  The 23% will actively campaign and back the party in power. And those opposing them, will receive the biggest public shit kicking since John Tory. The Liberals will be laughing all the way to EDAY. 

Volunteers are hard to find and this is a mobilizing event and I fully expect the Catholic School Boards, teachers, Parents to vote as ONE BLOCK with the Liberals. And to put the boots on the ground.

 

Quote:
Most of this 23% I'm sure supports the Liberals. There is a small minority there that votes NDP and many of them would vote against the NDP.  However, there is that three-quarters of the population that thinks the current system is unfair.  They can be reached not only be support for one system but also by having that bold, dynamic, progressive economic platform to save jobs, pensions and home - the only thing they care about, according to many babblers. 
I doubt that  those supporters of one school system would lift a finger come election time, let alone buy an NDP membership or do door to door canvassing.  

The 23% who support the Catholic System, would show up with rank and file and numerous boots on the ground to fight to keep their system. They would actively support the Liberal Party to keep what they have.  

The Liberals would win another election hands down, if the issue were Education. The Liberals heading into an election  would bait any party to wade into a debate on education, in order to attain another majority government.

Quote:
And yet for you, how well the Orange Team does is more important than standing up for principles.
  

This thread isn't about "the NDP". 

I only suggest that if the NDP were to take this issue into the next election they would be wiped off the map.  Same if the Progressive Conservatives or Liberals advocated such a position. Although the results would likely be disasterous for these parties, they would still maintain seats. I am not so certain that the NDP would.

The Green Party have no seats and failed to gain any significant support in the 07 election.  It wouldn't have mattered what there position was, the numbers would have been the same.

The name makes people feel good.

  

Fidel

Anti-Catholic bigots who are serial old line party voters are somewhat worried that Pinocchio wont have achieved a single noteworthy thing since elected to a phony-baloney majority in 2003.  McGuilty's Liberals continue to stand idly by while the province bleeds hundreds of thousands of jobs. And for lack of anything positive to say about the old line party neoliberal agenda falling down around everyone's ears today, theyre going to make sure we have our fill of these old line party legacy issues that just never seem to die in old Ontario, the place where stuff grows including child poverty

Lord Palmerston

madmax wrote:
You are calling Conservative voters who support one school system, "Orange Order Anti Catholic Bigots". The same position that you support. Are you an "Orange Order Anti Catholic Bigot"?

Fuck you.  You were the one who implied it was a rightwing bigoted cause.  You are such a dishonest and nasty debater.

 

madmax

The thread is there for all to read. Infact, my comments come straight from Wikipedia when describing the rural Conservative Voter. I did nothing to create the image of a Rightwing, Bigoted cause. You did.

You can backtrack, and read the thread, as can anyone else.

From WikiPedia

Bill Davis

Quote:
He retired a few months before the 1985 election, with him and his government still well ahead in polls against David Peterson's Liberals and Bob Rae's NDP. One of his last major acts as premier was to reverse his 1971 decision against the full funding of Catholic schools, and announce that such funding would be provided to the end of Grade Thirteen. Although the policy was supported by all parties in the legislature, it was unpopular with some in the Conservatives' traditional rural Protestant base, and many would stay home in the upcoming election because of this issue. 
Quote:

Doug

Fidel wrote:

I had no idea the NDP was in government or supporting conservative governments of the 1970's. It's new to me. If we try hard enough, I supopse we can pin blame on the ONDP for all kinds of things the Tories did with support of the Liberal Party over the last 50 years.

Historically, the Progressive Conservatives were the center party in Ontario. The Liberals tended to be rural and right-wing.

Lord Palmerston

madmax wrote:

The thread is there for all to read. Infact, my comments come straight from Wikipedia when describing the rural Conservative Voter. I did nothing to create the image of a Rightwing, Bigoted cause. You did.

Actually it was the defenders of Catholic school funding (Fidel and Peter Cassidy) here who have said it's a bigoted cause, not me, but of course since you agree with them, it's fine by you.  

