Amazing, OL12. Catholic educators giving money to politicians so that politicians will keep giving money (not their own of course) to Catholic educators.
[url=http://www.oecta.on.ca/agms/agm2009/day1.htm][color=red]Here is your link, which I repaired[/color][/url] to the Catholic teachers' website.
Yeah that stinks. OSSTF (secular high school teachers) made donations to Prue and Tabuns but those donations are nowhere near as high as OECTA's.
Yeah that stinks. OSSTF (secular high school teachers) made donations to Prue and Tabuns but those donations are nowhere near as high as OECTA's.
The Catholic education vested interests do enjoy spending other people's money to protect their special privilege. OCSTA (Catholic Trustees' Association) introduced a student "head tax" on member boards last fall to help build a war chest to fight any current and future attempts to remove their privilege:
[url=http://www.bramptonguardian.com/brampton/news/article/59585][color=blue]Board chips in $21,000 to promote Catholic education Board chips in $21,000 to promote Catholic education[/color][/url]
Brampton Guardian Friday October 31 2008
ROGER BELGRAVEDufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board is contributing about $21,000 to province-wide efforts promoting and defending Catholic education.
... [snip]
The association special levy would raise about $140,000 a year, [OCSTA Executive Director John Stunt] estimated. During the next three years there might be some review to see if the levy should be increased, he added.
(see link above for full story)
Now what is really interesting here is that today, total school board funding is ultimately dependent on enrolment and other documented needs (special needs, geographic circumstances, etc). School "support" designations have no effect on the total funding received by any board. These designations are now merely a bureaucratic sleight of hand that deceives many people into thinking that Catholics actually pay for their special privileges (and most Catholic school boards spend scarce education dollars every year advertising and campaigning to make sure as many Catholics as possible tick the "correct" box -- despite the only purpose today being political "optics"). All Ontario taxpayers pay equally (based on their income, not their faith) for all publicly funded schools -- and we all pay more than we should have to because of the wasteful duplication in the school system. This "head tax" is a case of the Catholic education vested interests using the money of all taxpayers to promote and defend an exclusively Catholic privilege that most taxpayers are very opposed to! Is that incredible or what?
The public school boards and teachers unions should start a similar war chest of their own to promote the standing OPSBA (Ontario Public School Boards' Association) position in favour of one school system. The problem with OSSTF (Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Association) is that while most of their members favour one school system (at least the ones I've met), they have a little known conflict of interest in that they represent the support staff at some Catholic school boards. That was never an obstacle when Earl Manners led them. Earl was a strong advocate of one school system when he led the OSSTF.
I just had a look at the campaign contributions for the four NDP leadership contestants at the Elections Ontario web site (http://www2.elections.on.ca/rtd/jsp/en/RTDLeader.jsp).
Guess what? OECTA (English Catholic teachers' union) was the largest, or tied for largest, contributor to each of the defenders of continued Catholic privilege (Horwath, Tabuns, Bisson). Not surprising, I guess, given the following sort of encouragement at their AGM this year:
Political activism needed
OECTA president Elaine Mac Neil urged teachers to join political parties to ensure their voices are raised on behalf of Catholic students and schools. It is important that teachers hear first hand the statements and policies being made by parties on Catholic education, she said. As members of a party they can speak about what goes on our classrooms when policy is being developed. Members of OECTA’s Provincial Executive and Secretariat, and teacher delegates attended the provincial NDP and Conservative party conventions in February and March. The NDP leadership convention was particularly concerning for OECTA, said Elaine Mac Neil, and speakers at the convention were able to influence the outcome of a motion by the NDP to review support for public funding of Catholic schools in Ontario.
To paraphrase: "Go git em brothers and sisters. We haven't got a hope in hell if the electorate ever gets a chance to vote on our superior education rights, so we have to keep a stranglehold on the political parties through backroom manoeuvring. THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER FIND AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR WILL IN A BIG THREE POLITICAL PARTY."
I wasn't at the convention this year. Were OECTA members as evident as they were at the January 2007 policy conference, where they were very active in fighting the one school system motion that might have dramatically improved the party's electoral prospects had it passed?
