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

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

So how many progressives in this thread support forced assimilation of native people through mandatory secular public schools and paving the way for Pee3's in our public school systems? And keep in mind that rightwing ideologues for G&D will probably appreciate your personal opinions on the matter. We've got to fill these dumb threads up with something or other. Come on! Give us a hand here. There are people who actually dwell on these threads.

Unionist

Quote:
... 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"...

Thanks, Wilf, for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of it.

In my day, the leadership didn't obey the convention.

These days, it appears the convention obeys the leadership.

Bravo! Democracy at work.

LP: Were you aware of this resolution? It answers your OP question in the affirmative. We didn't need to waste this whole thread.

 

Bookish Agrarian

Nice try but the resolution specifically calls for a task force to examine ALL aspects of education.

And it is not anti-democratic for the convention to speak loudly and clearly that they do not want any part of forced amalgamation.  Just because the forces for destruction lost the day does not mean there was some kind of rigging of the convention.  It might just be that the average delegate is much more informed and quite a bit smarter than you.

What is it you hate about democracy so much?

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Nice try but the resolution specifically calls for a task force to examine ALL aspects of education.

... with some "guidelines".

Quote:
Just because the forces for destruction lost the day does not mean there was some kind of rigging of the convention.

"Forces for destruction"? Sounds pretty apocalyptic. Is that how they were described by the pro-Church delegates, or is that just you?

Quote:
It might just be that the average delegate is much more informed and quite a bit smarter than you.

Oh, I'm certain every single one of them is much more informed and quite a bit smarter than me. For example, I didn't realize, until you just mentioned it, that supported religious indoctrination of children through public funds was the intelligent and well-informed thing to do. I have oh so much to learn from your convention delegates.

Quote:
What is it you hate about democracy so much?

Its "guided" aspects. Oh btw, when did you stop beating your spouse?

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

I'm confused.  Are you saying now you don't want to destroy the Catholic school system and abrogate constitutionally protected minority rights just because you disagree with them.  Be proud of your call for destruction.

In rural Ontario where I live it will absolutly mean the destruction of schools.  It might be the only school in my community where my children attend- a public school, or it might be the one in the community next door - a seperate school where friends children attend.  Either way someone will loose a school you can count on it.  Maybe that doesn't matter to you and others, but as a parent of school aged children it sure as hell does matter to me.

Then there is the destruction of good paying jobs in educational support.  Union jobs as custodians, teaching assistants, clerical staff and of course teaching.  Those will be gone too.

All for what?  Some misguided sense of purity?  I am not convinced that continued seperate school funding is the bees knees.  However, forced amalgamation rather, I know is not the answer and is little more than a distraction for real issues in education.  So you can denegrate the very good and hard working progressive people who attended convention all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that they understand quite a bit more about this issues than you have shown you and others do.

And btw it really does make one an offensive twit to accuse people who made their own rational decisions, with no sense of guidance whatsoever, to be some kind of dupes.  Just because people don't buy what you and others are selling does not make them stooges to 'the man'.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

As this  thread moves to a close and another one opens ,I urge Babblers to consider that  it would not be considered legal or democratic or desireable for a Liberal majority or any legislative majority to unilaterally  end funding for Catholic Schools. As the article posted  previously  http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/257102  and many other posts illustrate, we are dealing with  complex  issues,  constitutional amendment, all party agreement , referenda   and  matters that have and can cause a great deal of  divison. Of course the ONDP and others with a conscience and a conscousness would oppose such abuse.

What our ONDP is doing is addressing school funding issues in a way that can bring about needed changes in a legal, democratic and inclusive way. After the open public  debate on school funding , we established a  task force will look at all school funding options, presumably including  cutting  funding to Catholic schools, extending funding to other denominations (Jewish, Muslim,Christian Aboriginal? ), having comparative religion clases in public schools or regiiosu instruction after regular school hours, should we continue to have 4 separate school systems etc. etc. and how can we adequatley fund our schools.

I doubt we will come up with answers to these complex questions that will satisy all. But we will debate and discuss and try to find the best ways forward .and try to make  a difference.  Please join us.   

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

peterjcassidy wrote:

As this  thread moves to a close and another one opens ,I urge Babblers to consider that  it would not be considered legal or democratic or desireable for a Liberal majority or any legislative majority to unilaterally  end funding for Catholic Schools.

As this thread draws to a close I would urge peterjcassidy to read it, because this point has already been made by him and dealt with by me. If he wants to respond to what I said, I would be glad to discuss it with him further, perhaps in a new thread.

madmax

[quote=Unionist

My understanding is that white and black children both "received educations" also in the U.S. before [url=Brown">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education][i]B... v. Board of Education[/url]. Was that a "fundamental issue" for you? Was segregation not a problem - only the course content and child-teacher ratio and the state of repair of the buildings?

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.

Not exactly the strongest argument to put forth for extended funding of Religious Schools.  What is apparent is that you know the good things that happened when Racial Segregation ended in the US public School System.

What is not apparent to you,  is that to continue the Racial Segregation, the white people have sheltered themselves from the coloured through Religious School Funding. 

More Private Religious schools set up shop and grew exponentially when funding was extended to the Religous Schools. Two things happened. The quality of the Public System eroded dramatically to the point that it is not unusual to see many a closed public school. Also no parent in the South, no matter how poor, wants to send their kids to the Public School.

Meanwhile unless the Black Community sets up and gets funding for their religious background, they are left with only the public school system.

As my Canadian Nieces and Nephews have went to elementary and high school in these states as well as taught in them, I had no idea that these Evangelical and other Religious schools either don't accept black people, or have a small token number of black kids compared to the regional population.

Segregation is alive and well in the US Education system, thanks to Religious funding of schools and School Vouchers.

There is a reason why Religious funding of schools was popular in the US, but a dogs breakfast in Ontario.   

Funny that McGuinty was a big supporter of funding religious schools.

Isn't it.

 

TinTincognito

I might as well respond to the question since the line behind the mikes was still very long when the question was called Friday.  I would want the NDP opposition to support the government in ending funding to Catholic funding the same way the opposition supported a similar resolution in Quebec.

Now, having travelled the byways of Ontario and read the billboards proclaiming his lord's imminent return, I realize that Ontario isn't as much of a secular province as Quebec and may resist an attack on this tradiiton of supporting the 'natural ruling religion'. 

Now, I'm a non-believer. (As Margaret Atwood points out, an atheist BELIEVES there is no god.)  As an educator I'm willing to teach anyone no matter what their beliefs.  But I don't think tax dollars should help indoctinate people.  As a member of the equity steering committee dealing with issues of sexual orientation, I don't want to fund institutionalized bigotry.

 I may even concede that the Catholic church provided a positive role in socializing the country during our fractuous beginning.  But they have new schools, they have been rewarded, they can start pulling their own freight like the rest of the religious communities in our province.

Michelle

Long thread...please continue in a new one.

Pages

Topic locked