babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Maybe. At the very least they should stop claiming it's a political winner when there is no evidence that it is.
All parties are forced to play by the unwritten rules of political expediency. It's a product of our obsolete electoral system. And Howard Hampton was the only leader of the three main parties to publicly endorse MMP during the last election campaign. If you prefer the millions of wasted votes and paternalistic governments taking Ontario voters for granted, and their non-transparency when governning by what amounts to dictatorial rule, then you should make good and sure not to vote NDP. It's your guarantee that politicians will be forced to continue playing to a fickle and politically conservative phony majority of voters electing governments in this province.
They increased their popular vote from 3% to 8%. The fact that they didn't win any seats is an artifact of our phony voting system.
Truly. In a fair voting system this incredibly resonant issue would have taken them from fourth place to fourth place.
Quite right Spector. The Greens were coming from a place of weakness and for the most part very poorly resourced local campaigns and volunteers, and yet they got 8% of the vote. In fact they came very close to unseating a popular con MPP in Owen Sound. The local green candidate gardnered the support of normally lib supporters, NDP supporters, and also some cons (who didn't want to fund all religion schools).
I also know that the green candidate was supported by people who work in the education field because it is those people who know that propping up 4 school systems is not in the best interests of kids and their educational needs in Ontario.
And the Greens had their best showing ever in 2007, going from 2.82% popular vote to 8.02%. In terms of gains, they had the best showing of all parties. That's what happens when you get onside with an idea like one school system that is supported by the majority of the population. You draw new support from across the political spectrum.
Poll after poll in the 2007 election showed that most Ontarians want one school system more than the status quo or the extended funding proposal of the Tories, but support for new parties grows slowly. It takes time to shake a fringe label, but now that the Greens are outpolling the ONDP in many areas, perceptions are changing. They will attract better and better candidates and their policies will become more coherent and credible.
And what of the sorry ONDP? They had perhaps their most dismal showing ever in the 2007 election. One thing the ONDP has going for them is a better policy apparatus, but they could have had a much stronger platform with the addition of one policy -- one school system.
Failure to embrace a one school system policy was a huge opportunity lost for the ONDP in 2007. Will they blow it again in 2011? I predict that as soon as one of the big three parties adopt a one school system policy, the other parties will follow. They could not afford to head into an election being portrayed as defenders of waste and unjustifiable privilege for a favoured few. It is so easy to argue the merits of one school system, while it is impossible to convincingly argue the merits of the status quo. It is immoral, unjust, and fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.
The Greens' one school system proposal was largely if not mostly responsible for their outstanding success in 2007. To suggest that it contributed to a failure on their part is ridiculous. They made tremendous gains.
Canada will likely be censured by the UN Human Rights Committe again next year for the discrimination in the Ontario school system (on the occassion of their sixth periodic report on how they give effect to the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). What parties in Ontario will be standing on the side of the righteous when that happens? Will the ONDP be among them? Or will they blow a golden opportunity again?
Unfortunately, the current ONDP leader is quite hostile to discussing this issue.
And of course, in the Sunday Hat theory of political campaigning, the worst sin of all is to lose.
To avoid this, a party must forget about promising to do what's right, and instead do what it thinks is popular.
You're not intimidated by grumpy people like Horvath, are you LP? Please say it ain't so. I thought, from previous discussion threads, that you were on our side. Been whipped into line by the ONDP brass?
Horvath is indeed hostile to even discussion of this issue, but so what? Does she own the Ontario New Democratic Party? Or has it become the Ontario New Autocratic Party on her watch? Her position on the one school system issue is incredibly bigoted, hypocritical, and weak -- and especially outrageous coming from one of the privileged elite (she is a Catholic). Yet my comments on her drivel can wait for detailed dissection in another post.
Not at all. I'm no NDP partisan cheerleader. I hope people continue the fight for one school system inside and outside the NDP.
And I've been pretty disappointed with Horwath's leadership so far.
That's quite something isn't it? The leader of a "democratic" party can be hostile to even discussing an issue? How can that be? Is that right? The suppression of free and open dialogue is not a characteristic of "democratic" parties.