None of the leadership candidates had a very long list of donors, even Horwath. Interestingly, one of Horwath's donors was a Ted McMeekin. The Liberal MPP? (If so, is he a closet NDPer or Horwath a closet Liberal?)
Bisson had the support of the French and English Catholic teacher unions (the OECTA donations were among his most sizable, totaling $6000). Horwath had a very sizable donation from OECTA ($5000 - tied with two other donations for her largest) and another significant donation from Peter Kormos, another big fan of continued Catholic privilege. Tabuns also had a very sizable donation from OECTA ($5000 - tied with a CUPE donation for his largest).
Michael Prue didn't get any lovin from OECTA. Poor guy.
The short answer to this question is that the right for public funding of Catholic schools in Ontario was grandfathered.=the BNAAct 1867 protected the rights of EXISTING denominational schools, not the rights of denominational schools that might be created post-Confederation. .As the Reference Re Bill 30 previously posted illustrates, the Ontario government can legally extend the rights of Catholic Schools for public funding. as it did when it extended the funding to Grades 11, 12 and 13. By the same token the Ontario governement can also legally extend rights to public funding for otherr denominmations..Contrary to what the proponents of the "separation of Church and State" might wish there is no barrier to Ontario granting public funding to say, Muslim schools. But the Ontario government can not, without serious constittuional issues arising, take away the rights of Catholic Schools that existed pre-Confederation.
The protection, even grandfathering of minority rights is common in Canada. and gerneraly held as valid in law. For example there is special protection for the minoirty language rights of French and English and they have rights that other language speakers (Italian, Mandarin, Farsi?) do not have and we can not consider Canada as intolerant or bigoted because itgratns different rights.
----------------------------
Extending full fuding to Catholic schools was challenged in the Supreme Court. Catholic rightrs were upheld
t==========================
Per Dickson C.J. and McIntyre, Wilson and La Forest JJ.: Bill 30 was a valid exercise of the provincial power to add to the rights and privileges of Roman Catholic separate school supporters under the combined effect of the opening words of s. 93 and s. 93(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Prior authority supports this interpretation of s. 93(3). The purpose and history of s. 93 also supports it. Protection of minority religious rights was a major preoccupation during the negotiations leading to Confederation. The basic compact of Confederation with respect to education was that rights and privileges already acquired by law at the time of Confederation would be preserved and provincial legislatures could bestow additional rights and privileges in response to changing conditions.
Bill 30 was also a valid exercise of the provincial power to return rights constitutionally guaranteed to separate schools by s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Roman Catholic separate school supporters had at Confederation a right or privilege, by law, to have their children receive an appropriate education which could include instruction at the secondary school level. The Scott Act gave separate school trustees the same powers and duties as common school trustees. The exercise of these rights was not a mere practice tolerated by the educational authorities. An adequate level of funding was required for this right to be meaningful and the Scott Act provided for proportionate funding.
Even if Bill 30 were supportable only under the province's plenary power and s. 93(3), it is protected from Charter review. Rights or privileges conferred by post‑Confederation legislation under s. 93(3) are not "guaranteed" within the meaning of s. 29 in the same way as rights or privileges under s. 93(1). It is clear from the wording of s. 93(3) that post‑Confederation legislation referred to in that subsection may be subsequently amended or repealed by the legislature which passed it in a way which affects rights or privileges initially granted by it. The rights or privileges protected by s. 93(1), on the other hand, cannot be prejudicially affected. However, both are immune from Charter review even without s. 29 because the whole of s. 93 represents a fundamental compromise of Confederation in relation to denominational schools. The section 93(3) rights and privileges are not guaranteed in the sense that the legislature which gave them cannot later pass laws which prejudicially affect them but they are insulated from Charter attack as legislation enacted pursuant to the plenary power in relation to education. The protection from Charter review in the case of s. 93(3) lies not in the guaranteed nature of the rights and privileges conferred on denominational schools by the legislation passed under it but in the guaranteed nature of the province's plenary power to enact such legislation. The Confederation compromise in relation to education is not displaced by the Constitution Act, 1982.
--------------------
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.
So you think we should live in the 1800's Peter J?
The short answer to this question is that the right for public funding of Catholic schools in Ontario was grandfathered.=the BNAAct 1867 protected the rights of EXISTING denominational schools, not the rights of denominational schools that might be created post-Confederation.