You're right the 23% of the population that are Catholic school supporters are probably more likely to vote on the issue than the vast majority of Ontarians who think the status quo is unfair.  But I believe it's more important to stand up for principles, and try to reach out the vast majority of Ontarians who think it's unfair (but not ONLY focus on that, but have a strong platform in other areas too).   You would rather pander to the 2-3% or so of the population of Ontario that 1) votes NDP and 2) would abandon the party if they called for one system, rather than make that effort.

 

Fidel

Doug wrote:
Fidel wrote:

I had no idea the NDP was in government or supporting conservative governments of the 1970's. It's new to me. If we try hard enough, I supopse we can pin blame on the ONDP for all kinds of things the Tories did with support of the Liberal Party over the last 50 years.

Historically, the Progressive Conservatives were the center party in Ontario. The Liberals tended to be rural and right-wing.

That's true. The big blue machine enjoyed wide popularity for their policies of public ownership of OH and profitable utilities, intermitently from turn of the last century and solidifying support through the prosperous cold war era. 

The Liberals were always ready to pawn everything off to wealthy Canadian and US friends of the party for a bit o' cutter.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

You're right the 23% of the population that are Catholic school supporters are probably more likely to vote on the issue than the vast majority of Ontarians who think the status quo is unfair.  But I believe it's more important to stand up for principles, and try to reach out the vast majority of Ontarians who think it's unfair (but not ONLY focus on that, but have a strong platform in other areas too).   You would rather pander to the 2-3% or so of the population of Ontario that 1) votes NDP and 2) would abandon the party if they called for one system, rather than make that effort.

 

 

Great point LP, much to think about.

Fidel

Why havent the Liberals made a move on this issue? Or any real issue for that matter?

What is it about our obsolete 19th century electoral system invented before electricity that forces even the phoniest baloniest 22 percent gov with dictatorial powers afraid to offend their support base,  bought and paid for by Bay St, and to play at politicking four years at a time?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

In the meantime, no principled, progressive arguments yet for maintaining the status quo.

 

Your points are well taken Fidel but not very salient.

madmax

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Actually it was the defenders of Catholic school funding (Fidel and Peter Cassidy) here who have said it's a bigoted cause, not me, but of course since you agree with them, it's fine by you.  

Fidel and Peter Cassidy can speak for themselves.   Their words and your words are NOT my words.  But your childish use of profanity demonstrates that you cannot master a debate that has been described as the "Third Rail".

I can see your campaign strategy as an NDP candidate.

1) Bigots, 2) Fuck You,

You will ride the wave to victory with those arguments.

Good Luck.

 

 

Unionist

You know what, madmax, Lord Palmerston has got to be the most patient, gentle, unflappable debater on this board. He never gets angry. He is infuriatingly tolerant. I was surprised to see him depart, only once, from that mode and use the F-word.

So, I looked back at your post and saw why he did that. You should perhaps do the same. You misunderstood his post and you accused him of characterizing rural Ontarians of being anti-Catholic bigots - a startling accusation, given that it is the pro-Catholic funders who are making that accusation in this thread. It is they who see anti-Catholic bigots everywhere.

So you should reflect on that, whether you want to apologize to LP or not. 

Fidel

RevolutionPlease wrote:

In the meantime, no principled, progressive arguments yet for maintaining the status quo.

Your points are well taken Fidel but not very salient.

We tried tackling the status quo on our dysfunctional and obsolete electoral system. What we got was a poorly funded public information campaign months too late to make a difference. And MMP still received 37% support, just 5% less than the jokers with absolute power in Toronto still. These highly politicized cat and mouse games will continue for some time in Ontariariario.

saga saga's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Besides winning elections of course. 

 I wouldn't count on it for that. It is very divisive, and I'm not a strategist, but I would think that a policy that severely alienates as many or more people as it attracts is a dangerous strategy.

However, I believe a policy that has the goal of gradually achieving "one system" could work, but would require openess to extra-curricular religious classes in schools.

madmax

Unionist wrote:

You know what, madmax, Lord Palmerston has got to be the most patient, gentle, unflappable debater on this board.

