If the Liberals ended funding for Catholic schools, would the ONDP object?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

I think the American system should be held up as a bad example for what will happen to our public school system if we dont clean out the halls of power in Toronto and Ottawa sometime soon. In fact, Harris and McGuinty have done a good job of transforming our school children and their parents into chocolate bar peddlers after school hours as it is. These jokers dont care whether it's separate schools or not, theyll defund hell out of it anyway in preparation for backdoor privatisation.

Lord Palmerston

G. Babbit, in the hypothetical situation where McGuinty abolished funding for Catholic schools, the ONDP would probably say it was an "attack on Catholics" and "the politics of division" and the party strategists would probably say this a golden opportunity to win Catholic votes!  

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Unionist wrote:
We can improve the quality of education as well as eliminate segregation, discrimination, and funding of religious indoctrination, all at the same time. We're all grown up now.

Sorry, we can't do both. 

That's what is gradually dawning on me.

On the one occasion when the ONDP was accidentally in power, it had priorities too, just like Bookish Agrarian does.

Its priorities did not include keeping promises (public auto insurance), respecting workers and their freedoms, or respecting the equality of  the LGBT community. It would no doubt have been political suicide for the NDP to nationalize auto insurance (even though it came to power on that lying promise); to respect public sector collective agreements; and to ask its own caucus to not be homophobic. Never mind taking some dramatic, bold, socialist action in the face of the economic crisis.

So, the ONDP played it safe and did none of those things. And it did not commit suicide.

It was murdered.

For almost a generation now.

Because it clearly told the people of Ontario that there was no daylight between an NDP government and the ones that had come before - so why bother? And they still haven't risen from the dead.

 

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

G. Babbit, in the hypothetical situation where McGuinty abolished funding for Catholic schools, the ONDP would probably say it was an "attack on Catholics" and "the politics of division" and the party strategists would probably say this a golden opportunity to win Catholic votes!  

Why havent the Liberals done it already? Theyre into their second phony-baloney majority-dictatorship with 22% of registered voter support and proceeding to dish out anywhere between $40B and $70 billion taxpayer dollars on another Darlington nuclear megafiasco without any public consultation. 

So what's stopping them from pulling the rug out from under 1.2 million Catholic voters and their children? Theyre not a bunch of mealy-mouthed chickenshits in this Liberal government, or are they?

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:
Lord Palmerston wrote:

Unionist wrote:
We can improve the quality of education as well as eliminate segregation, discrimination, and funding of religious indoctrination, all at the same time. We're all grown up now.

Sorry, we can't do both. 

That's what is gradually dawning on me.

On the one occasion when the ONDP was accidentally in power, it had priorities too, just like Bookish Agrarian does.

Its priorities did not include keeping promises (public auto insurance), respecting workers and their freedoms, or respecting the equality of  the LGBT community. It would no doubt have been political suicide for the NDP to nationalize auto insurance (even though it came to power on that lying promise); to respect public sector collective agreements; and to ask its own caucus to not be homophobic. Never mind taking some dramatic, bold, socialist action in the face of the economic crisis.

So, the ONDP played it safe and did none of those things. And it did not commit suicide.

It was murdered.

For almost a generation now.

Because it clearly told the people of Ontario that there was no daylight between an NDP government and the ones that had come before - so why bother? And they still haven't risen from the dead.

 

Where is the child denied a public education?

Where is she?

And nice red herring about a government that was elected almost 20 years ago now.  Yes it did some things I disagreed with, but is also did some groundbreaking things like an environmental bill of rights, banning scabs and saving Canada from a full blown depression by investing in manufacturing jobs in the forestry sector and others.  If Ontario had followed suit and turned away from investing in the economy the recession would have been much deeper and much longer.  It should be lost on no one that the very people that screamed from the highest mounts against the NDP actions are now cheering on simular, if inadequete actions by Liberals and Conservatives.

If you really think that the loss of the NDP from power and the problems since then had to do with public auto insurance and other issues and not the blame that was unfairly placed at its feet for high deficits and a tanking economy you haven't been paying very much attention have you.  No one says that damn NDP government didn't bring in auto insurance, except for people like me, they talk about deficits and job losses.  They are wrong of course, but that doesn't change the reality of what they focus on.

Unionist

Ok, whatever you say. I'm talking about winning.