So what? We should continue the offensive and discriminatory practice of funding segregated religious schools for a single favoured faith group because the practice was established a long, long, time ago? We should tell people of all other faiths that because they weren't around at the magic moment that [b][i]some people[/i][/b] arbitrarily deem to be of special significance that they should suck it up and live with unfair laws forevermore? No reasonable person would think so -- unless they really believed themselves deserving of better treatment than their neighbours (Not very Christian. Remember the [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:37-40][color=medi... Commandment[/u][/color][/url]?). Such thinking is anathema to most modern, democratic political parties (outside of Ontario anyway).
You should familiarize yourself with Appeal to History (a.k.a Appeal to Tradition), a logical fallacy of relevance wherein a situation or practice is held to be justified for the sole reason that it has existed for a very long time (or maybe you are familiar with it?). Such arguments are complete rubbish.
[b][i]Just because Ontario has a time honoured tradition of wastefulness and discrimination in our school system is no reason for it to continue today.[/i][/b] The fact that this argument is frequently peddled in support of Catholic separate schools is telling.
It is 2009, not 1841 (when our school system and greater Ontario society began to fragment along Protestant-Catholic, English-French, and Anglo-Irish lines). The mutual and widespread intolerance that existed between Catholics and Protestants in 19th century Ontario simply does not exist today. Catholics and Protestants no longer need fear exposure to the other faith's (erroneous) teachings in the public school system. Most Ontarians no longer care about the "colour" of their child's teacher's faith. The unfortunate and ugly conditions that gave rise to Catholic separate schools in Ontario's distant past no longer exist.
Egerton Ryerson, the father of our education system, foresaw the day when separate schools would "die out, not by force of legislative enactment, but under the influence of increasingly enlightened and enlarged views of Christian relations, rights and duties between different classes of the community."
Are we there yet (that enlightened and more tolerant Nirvana)? I believe that most Ontarians are. The laws (and a few stragglers) just have to catch up to the majority. Ryerson would be rolling in his grave to know that our school system was still divided a century and a half after his passing.
No. What was upheld was the Ontario government's right to extend full funding to Catholic separate schools to the end of high school. That is what the Bill 30 reference to the Supreme Court was all about. The Ontario government had decided to fully fund Catholic high schools in the 1980s and some in society challenged their authority to do so. The Bill 30 reference determined not that Ontario was [b][i]obliged[/i][/b] to extend such funding, but that it [b][i]had the authority[/i][/b] to do so. The purpose and meaning of the Bill 30 reference and ruling are often misrepresented -- either wilfully for self-serving purposes or out of ignorance often created by the wilful misrepresentation.
Thanks for clarifying that, OL12.
And ... about this:
http://www.bramptonguardian.com/brampton/news/article/59585
It appears to me that the Board is paying these fees out of Board (ie, PUBLIC) money.
I think I have a problem with that!
Promoting Catholic education with public money?
Doesn't sit right ...
The protection, even grandfathering of minority rights is common in Canada. and gerneraly held as valid in law. For example there is special protection for the minoirty language rights of French and English and they have rights that other language speakers (Italian, Mandarin, Farsi?) do not have and we can not consider Canada as intolerant or bigoted because it grants different rights.
Discriminating on the basis of a nation's official languages is not considered prohibited discrimination ("race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" in our Charter of Rights). It is accepted in nations (and human rights instruments) the world over. One could argue that it is in a nation's economic best interest to offer education in their official languages only. Therefore it is not intolerant to have official languages -- but [b][i]it is intolerant to have official (or favoured) religions[/i][/b]. See the [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant][color=mediumblue][... of intolerant[/u][/color][/url] again ("especially in religious matters"). Some people have to read it a few times before it really sinks in.
Comparing official languages to official religions (the Catholic faith in Ontario) is not comparing apples to apples. Discrimination on the basis of one's faith [b][i]is[/i][/b] prohibited discrimination -- and for good reason. It is just as hurtful as discriminating against someone for the colour of their skin. Many, if not most, people of faith feel their religious identity more strongly and hold it as more important than their racial identity. Violating their dignity with religious discrimination inevitably leads to conflict. People on the favoured side of such discrimination often just can't see the problem. Life is a bed of roses to them.