And he likes to put words in peoples mouths and make comments and insinuations that they never said or believe in or subscribe to.  I have found his tactics in this debate to be more like a drive by smearing.....

Quote:
He never gets angry.
You can correct that for future reference. 

 

Quote:

He is infuriatingly tolerant. I was surprised to see him depart, only once, from that mode and use the F-word.

    That is not infuriatingly tolerant, nor was it debate.  In a general and open discussion Lord Palmerston posts sunk into the gutter.

Quote:
So, I looked back at your post and saw why he did that. You should perhaps do the same. You misunderstood his post and you accused him of characterizing rural Ontarians of being anti-Catholic bigots
Not so. 

It is Lord Palmerston who chose to characterize Rural Ontarians as anti-Catholic bigots.  By pointing out that the people he describes as "Anti Catholoc Bigots" share the same position as him, does he dare call himself an "Anti Catholic Bigot"  The answer is obviously NO, just as it is wrong to call rural Ontarian protestants,  Anti-Catholic Bigots.  But instead of saying no, he provided  profanity.

Quote:
  - a startling accusation, given that it is the pro-Catholic funders who are making that accusation in this thread. It is they who see anti-Catholic bigots everywhere.
  Lord Palmerston should have refrained from using such comments in describing Rural Ontarians as Anti Catholic Bigots.
Quote:

So you should reflect on that, whether you want to apologize to LP or not. 

Reflect I have.  

You will find no quotes of me referring to rural Canadian Protestant voters as Anti Catholic Bigots.  You will find Lord Palmerston suggesting exactly that all the while implying that I am implying that I am saying that. ( I dislike those games)

Quite Frankly, Lord Palmerston is the last person in this debate who should have blown a gasket, considering the mud he was tossing in front of the fan.

The bottom line, is that this topic, is the "Third Rail", and people will become loaded for bear, and take sentences to their extremes.

The simple context of the Rural Ontario Voter, as describe in wiki, was thrown back at me, as some Bigoted affair.

Do I care about which of these groups, the Pro Catholic System or Single Public System, made these bigoted comments first?  If they existed in earlier threads, as this is about the 15th thread on School systems, it really doesn't matter.  All parties should refrain from such childish descriptions.

People who are tolerant do not engage in debates by calling those who may disagree with parts of their argument "anti Catholic Bigots" or go ballistic when such nonsense is pointed out to them.

Lord Palmerston went over the top..... 

Previous to this, my argument was that this is too polarizing a topic for a little party such as the NDP to successfully advocate on behalf of. That the NDP would likely be destroyed in an election.  And that the majority of people are not tuned into the problems in the educational system, and that another election on education would end up similar to the John Tory Debacle.

To think that it will take something far greater then the NDP to achieve  change to a single public system is to much to ask of single system advocates.  They would be willing to see a political party wiped out.

They are entitled to that position.  Apparently for NDP supporters, your ranks are split and your debates so endless, that it is unlikely be resolved anytime soon.

In the meantime, advocates looking for a challenge to their arguments and positions, who choose to use profanity, and prefer stuffing words on the forum they would like to hear come out of their challenger, vs argue the points as they are in the quotes of the original post are doing no favours in proving there is a way to go forward, without touching that 3rd rail.

I am certain you have had many a discussion with Lord Palmerston, and I have read many of his posts over the years. 

I also recognise who has told who to F OFF.

If you can't take the heat of a debate in a left wing forum, how do you expect to expand that debate to the broader public. 

But that isn't the reason you are replying to me.  You are here to say Lord Palmerston is a good forum participant.  Which is normally the case, but not this day.

Unionist

madmax wrote:
Support for one public system, exists as it always has, in Conservative, Rural Protestant dominated ridings.

That's the offensive, divisive, ethnic proposition that you (you, no one else) introduced into this thread.

LP called you on it, correctly condemning you for implying that it's only anti-Catholic bigots that support a single system. He didn't call them that - he accused you of leaving that impression. You wouldn't be the first. Every thread on this topic has been larded with accusations that single-school supporters are anti-Catholic bigots.