 

G. Babbitt

Yeah, Unionist, Palmerston show me the deprived kid.  That is the only policy question.  Gold plated toilets at Queen's Park.  Show me the deprived kid.  Tax cuts for those making over $250,000.  Show me the deprived kid.  Grants for redheaded males who are left handed. Show me the deprived kid.

Lord Palmerston

If it's such an "unimportant issue" and a distraction, why did Horwath, Tabuns and Bisson spend more time attacking the idea of a debate over separate school funding than Prue actually spent advocating it?

Maybe those who claim that "if you raise this issue, you'll be a one-issue candidate" should just say they're speaking for themselves and not the people of Ontario. 

Fidel

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Where is the child denied a public education?

Where is she?

I think someone stuffed her into that tiny space between the two old line parties, and she's crying out to the NDP to rescue her using the jaws of life. She's trapped, and she needs to be out there knocking on doors in the dark of night, alone, and peddling chocolate bars so she can afford to sign up for a few extracurricular activities, and buy some text books, writing materials etc

 

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Where is the child denied a public education?

Where is she?

Here you go. She'll never have an opportunity for a public education as Premier. Unless she starts listening to her heart.

 

Fidel

I think a more interesting question might be, who in hell would vote for the Liberals, even if they did have the cojones to do one progressive thing while in phony majority power?

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Ok, whatever you say. I'm talking about winning.

 

Really?  At what point was that?  When you compared Catholic school funding to the fight for equal marriage?  Or was it when you compared it to 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas?

Given your grip on history and rhetoric you'll have to forgive me for looking for advice on winning elsewhere.

Unionist

Sure thing, BA. Make sure to let me know what policies the ONDP decides to adopt that are measurably different from McGuinty's. My breath remains bated.

Quote:
Or was it when you compared it to 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas?

Ummmm, Brown was 1954. As in the case of the NDP, the Liberals, and other such stalwarts, Governor Faubus was still trying vainly to hold back the wheel of history even after the judiciary had revealed itself to be a much bolder champion of human rights than the elected politicians ever dared to be.

 

riffraffrenegade

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Not one child in Ontario is denied a public education, or blocked in any way from attending a public school or acheiving their potential due to Catholic school funidng.  Using such overheated rhetoric is beyond foolish, it borders on offensive for diminishing real fights for justice and equality. 

Again, if it was the case that even a single child in Ontario was barred or even had their opportunity for a quality education curtailed even a smidge you might have a point. 

OK. What they are finding in the UK and in the States is that when you introduce competition thinly masquerading as fair choice into the public education system(s), whether through magnet schools, vouchers/charter schools, or faith-based schools, it is the middle class children (or parents really) that tend to win out unless proper checks and balances are put in place.

Numerous studies in England have shown that faith-based schools use discriminatory practices in selection of students that favour the middle class. Here is the most recent study:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5835156.ece

We are finding the same thing happening in small town Ontario where declining enrollment has introduced competition between elementary schools within boards and between coterminous boards. It is not that the Separate schools don't have kids from low income families attending, but that middle class parents are choosing to leave the public schools and move to the Separate system even if it means lying and signing that they support the "ethos" of the school. The argument that Catholics who continue to support the Separate system (let's be clear, many of us Catholics don't) make is that non-Catholic parents are choosing to "come on over to the other side". And what some Catholics refuse to acknowledge, to the general public anyway, is that they have to ignore the reasons why these non-Catholic parents are coming over and swallow hard in order to keep "bums in the seats" even though it "dilutes" their "ethos".

What this all means, rurally, is that we are fast becoming a two-tiered elementary school system where children with special needs and children from socially disadvantaged families are concentrated disproportionately in the public system. What bums me out is that the RC Church, my church, can turn a blind eye and indeed defend what is happening.

In cities like Toronto & Ottawa, magnet schools within boards (both Separate and public) attract and select mostly middle class applicants. You know those pushy, educated parents who think their kids are brilliant and/or think that their children just wouldn't feel comfortable in schools with lots of ESL students. They can afford tutors and music/art classes that give their children advantage in admission to magnet/alternative schools. Or parents who can afford it buy homes in neighbourhoods with "good" (read middle class) schools.

Research in the US has shown that when a school's enrollment passes a 60% low income threshold, test scores for both low income and middle income kids decline rapidly. Source:

All Together Now: Creating Middle Class Schools Through Public School Choice by R. Kahlenburg
http://books.google.com/books?id=PgAoTUL6G2oC&dq=all+together+now&prints...