Canada's decision to become officially bilingual (English and French) was a relatively recent political development. Official language education rights were established by our own generation with the agreement of all provinces in the 1980s. Denominational school "rights", on the other hand, were enacted by our great-great-great-great-grandparent's generation to address mid-19th century realities. The Anglo-Irish, English-French, and especially the Protestant-Catholic divisions that racked 19th century Ontario simply do not exist to any significant degree today. It is time we moved on and updated our laws to reflect today's realities.
As I mentioned in my previous post, denominational school rights can be rescinded very easily. An amendment rescinding official language education rights, on the other hand, would require the approval of at least 7 of 10 provinces representing at least 50% of the population. That is just not going to happen; especially so soon after those very same provinces approved official language education rights.
You are fishing for red herrings, aren't you Peter? Good for you. Another fallacious argument. You're going to be an expert on fallacies by the end of this debate.
Just check the discussion on parenting, and one sees the danger of mostly having a monopoly in our kids education. Our one track public education system lacks the diversity we need in order to raise kids with a healty body and mind. This one track brainwashing is dangerous in my opinion. We need more variations in our education system. The two nearly identical systems we have here in Ontario now is not enough.
In the long run it is a false economy to think that we save money by having one 'school road' availble to 'indoctrinate' our kids.
As the Reference Re Bill 30 previously posted illustrates, the Ontario government can legally extend the rights of Catholic Schools for public funding. as it did when it extended the funding to Grades 11, 12 and 13. By the same token the Ontario governement can also legally extend rights to public funding for otherr denominmations..Contrary to what the proponents of the "separation of Church and State" might wish there is no barrier to Ontario granting public funding to say, Muslim schools.
We all know, in light of the 2007 Ontario election, that "fund all" is never going to fly in Ontario. That option to resolve the discrimination in our school system would have been unworkable and too costly anyway. Had he won, John Tory would have put his government in the position of being arbiter of what constitutes a valid faith and which ones deserve funding and which do not. It was incredibly stupid to even contemplate going there.
So if no future government is ever going to exercise their authority to correct the discrimination in our school system by extending similar rights to all faiths, we must consider the "fund none" option and all that that entails.
... the Ontario government can not, without serious constittuional issues arising, take away the rights of Catholic Schools that existed pre-Confederation.
Actually it can Peter. Very easily. Denominational school rights in the Constitution can be rescinded through a simple bilateral agreement between Ontario and the federal government alone. That is because such amendments are in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (education) and as such do not affect other provinces.
Quebec and Newfoundland both eliminated constitutionally protected denominational schools in the 1990s. Interestingly, Catholics made up a greater proportion of the population in both provinces (2001 Census: Quebec 83% Catholic, Newfoundland 37% Catholic, Ontario 34% Catholic). The amendment need only be a one-liner. Quebec's amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads: "93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec." Ontario's could read "93B. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Ontario." It needn't take long either. Newfoundland's amendment was proclaimed into law four months after being requested by the provincial legislature.
If Dalton or the Premier of the day didn't want to be bothered with the formality of constitutional change, however, they could just ignore the Constitution. Manitoba eliminated denominational school rights unilaterally in 1890, despite a constitutional "obligation" to provide them that reads identically to Ontario's (save for a clause in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 that applies solely to Quebec).
So you see, Ontario's "obligation" to fund Catholic separate schools is really quite illusory. There is no serious legislative impediment to its removal. It can be blown away like a leaf on the wind. Ontario discriminates not because it has to, but because [b][i]it wants to[/i][/b].
Extending full fuding to Catholic schools was challenged in the Supreme Court. Catholic rightrs were upheld
No. What was upheld was the Ontario government's right to extend full funding to Catholic separate schools to the end of high school. That is what the Bill 30 reference to the Supreme Court was all about. The Ontario government had decided to fully fund Catholic high schools in the 1980s and some in society challenged their authority to do so. The Bill 30 reference determined not that Ontario was [b][i]obliged[/i][/b] to extend such funding, but that it [b][i]had the authority[/i][/b] to do so. The purpose and meaning of the Bill 30 reference and ruling are often misrepresented -- either willfully for self-serving purposes or out of ignorance often created by the willful misrepresentation.