That idea escaped me on first reading your post and just struck me now. Are ONDP members OK with that? Maybe they are used to it by now -- Hampton and the party brass have quashed free and open dialogue on the one school system issue for years.
The ONDP had a whole leadership campaign devoted to debate of this issue. The candidate who championed the issue came fourth - out of four. So, if we want to fly the democracy flag I'd say we had the debate and the people have spoken. Pretty decisively.
But, as M. Spector notes, I have a predilection for effective organizing that actually makes gains for people. A lot of people prefer masturbation. Stroke on!
ًWell the ONDP well knows that unlike on the Catholic funding issue, the MMP game is stacked. Cons and Libs enjoy it too much to change it. If political expediency is part of the political game, are lack of vision and plain stupidity too?
Let me get this straight. The school is publicly funded but is not accessible to the public? Hmmm....
Doesn't it make sense that any school that accepts public money must needs be universally accessible?
On the contrary. The majority group, be it ethnic or religious, loves democracy (not to be confused with justice) because it legitimizes a 50% + 1 majority dictatorship and suppresion of the minority. let's not forget that democracy is only a means to an end and is neither good nor bad in its own right. It's but a tool which put in the wrong hands could be used as a weapon.
By the way, if the issue is too hot for the ONDP to support officially, then would it not be possible for the ONDP to at least adopt no policy on it and leave it up to each individual MP to decide for himself whether to support this religious apartheid? At least it would prevent the ONDP from adopting an explicitely discriminatory stance.
It wasnt the NDP who created this school system. And it's not an NDP in government in Toronto today and grossly under-funding elementary schools at lower per student amount than secondary schools by comparison.
If you enjoy games of political expediency and about a fifth of eligible voters choosing your government, and you enjoy underfunded elementary schools in Ontario, then make damn good and sure not to vote NDP. I guarantee you'll get more of the same.
Really? The whole campaign was devoted to the one school system issue? I don't think so, but it certainly was something people wanted to discuss. It was probably one of the few issues that made the media pay any attention at all -- probably because they saw it as the ONDP considering an issue where they could make a difference and and issue that could make a difference for the ONDP.
Supporters of one school system had to fight to even get to debate whether to get to debate the issue at the January 2007 policy conference. They failed to get a full debate on the issue. In their annual report shortly after, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association wrote:
And the largest donors for the other three? The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. What a surprise. See this post giving details of that. All Michael Prue wanted to do is let the debate happen -- to let the party be democratic. The Catholic teachers worked hard to make sure he didn't get the chance. The desperately want to prevent the issue from seeing the light of day or getting to a debate.
What were they afraid of? They don't want a big three party to give expression to the majority desire of the electorate for one school system or the jig is up for them. They are terrified of that possibility because it spells the end of a system where they have always enjoyed a greater number of job opportunities.
We haven't touched on this yet in this discussion, but it is worth noting at this point that one third of the publicly funded teaching jobs in Ontario are effectively closed to two thirds of the population -- the non-Catholics. One must be a practicing Catholic with a letter from a Catholic priest to be hired by a Catholic school board. Non-Catholic teachers are as rare as hens teeth in Ontario Catholic schools. Those that you can find are in temporary positions and are ineligible for advancement or promotion. The ones I've met and spoke to are all dying to find a position in a public board and get out of there. They want a secure and stable career. Can anyone blame them?
Catholics pay the same taxes as anyone else, but have 50% more job opportunities than their non-Catholic neighbours. Sweet. Another bonus deal for Catholics. And the ONDP is party to OECTA's efforts to keep that sweet deal for Catholics -- to their shame.
Welcome to aparthied brother -- Ontario style!
If you are a white (Catholic) kid, you get to go to the white (Catholic) school and teach there when you grow up. If you are black (non-Catholic), we have a different school for you. Of course, if the black (public) school in a given area has better facilities, programs, or test scores, white (Catholic) kids can still go there if they want. White (Catholic) kids can also teach at the black (public) schools when they grow up. The reverse, black (non-Catholic) kids getting into white (Catholic) schools, is only possible if the white (Catholic) school is underenrolled and desperate for a few more holy enrolment grants. Blacks (non-Catholics) teaching at white (Catholic) schools is out of the question unless they are desperate and unable to find a white (Catholic) teacher. When black (non-Catholic) teachers are hired, it is bye-bye blackie as soon as a qualified white (Catholic) teacher can be found.
