I'd like to think that supporters of one school system made their case in the last thread. So I'd like to hear a justification for continued support of the following:
Quote:
Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on May 19th, 1976, with the consent of all provinces, including Ontario. In November 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in violation of the equality provisions of that Covenant by virtue of Ontario's discriminatory school system (see Waldman v. Canada). That discrimination remains without remedy to this day, a situation that in November 2005 led the same Committee to censure Canada again for failing to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario." (see Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Canada. 02/11/2005). The same day, an Iranian human rights envoy brushed off a Canadian sponsored UN resolution concerning human rights violations in Iran by wondering: "Being charged itself with human rights violations, is Ottawa competent enough to initiate a human rights resolution in the UN against another country?" The incident poignantly underscored the importance of living up to our human rights obligations.
Or
Quote:
One-third of the province's publicly-funded teaching positions are effectively closed to non-Catholic teachers.
Most teaching positions in the separate school system require that applicants submit documentary proof that they are not only Catholic, but that they are practicing Catholics. This proof usually consists of a pastoral reference letter from a priest, but a “faith portfolio” may also be required in some separate school boards.
The right of separate school boards to discriminate in favour of Catholic teachers in employment, advancement, and promotion is absolute and was confirmed in Re Daly et al. and Attorney General of Ontario; Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association et al. December 17, 1997. This case struck down Section 136 of the Education Act, which forbade such discrimination, as unconstitutional (offending denominational rights under Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867
I think we should keep funding the separate school system because change is a bad thing.
How am I doing?
If the NDP takes the same stance as the Liberals and the Tories on separate school funding - supporters of one school system will have nowhere to go (the so-called Green Party doesn't count because they can't win a seat and it's a wasted vote). This way, we can neutralize the issue and take support from both supporters of the separate school system and those who support one school system who find the NDP the best of the three major parties on other issues - even though a majority of Ontarians support this democratic reform.
I don't think we should keep funding the separate school system either. What's the best way to get rid of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ontario#Religious_groups
I don't think we should fund just one type of religious school: Either none or all. If we go 'none', then the public system will lose a lot of students. I'm in favour of having as many students as possible in the public system.
I don't think teachers should be discriminated against, except for religious classes.
I know that the argument of Catholic educators is that religion is not just a 'class' but it is integrated throughout the curriculum.
But wasn't that John Tory's argument for extending funding to non-Catholic parochial schools...we're bringing these 50,000 students in religious schools into the public system.
Yeah, and look where it got him! lol
I don't like the inequity of funding one religion and not others.
I don't like the idea of forcing Catholics out of the publicly funded system either. I don't like the idea of forcing any students out of the public system. I'd rather bring more in, preferably all children.
However, I don't think any changes are politically possible right now.
Nonsense. Idle speculation.
Even at the price of segregating them from kids of other backgrounds? Not worth it.
You mean, you have to believe the stuff in order to teach it? Why is that? How about not allowing anyone to teach civics unless they pass a loyalty test to the Canadian state? Or science, unless they take an oath that they believe in the theory of evolution and have no doubts about climate change? Excuse me, saga, but what utter sectarian and parochial nonsense that is.
Apparently from the way you talk, you don't agree with that. Well, then, have one secular system for all, and let the kids who want come in on their own time and study about God or Allah or whatever.
But if you do agree that Catholicism infuses all the curriculum (science, art, literature, math) - then all the more important to cut it off from public money now, isn't it?
Let's fund all religious schools. Then McGuinty will really be shafted, because he'll have to spend tonnes more money on education and duplicated resources.
Sorry, you did mention that it's not the best argument in the world. I think you were right.
From one of the previous threads:
There is no socialist case for school segregation, IMO. But if one could be made it would be based on exactly what you just mentioned: the funding crisis. Unifying the school system would almost certainly give the provincial government a great smokescreen through which to defund education more broadly.
I'm 100% in favour of unified secular school systems, but school modernization happened in periods of retrenchment in Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador, and in the latter Brian Tobin and the Liberals framed the issue entirely in terms of cost rather than religion. The effect was that even years after the 1997 referendum, after the school amalgamations had taken place, and even in well-populated areas, schools were shut down or staff were laid off. By then people were used to it because the government had done such a wonderful job of convincing everyone that cost-cutting is the kind of thing that should happen on the backs of students and teachers.
It's not the best argument in the world, but I'd certainly appreciate anyone, socialist or otherwise, who makes the argument that the transition to a unified school system would just be a way for McGuinty to cut corners and divest the provincial government from many of its responsibilities in education by using school board/system unification as a catalyst.
Well, in the last election, Green support went up provincially because of their position on one school system. So I would not be so sure that NDP supporters wouldn't move their vote if they thought it was an important issue. Don't be so sure that NDPers would just remain so committed to the provincial NDP. Some just might sit on their hands or use the election as an opportunity to act as a very vocal interest group advocating for one school system. You know, putting there interest, time, resources, and money towards that group rather than stomping for the provincial NDP. Rule in politics - never take your grassroot supporters and best volunteer workers for granted.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
Here we are yammering away about this "divisive" and "unimportant" issue, allegedly at the expense of "the economy." Meanwhile I started a thread about what kind of "bold" economic policies the ONDP needs and supposedly the only thing the voters want to hear (except working class Catholics who will reject the ONDP en masse even if there's one paragraph in their platform about ending separate school funding and the rest of it is made up of the boldest, most progressive and dynamic economic policies you can imagine) - so far nobody has responded.
So ... is this about kids ... ???
or just another stupid friggen thread about stupid dirty politics tricks?
Unionist ... no Catholic person has come forward in this thread, an issue of comfort here on babble, and that's a concern.
Yes, I'm in favour of extending public funding to all religions, and sharing facilities, activities, etc.
However, politically it's a dead issue for a while thanks to John Tory.
Reality sucks sometimes, but this thread is beating a dead horse.
And what about the rest of the argument I posed? Isn't the fact that provinces have turned issues like this into a buck-passing, cost-cutting art form since the 1990s at least a valid concern for education advocates?
You can tell people's religion by... their syntax?
That's a legitimate point of view. My view is that religious belief should be vigorously protected by the Constitution and that religious activity should receive not one penny from the state.
It's dead thanks to the good sense of Ontarians. It was alive for a while thanks to the misguided opportunism of yet another neo-conservative masquerading as a red tory.
I disagree. Reality is all we have. Philosophers have complained about reality. The point, however, is to change it.