You can read much more about denominational school rights in the Canadian Constitution on the [url=http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/denominational_rights.html][color=mediumb... Equality in Ontario[/u][/color][/url] website.
Just check the discussion on parenting, and one sees the danger of mostly having a monopoly in our kids education. Our one track public education system lacks the diversity we need in order to raise kids with a healty body and mind. This one track brainwashing is dangerous in my opinion. We need more variations in our education system.
What sort of brainwashing techniques does the public education system employ? What other sorts of brainwashing would you like to see besides Catholic? Muslim? Mormon? Wiccan?
If you want "choice", you should join the soon-to-be-led-by-far-right-Hudak Tories. The who's-who of religious and private school lobbyists are all members (and were largely responsible for the last two Tory electoral disasters -- second only to the people who listened to them). [url=http://www.timhudakmpp.com/node/61][color=mediumblue][u]Tim Hudak loves "choice"[/u][/color][/url]. You can be sure that upon taking the reins, he will look for another way to lob a grenade into public education and blow it into competing and segregated fragments. Sounds like you would love Tim. I hear he is recruiting members for the June leadership vote to ensure his coronation. If enough of you "choice" people help him win, he'll owe you a favour. Worked for John Tory.
The two nearly identical systems we have here in Ontario now is not enough.
We should have more nearly identical systems?
I am really enjoying your posts in this thread, OL12. Welcome to babble!
Wow, OL12, thanks for pointing out that very soon four provincial political parties will be led by people who were raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. Not too shabby for a persecuted religious minority.
I am curious, seeing that we Roman Catholics are now the largest religious minority in the province, when do we officially become the majority? Is it at 50 plus 1? If we just listened to the Vatican and reverted back to using the rhythm method again for a short period of time, we'd be there. Or maybe we'll just try some targeted immigration. But then again, why bother? Our RC politicians and RC unions who know what's best for all Ontarians play the persecution card so well that we have the gullible non-Catholic politically correct set wrapped around our fingers.
Well maybe you can answer the question I raised near the end of this thread: http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/canadian-jews-condemn-suppression-criticism-israel
I always wonder though do Catholic Schools really only teach religion? Around here the 2 catholic high schools Johnson and Carr have a bunch of ppl who def not catholic going to them just because they better. Carr just got a new gym that proly the best I ever seen and got one of the best ball teams in the province. Johnson is funny and got a lot of ppl going to it. This junior-middle catholic school tho called Saint Angelas had a lot of white kids going to it somehow and they were never from the Rex lol always from woodbridge or something. I guess they would be taught religion or something. I think there like 2 other catholic schools in the rex Saint Mike's which junior and forget the other but it doesn't seem like they teach religion atleast not in the hood except for Saint angelas and that proyl cuz it mostly Italian kids who go there and they are catholic. It def aint fair to other religions though. And I don't see a point to it closing them down aint the solution though just integrate em into the public system but make that one better.
No. RRR.
me? so u really beleive that POC have the same oppurtunities and access to wealth that white ppl do generally? Even if you just confine it to the "western" world cuz I won't bring up the 3rd world lol that would just end the argument. You can look up the studies hell you can wikipedia the demographics for the majority of the poor areas and see that they point to having a majority of the population as POC. There studies done ot show that a white man wit a record has about the same chance of getting a job as a blacc man without it. And whites are less likely to be stopped by the police and usually get off with warnings instead of charges and other stuff. And doesn't just about every POC telling you we face racism every day mean shit to you?
k nvm then lol
According to OL12, using the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary as authority, anyone who is unwilling to publicly fund denominational schools in Ontario, other than Catholic Schools, is intolerant and bigoted. He? then says, using the recent election as his authority, that most Ontarians are unwilling to fund denominational schools in Ontario, other than Catholic Schools. So it seems Ol12 sees most Ontarians as intolerant and bigoted because they are unwilling to fund denominational schools other than Catholic schools. That is the logic of the argument:.
Anyone unwilling to do A is intolerant and bigoted
Most Ontarians are unwilling to do A.
Therefore most Ontarians are intolerant and bigoted.
.
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.
Time to close for length.