This is clearly a social justice and social equity issue. If you want to lift Ontario children out of poverty, give them fair access to middle class schools. In a time of declining enrollment where some publicly-funded schools, faith-based or not, are legally allowed to select their students, we have to start asking questions.

G. Babbitt

Ummm Riffraff.  This is about the ONDP, the new leader "is sick and tired of the politics of division."  Studies are one thing, but she is "sick and tired" Don't you understand, "sick and tired."

Really appreciate the effort to educate us, it is such a frustrating field, because excellent public schools are so difficult to build, but so easily destroyed for all the reasons you point out.  Even well intentioned morally good parents will do what ever they can to give their children advantages or at least not disadvantage them.

Policywonk

I'm surprised no-one has brought up Newfoundland here. They got rid of all of their religious sectarian schools, but it took a couple of referenda and constitutional amendments. 

http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/257102

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:
OK, it's only been 23.5 hours since I made my 24 hour pledge but here it goes.  If the reaction of Kormos and DiNovo to the Lord's Prayer debacle at Queen's Park is in any way telling, I'm afraid the ONDP would rally to its defense if the Liberals actually did the right thing and decided to abolish it. 

If the Liberals were to use their legislative majority and  move  to end funding for Catholic schools anybody with a conscience and a consciousness  would oppose that.  Is there any  reason under the sun why you or other babblers wouldn't ?

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

There are many reasons. Try reading the half dozen babble threads where the case has been made out repeatedly for ending funding for separate schools.

I'd like for corporate welfare handouts to profitable corporations and big banks to end, and something done about our obsolete electoral system and red chamber old boys club in Ottawa disbanded, too.  We can dream about it happening, cant we?

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

I'm surprised no-one has brought up Newfoundland here. They got rid of all of their religious sectarian schools, but it took a couple of referenda and constitutional amendments. 

http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/257102

I know it's tedious, but if you look back at the threads since 2007, you'll see Newfoundland and Labrador (like Québec) has been raised here many times. Trouble is, Ontario is a far more religious and Catholic province than those (according to some well-informed babblers), so any move to cut off the Catholic schools would be tantamount to political suicide.

Fidel

You mean it's possible to be as prosperous,  free of child poverty, and still be as politically correct as Newfoundland and Labrador?

riffraffrenegade

peterjcassidy wrote:

If the Liberals were to use their legislative majority and  move  to end funding for Catholic schools anybody with a conscience and a consciousness  would oppose that.  Is there any  reason under the sun why you or other babblers wouldn't ?

Briefly, PeterCassidy, because we can't afford 4 systems either socially or economically and because its discriminatory.  

I am curious, can you imagine an integrated school system that would be palatable to you as a Catholic? To your mind, is there any room for common ground that would preserve small towns and offer parents real choice?

Fidel

riffraffrenegade wrote:
peterjcassidy wrote:

If the Liberals were to use their legislative majority and  move  to end funding for Catholic schools anybody with a conscience and a consciousness  would oppose that.  Is there any  reason under the sun why you or other babblers wouldn't ?

Briefly, PeterCassidy, because we can't afford 4 systems either socially or economically and because its discriminatory.

I agree. How else can we afford billions of dollars in coporate welfare handouts, and still make a case for pee three's in public school funding? The spoiled brats are just gonna have ta sell more candy after school hours. It'll teach them life skills, or something. 

riffraffrenegade

riffraffrenegade wrote:

I am curious, can you imagine an integrated school system that would be palatable to you as a Catholic? To your mind, is there any room for common ground that would preserve small towns and offer parents real choice?

I repeat the question, Fidel.  If I recall correctly, you are Catholic.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

There are many reasons. Try reading the half dozen babble threads where the case has been made out repeatedly for ending funding for separate schools.

You sound as if the issue is beyond debate; yet your first intervention in this thread was a paean to the NDP for having a "heated debate" about education funding, and ended with an exhortation to "continue the debate within our party".

It's therefore a mystery to me how you could conceive of a debate when you can't even conceive of a position contrary to your own.

Well, here's some news for you: in 2007 355,000 Ontario voters voted for the only party that supported the ending of funding to separate schools - the Green Party - which was its best showing ever in the province.

So much for the "political suicide" theory.

Fidel

These progressive people are afraid to identify the real issue, which is a lack of overall funding for public services and infrastructure in general. GATS and other neoliberal mumbo jumbo ruling our two old line parties in both Toronto and Ottawa represent the largest threats to public education and higher education in general.