LP has been saying, nonstop, that opposition to religious school funding is not statistically based on people's religion. He has never called anyone a bigot.  Those of us (including me) who want to cut the Catholics off without a cent - now - have been called bigots in these threads. If you don't want to understand this simple point, that's your problem.

madmax

Your offended by wikipedia? 

And you extrapolate an absolutely silly position that "its only anti catholic bigots, that support a single system" because of the quote above? 

You have joined Lord Palmerston on stretching your credibility on this issue.  You both have developed a thin, sensitive skin, and an ability to accuse people of things that are absurd because you are involved in an overheated debate.

The more outrageous comments you make, the less opportunity you have to make your case.

I have no idea why others would call you "anti catholic bigots" however by trying to accuse me of such crap, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michelle

I think it's hilarious to watch people who support Christian supremacy accuse those who want the same schooling for all "anti-Catholic bigots".

I think it's also hilarious to watch people who are making purely pragmatic and utterly unprincipled arguments in favour of funding Catholic education and no separate education for any other religion accuse those who want public funding for one secular system only of intolerance.

Let's get something straight, here.  (This is my opinion as a citizen, not as a moderator.)  If you support, even just for pragmatic reasons, the privileging of one Christian religion over every other religion in the province, you've got absolutely NO moral authority to be calling ANYONE else a bigot, whether you're saying it or just implying it.

And you know what?  I'll just repeat it again: any institution that teaches its followers that it's better to rape kids repeatedly for three years than it is to help nine-year-old pregnant rape victims get abortion, and lies to millions of Africans about condoms INCREASING their risk of getting AIDS, has absolutely NO BUSINESS getting public funding to teach children ANYTHING.  You want to indoctrinate your kids with that kind of bullshit?  You do it at home, and in your churches, on your own dime.

Unionist

madmax wrote:
Your offended by wikipedia?

Oh, I'm sorry, your statement that it's "Conservative rural Protestants" who oppose Catholic school funding comes from WIKIPEDIA, and you're just quoting it! My apologies.

 

Lord Palmerston

madmax wrote:
If you can't take the heat of a debate in a left wing forum, how do you expect to expand that debate to the broader public.

You're hilarious.

Quote:
But that isn't the reason you are replying to me.  You are here to say Lord Palmerston is a good forum participant.  Which is normally the case, but not this day.

Nobody is impressed by your grandstanding.  I know you have this delusional idea that any clear-headed person who looks back at the thread will see how you've been wronged, so so I'm sorry to break it to you.

I also don't care for your patroinizing attitude of "oh you're so rude, you'll never convince people with your attitude and I just want to debate the facts." I do want to debate the issue, but that doesn't give you the right to accuse me of calling of rural Ontarians bigots (and continuing to harp on it) without me responding to it.  

madmax

Lord Palmerston, I don't enjoy going in circles. Rest of post now deleted.

 

Lord Palmerston.... I am aware of what has occured in this thread. 

For the betterment of the debate, I offer an apology, regarding any references to Anti Catholic Bigots etc.  and any other offence that caused you to respond so out of character.

I apologise.

madmax 

 

Unionist

Thank you, madmax, that was classy.

 

riffraffrenegade

I wanted to pick up on an old part of one of these threads because I finally agree with Fidel on something. YAY!!! I too fear we are fast headed for privatization of the school systems unless we get our collective acts together and make some difficult decisions.

The general public and our government are relying on data from rightwing think tanks like the CD Howe and Fraser Institutes when making decisions about school choice and education policy.

Their school rankings are being used by parents in choosing schools even though very few educators or trustees in any of the 4 existing school systems trust their validity or reliability for this or any other purpose. The general public is buying what they're selling. So some schools win out and some lose when parents vote with their feet. We pit the Separate systems, which represent introduced competition, against the public systems.

