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
There have been plenty of crimes perpetuated by the religious throughout history that were prefaced with similar statements. This is why incidents of this nature needs to be stopped before it spreads..yet again. The message should be no tolerance for religious intolerance.
No. The only time I'd object is if a student is actually disrupting a classroom (and not by simply wearing a shirt). But, if a kid is advocating for some political or religious position in the hallways or on the school ground, other students are free to ignore it or retort with a simple, "Fuck you." It should not be within the power of government to muzzle speech.
I'm routinely intolerant of religion. Religions are almost invariably anti-intellectual. They frequently perpetuate unsubstantiated myths. Too many focus on the "hereafter" rather than the here-and-now (as a way of controlling behavior).
Now, that said, I'm not so intolerant that I want to bar religious beliefs (that wouldn't even be possible, anyway), but I feel free to exercise my own right of speech to criticize religion in the harshest possible terms.
Oh, and I don't believe in just criticizing "the dominant" religion and giving "non-dominant" religious beliefs a pass.
Well said.
Luckily then, this thread isn't about barring religious belief, but more specifically its about protecting a community of children as represented in a school setting, who have felt it necessary to protect themselves from being abused by religious belief by speaking out. To me it's no better than having a molester on the loose in the school hallways. I didn't actually raise the issue of dominant religion vs non-dominant religion, but there might be an element to that as well, depending of course on the demographics of a particular community or school, that could certainly be fleshed out with a little analysis. I hesitate to try and bore you with it here as it doesn't seem we've been able to move beyond the elementary aspects of this story.
A community, in this case a community of youth and children enclosed within the walls and corridors of a school where they have little choice but to attend, are asking for protection. Their rights as a collective, as a society in their own right, must be balanced against that of the individual who can otherwise practice their right to free speech just about anywhere else from where children must gather in a compulsory environment. The difference between this situation and a situation like Mount Cashel for instance is in the physical application of abuse vs. the purely psychological.
Care to re-think that comparison?
Well, beyond juvenile detention facilities and the like, the school is as close to a carceral setting as society can make it. I suppose the choice of home schooling exists as an alternate arrangement, but I would argue that it's an unrealistic choice for many families. Any parent who keeps their children away from school, and who does not provide home schooling, can expect to receive at some point the attention of government child services organizations. For most families the school as an institution of state, for all intents and purposes, is compulsory upon the adult and the child. Therefore it presents a different challenge, in terms of the avenues of freedom available to students which might otherwise exist outside of school property, where they could if they so choose avail themselves of the opportunity to flee in any direction from such material and speech and people that they might consider objectionable. Within the school setting they represent a captive audience - fish in a barrel in other words. I see little difference between the case of a young adult, indoctrinated from early childhood into the ways of fundamentalist religion by the adults in his life as it seems to be the case here, preaching to such a captive audience, or providing those same adults access to school for the purposes of relaying such 'fire and brimstone' discourse to young students, who are trapped within the facility itself according to the dictates of the state. In this case, the state owes a duty of protection if it also mandates that children must attend their facilities.
By Stacey Foster
foster.stacey@miramichileader.com
04 May 2012 03:11AM
MIRAMICHI - A Grade 10 student who missed more than half the school year received probation from a judge in provincial court last week.
A 16-year-old male appeared in Miramichi provincial court April 27 before judge Geri Mahoney charged with failing to comply with an undertaking by not attending school between Sept. 7, 2011 and Feb. 2, 2012. He pleaded guilty.
Crown prosecutor Malika Levesque said on Feb. 2, police responded to a call from a citizen about several students skipping school. He found the youth near a hostel in Chatham and told them to go back to school. At the end of the day, the officer learned the students did not return to school, she said.
Upon learning the youth, who cannot be named under provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was under an undertaking with a condition he attend classes, he checked with the school and found out that during the 80 days that classes had been in session, the youth was late three times, suspended for 13 days and absent without excuse for 34 days.