And I think the deteriorating American public school system should be enough to scare hell out of Canadians and to think for ourselves, and even to elect politicians capable of thinking and acting in the interests of Canadians.

Unionist

Please don't ask Fidel about this. He has already given his answer. Many many times.

 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

riffraffrenegade wrote:
peterjcassidy wrote:

If the Liberals were to use their legislative majority and  move  to end funding for Catholic schools anybody with a conscience and a consciousness  would oppose that.  Is there any  reason under the sun why you or other babblers wouldn't ?

Briefly, PeterCassidy, because we can't afford 4 systems either socially or economically and because its discriminatory.  

I am curious, can you imagine an integrated school system that would be palatable to you as a Catholic? To your mind, is there any room for common ground that would preserve small towns and offer parents real choice?

Thanks Riff for your answer, even though it slighlty missed my pointSmile.  I recognize many believe as you do,   but I was talking about the abuse of a legisltive majority taking away rights. and asking that,  even if LP  and other Babbler disagreed with those rights, because they invoved  funding Catholic schools,  if they would oppose that abse,  insist on some debate and due process,  maybe even constitutional validity.

AS POSTED, THE ONDP IS HAVING A DEBATE ON SCHOOL FUNDING,  EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS,  WHICH MAY BE A BIT MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THOSE WHO SEE THE ONLY ISSUE CUTTING OFF FUNDING TO CATHOLIC SCHOOLS CAN HANDLE. 

 

UndecidedSmile

 solidarity Peter

 

 

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Please don't ask Fidel about this. He has already given his answer. Many many times

Likewise, and you still havent made your case.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

peterjcassidy wrote:

I recognize many believe as you do,   but I was talking about the abuse of a legisltive majority taking away rights. and asking that,  even if LP  and other Babbler disagreed with those rights, because they invoved  funding Catholic schools,  if they would oppose that abse,  insist on some debate and due process,  maybe even constitutional validity.

What's the point of having a debate (I ask again) if it's out of the question for the legislature to actually end funding for separate schools? Or do you have some other idea of how such funding could ever be ended without a majority vote in the legislature? 

Your plea for more debate, though suitably decked out with smiley-faces, is hollow and insincere. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks for that article riffraff.  Much of what it presents rings true of my experience.  Guess that rid's us of Fidel's child poverty(I appreciate it more when you don't use it for political expediency, I know you mean well) red herring.  My anecdotal experience was it had much to do with the price of uniforms and the catholic practice of forcing you to buy from one highly overpriced supplier, McCarthy's, wonder who he's connected to.

Quote:

We are finding the same thing happening in small town Ontario where declining enrollment has introduced competition between elementary schools within boards and between coterminous boards. It is not that the Separate schools don't have kids from low income families attending, but that middle class parents are choosing to leave the public schools and move to the Separate system even if it means lying and signing that they support the "ethos" of the school. The argument that Catholics who continue to support the Separate system (let's be clear, many of us Catholics don't) make is that non-Catholic parents are choosing to "come on over to the other side". And what some Catholics refuse to acknowledge, to the general public anyway, is that they have to ignore the reasons why these non-Catholic parents are coming over and swallow hard in order to keep "bums in the seats" even though it "dilutes" their "ethos".

What this all means, rurally, is that we are fast becoming a two-tiered elementary school system where children with special needs and children from socially disadvantaged families are concentrated disproportionately in the public system. What bums me out is that the RC Church, my church, can turn a blind eye and indeed defend what is happening.

 

Fidel

You see, it is about funding. Unfortunately, we would have to deal with the issue at the root cause, otherwise, we'll be cannibalizing funding other public services til the cows come home.

We can not, or at least should not attempt to run things according to a neoliberal business model. Public services are not supposed to be profitable, and especially not public education. Children and the schools they attend should take higher priority than being reduced to numbers on government balance sheets while corporate welfare troughs continue to be filled to overflowing.

In case people need reminding, our two old line parties couldnt manage an outhouse without screwing things up. In the end, the solutions to funding an underfunded all-public, all secular all the time school system will likely continue to devolve into chaos under a highly neoliberalized old line party dictatorship filled with rightwing ideologues. This situation with short funding is all Tory and Liberal governments' doing. It doesnt have to be this way at all. Neoliberal ideology is inherently undemocratic, and that's the root cause for conflagration of this perceived issue. The real issue is a funding gap/canyon between primary and secondary schools in Ontario.