That's the way it has been in Ontario since 1841. Let me hear you say "Amen", white (Catholic) parents and teachers.
This all has the support of the ONDP and Ontario's other big three parties. Only the Greens can see the wrong in it.
The trotting out of the "oppressed Catholic" talk here by several posters is really disturbing. Yeah Catholics are soooo oppressed in today's Ontario (where all three major party leaders are Catholic).
And whenever they do manage the rare 50% plus one, it's usually a phony majority still when compared to how many people didnt vote.
And even the Green party leader LP -- Frank de Jong is Catholic as well (and he likes the one school system idea, I might add). The fact that all four leaders are Catholic actually creates perfect conditions for a move to one school system -- provided they are not all intolerant bigots (Frank de Jong is obviously not). Both Quebec and Newfoundland had Catholic leaders when they dismantled denominational schools. It kind of takes away the ability of the religious elite to play the "persecuted" card, not that anyone with an IQ over 50 would believe that those atop the pedestal of educational privilege are persecuted anyway.
Up here in Northern Ontario, they would often burn barns down if the spelling of their surname looked funny and especially if you were Catholic. It wasnt so long ago there were orangemen and even klan meetings here. Not long before I was born, they used to burn crosses on the hill in centre of town.
Well, maybe they'll just burn down all the Catholic schools and problem solved. Thanks for the update from the front lines, Fidel.
A complete waste of time and effort. Burning down Queen's Perk would be much more productive. And besides, she's not my queen. And the red chamber in Ottawa could do with some redecorating.
I must tell that to my niece and nephew who send their children to a catholic school since I am sure they didn't know it was a race issue. They are like Obama from a north american white mother and a black immigrant father. To say there are no catholics who are black and send their kids to those indoctrination centres is inaccurate. I don't know the percentage but in most catholic communities I have seen recently (my family is catholic but not me) I notice that there seem to be a larger percentage who are Filipino or Latin American or Korean. Lots of us white folks have fled the church leaving plenty of room in the pews for immigrants from catholic countries.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Apartheid? Isnt that where they segregated people onto narrow strips of land outside major cities controlled by whites? And they were abused by police to extremes? Our colonial administrators would never do anything like that in Canada, would they?
It says a lot about your character, Sunday Hat, that you would make light of very serious waste and discrimination that has real consequences for all Ontarians generally, but for non-Catholics in particular. Suggesting, even by implication, that opposition to the preferential treatment of Catholics is rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment is particularly reprehensible. Where is your evidence of an anti-Catholic, Orange bogeyman conspiracy?
Supporters of one school system just want equality -- and if it were white people who sat atop the pedestal of educational privilege, the situation would be no more or no less objectionable. This really has little to do with religion. It has more to do with wasteful spending and discrimination on prohibited grounds (religion, race, or ethnic group).
It is bad enough that non-Catholic parents must sometimes shell out money that their Catholic neigbours don't have to pay, that your kids may have to be bussed well past the nearest publicly funded school to attend another school, that those of your non-Catholic ilk have a third fewer teaching opportunities than their Catholic neighbours, or that your religion does not get the government assistance the Catholic faith does; but when someone (presumably Catholic) then rubs your face in it by suggesting that YOU are persecuting HIM by daring to protest HIS preferential treatment, it is beyond outrageous. We only want fair and equal treatment.
It is really hard to believe that a person who would object to his neighbour seeking equality, or who would make light of that, could be either Catholic or Christian. Perhaps you are in the great majority of Catholics: those who trundle their kids off to Catholic school while sleeping in on Sunday morning because the Government of Ontario relieves you of the need to be involved in the spiritual and moral upbringing of your children. You could use the lessons you might get from the pulpit, my friend.
Religious intolerance was a real and dreadful reality in 19th century Ontario and was perhaps the most significant factor leading to the creation of Catholic separate schools. We are so fortunate it has been virtually eradicated today, save for a few like you who would callously dredge it up while suggesting, without so much as a shred of evidence, that others are religiously intolerant.