Another CD Howe study concluded that the Separate schools have to do better or risk losing their students to the public, so the Separate schools do marginally better and thus the public schools have to respond and do better. The conclusion being that if a little competition is a good thing, then more competition would be a great thing. Can you devise a better union breaking scheme; a better way to convince tax payers that our public system's crap and that tax credits or vouchers would be a much better idea? And then it's just one easy step to say we just can't afford any of it anymore.

They have been successful in convincing many middle class parents (Catholic & non) that the Separate system is better and they are at least partially responsible for the hate-filled rhetorical vortex that we keep getting caught in.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Backgrounder_115.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/authors/detail.aspx?id=994
What a jolly, old Fellow.

Lord Palmerston

Thanks for raising this.

OL12 OL12's picture

I wanted to post the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of intolerant as a few here apparently don't know what it means:

intolerant
1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
3: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

I would like to direct people's attention to definition 2 specifically, because the failure of our government to grant equal rights to non-Catholic Ontarians with respect to educational choice and related employment opportunities is textbook intolerance.

How could the government show equal respect and consideration for people of non-Catholic faith or no faith? Why by funding all religious schools or none, of course.

Why should the members of one faith alone be guaranteed a choice of publicly funded schools wherever they chose to live in Ontario (publicly funded Catholic schools have an absolute right to reject non-Catholic children until grade 9)? Why should Catholic teachers have 50% more job opportunities than their non-Catholic counterparts (publicly funded Catholic school boards, which employ a third of the province's teachers, have an absolute right to discriminate against non-Catholic teachers in hiring and promotion)? Non-fundamental denominational school rights should not trump fundamental equality rights. We all bear the same tax burden, based on our income, not the "colour" of our faith. We therefore should all enjoy the same level of government services and related job opportunities.

The last election made it pretty clear the electorate will never agree to the "fund all" solution to the discrimination problem. Polls during the same election indicated that the majority support the "fund none" option. It is time to end government largesse for the Catholic faith exclusively. The Ontario government should show equal respect and consideration for people of all faiths. The best way to do that is by merging the public and Catholic school systems into one school system.

I agree with Michelle that attempts to paint those who oppose Catholics-only privilege as intolerant bigots is laughable.  These pro-Catholics-only-privilege people should study the definition above -- and have a look in the mirror.

Max Bialystock

Welcome, OL12.

 The problem for supporters of one school system is that the parties don't listen to them, even though they're the majority.   It's time to demonstrate our clout.  Stop voting for parties that support religious discrimination in education.   I refused to vote for the ONDP last time because of their lame stance and I will refuse again. 

 

OL12 OL12's picture

Max Bialystock wrote:

Stop voting for parties that support religious discrimination in education.   I refused to vote for the ONDP last time because of their lame stance and I will refuse again. 

You were not alone.  The Green party was the only party to propose ending religious discrimination in education in the last election and they nearly tripled their vote, relegating the NDP to fourth place in many ridings.  Some of them acknowledged that they benefitted from being the only party to give voice to the majority desire for one school system.  They drew new support from across the political spectrum.

John Tory was leading in the polls right up until he made the wrong choice in resolving the religious discrimination issue in our school system.  From that point onwards, he was screwed.  Earlier in 2007, polls showed the election was his.  If he had chosen the "fund none" option instead of "fund all", he probably wouldn't be an abject failure as a politician today.  He would have kept his early lead in the polls.  He would have been able to stay principled, not being the lap dog of powerful vested interests as McGuinty and Hampton (now succeeded by an equally bigoted Horwath)were.  Being on the right side of public opinion, he probably would have also forced the NDP and Liberals to get on side as well -- or to die at the polls.  The whole religious school funding issue would have been defused and the Catholic education vested interests would have had no where to hide.

Too bad the NDP's brain dead strategists didn't clue into the Green stroke of genius in the last election.  Ahh, what might have been.  At least the NDP have a chance at playing the Green strategy next time around -- if they can work around the bigoted party brass who still favour Catholics over all others.

Why is it that the main ONDP party is so flipping bigoted while the federal NDP and the ONDP Youth have now long supported one school system?

Lord Palmerston

Thanks for pointing this out.

Pages

Topic locked