Note to progressive people: Dont be misled by the very undemocratic neoliberal economic and political agenda in Ontario and emanating from Ottawa like cold shafts of broken glass. It's poison.

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
On the one occasion when the ONDP was accidentally in power, it had priorities too, just like Bookish Agrarian does.

Its priorities did not include keeping promises (public auto insurance), respecting workers and their freedoms, or respecting the equality of  the LGBT community. It would no doubt have been political suicide for the NDP to nationalize auto insurance (even though it came to power on that lying promise); to respect public sector collective agreements; and to ask its own caucus to not be homophobic. Never mind taking some dramatic, bold, socialist action in the face of the economic crisis.

So, the ONDP played it safe and did none of those things. And it did not commit suicide.

It was murdered.

For almost a generation now.

Because it clearly told the people of Ontario that there was no daylight between an NDP government and the ones that had come before - so why bother? And they still haven't risen from the dead.

Well, you should have been there on Saturday. Andrea was very specific: we have to bring in public auto insurance. And she said a lot of other excellent things discussed elsewhere. Mostly, she represented youth, change in the party, and no compromise with the foes of labour. No one doubts whose side Horwath is on. The new party executive includes 18 returnees and 20 new members; 1/3rd of the executive are under 26.

peterjcassidy wrote:
After a great heated debate  the ONDP convention passed a resolution that , while it firmly commits  to the existing 4 schood system at this time and  speaks of other funding  issues, establishes a task force to examine all aspects of schhol funding.  That resolution had been given first prioirity by our leadership on a block of  resolutions to be debated and it guaranteed we had  a great  democratic debate, with strong criticism of existing policy.

I wasn't there -- I was still at work Friday afternoon. However, the text of the resolution says all four systems lack adequate funding, all proponents of public education should be united in the fight for the funding schools need, "the forced merger at this time of some or all of these school board systems will only serve to divert attention away from the real problems facing public education in Ontario," and it was resolved that "New Democrats continue to support Ontario's four publicly-funded board systems at this time and oppose any efforts to forcibly amalgamate them" and oppose continued chronic under-funding of schools in Ontario. 

And a task force will "examine all public education funding options in Ontario and report back to Provincial Council within a year." In case you missed the obvious -- Provincial Council cannot overrule Convention. A Task Force to re-examine four school systems would have reported back to the convention two years hence.

Now, could we get on with something else, please?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I was cynically posting this debate we hear of will recommend the status quo and then looked back here.  Thanks Wilf.

Fidel

unionist still thinks the NDP was devastated politically in Ontario after Bob Rae, even though there isnt much evidence of that. More than four million eligible voters in Ontario didnt show up at polls last election. And I'm pretty sure that an NDP government of 14 years ago had very little to do with it. In fact, I think the NDP has grown or at least held in popularity among northern Ontarians since Rae's government

Wilf Day

RevolutionPlease wrote:
this debate we hear of will recommend the status quo . . .

Only if you have tunnel vision. The status quo is chronic underfunding and lack of local control. The Fair Tax Commission recommended 95% provincial funding and 5% local, giving school boards control of their own budgets. And there are many other worthwhile options, like taking education off the property tax base.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Bob Rae did the NDP a huge favour by joining the Liberals.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
this debate we hear of will recommend the status quo . . .

Only if you have tunnel vision. The status quo is chronic underfunding and lack of local control. The Fair Tax Commission recommended 95% provincial funding and 5% local, giving school boards control of their own budgets. And there are many other worthwhile options, like taking education off the property tax base.

I think you know what I meant but I'd be happy to see progress for all in the meantime. 

Fidel

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Bob Rae did the NDP a huge favour by joining the Liberals.

Rae is an intelligent man just the same. I think he's realized that provincial governments have less and less control over prov. economies and social spending. We need strong central government in Ottawa to reverse the neoliberal tide. 

Weak central government in Ottawa is at the heart of rightwing neoliberal ideology with a strong tendency to weaken provincial resolve for spending on social democracy. What we're seeing today is weak central government and paving the way for private money in our essential public services and infrastructure.

Lord Palmerston

Wilf Day wrote:
And a task force will "examine all public education funding options in Ontario and report back to Provincial Council within a year." In case you missed the obvious -- Provincial Council cannot overrule Convention. A Task Force to re-examine four school systems would have reported back to the convention two years hence.

Now, could we get on with something else, please?

Peter Cassidy says come join the debate going on in the ONDP.  You say shut up and wait for the task force to report back within a year.  

So which is it?

Fidel

He said the ONDP will be having a debate, but Catholicphobes might want to consider providing their valuable input in smaller and less neoliberal doses than theyre used to.

wage zombie

M. Spector wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

The thing is, to change someone's mind, you have to listen to them first. And then speak to their concerns.  And i don't really see that happening to any great extent on babble.

I certainly don't see it happening here on the part of the defenders of Catholic school funding. They don't listen to the many concerns, detailed facts, and logical arguments put forward by their opponents. All they do is recite talking points about political suicide (dippergal), as though it's not important to consider the merits of a position, but only whether people can be conned into voting for it. And this despite all the evidence presented on babble that a single public school system is a lot more popular in Ontario than the NDP. 

Or they respond to reason with ad hominem attacks (you) or contemptuous yawns (Bookish Agrarian) or formulaic attacks on the Liberals (Fidel), etc. etc.

But thanks for the lecture, anyway. 

You say you're trying to change people's minds...how's that working for you?  Do you think you're changing any minds?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

LP, it's already decided:

Quote:
and it was resolved that "New Democrats continue to support Ontario's four publicly-funded board systems at this time and oppose any efforts to forcibly amalgamate them" and oppose continued chronic under-funding of schools in Ontario. 

The only debate is how to maintain the status quo.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Or they respond to reason with ad hominem attacks (you) or contemptuous yawns (Bookish Agrarian) or formulaic attacks on the Liberals (Fidel), etc. etc.

What's been the experience for children of indigenous people in all public secular school systems across Canada? I think it's been one of extended ethnic cleansing - where the spirit is excised without killing the victim. Two wrongs dont make it right either.

 I dont think education should be part of international trade agreements agreed to by phony-majority dictatorial governments and corporate world's yes-men behind closed doors. I think profit motive doesnt belong in education, and I think this is a far more important problem for public education in the Americas than red herring legacy issues trotted out by two stale old line party leaders in the last hours of an election campaign, and after deliberately avoiding McGuinty's policy failures and previous broken election promises in public debate.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Fidel wrote:
What's been the experience for children of indigenous people in all public secular school systems across Canada? I think it's been one of extended ethnic cleansing - where the spirit is excised without killing the victim. Two wrongs dont make it right either.

Fidel, you're comment is offensive as catholics were in on more than half those schools.

eta: And virtually all were run by religious institutions.

Quit digging.  I won't sully this thread with a link. 

Fidel

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Fidel wrote:
What's been the experience for children of indigenous people in all public secular school systems across Canada? I think it's been one of extended ethnic cleansing - where the spirit is excised without killing the victim. Two wrongs dont make it right either.

Fidel, you're comment is offensive as catholics were in on more than half those schools.

Quit digging.  I won't sully this thread with a link. 

Never mind Catholic education. No one is suggesting aboriginal children go through that again. 

What would you find offensive about funding aboriginal schools?  

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

blech, close this thread already if this is how cathocrits are going to act.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Fidel wrote:

Are native children not white enough as far as youre concerned?

I'm not the one that wants to think of indigenous people as white enough or as natives.  White is a whole other world.

Quote:
Imagine the hassle for private enterprise 3PPP jackals having to actually hire native teachers and counselors to teach and mentor aboriginal children when they could hand those jobs to white people, or some unemployed jack rabbit who graduated in the bottom half of his class and will work for slave wages. How could they simply mail the course curriculums to northern communities from their administrative office towers based in the US? It would be totally inconvenient for salivating corporate hyenas waiting in the wings and wanting our two old line parties to hack off pieces of the common good and toss it their way.

Ummkay, so let's make redress and give the catholic funding to indigenous peoples.

Thread lock in 3...

Fidel

Are native children not white enough as far as youre concerned?

Imagine the hassle for private enterprise 3PPP jackals having to actually hire native teachers and counselors to teach and mentor aboriginal children when they could hand those jobs to white people, or some unemployed jack rabbit who graduated in the bottom half of his class and will work for slave wages. How could they simply mail the course curriculums to Canada's northern communities from their administrative office towers based in the US or maybe even Australia or god knows where? It would be totally inconvenient for salivating corporate hyenas waiting in the wings and wanting our two old line parties to hack off pieces of the common good and toss it their way. Why cant we all just $peak American?

Fidel

The point is, aboriginal children in many cases have not had good experiences or done well in secular public schools in Canada.

wage zombie

Fidel, your point seems pretty irrelevant.

Pages

Topic locked