Where does it say in print that the ONDP supports separate school funding?
I do understand that the ONDP supports equitable funding of all public schools. It says so right there on the web site. Closing the funding gap is a pretty big issue for tens of thousands of elementary school teachers across the province. [url=http://www.etfo.ca/CLOSETHEGAP/Pages/WhatistheGap.aspx][color=red]What is the gap?[/color][/url]
Taking no offical stance means support of the status quo which is opposing public funds to religious schools - unless they're Catholic.
I support equitable funding for all non-religious public schools, elementary and secondary. However separate schools should not receive public funding unless/until they cease to be religious schools.
Anyway I'm sure you'll want to get the last word.
So youre saying that the total underfunding of public schools to the tune of somewhere over a billion dollars a year is not the issue, and that Montag and the fire department should round up and burn all the catechism texts before equitable public school funding can be achieved?
I'm sure impressed that students and parents are first on minds here. I just wish for once, that there was enough money so kids, parents and their communities could get over fundraising for essentials, and for extra curriculars.
Going to school together helps build communities - tolerance of difference. That's why I support one school system. I'm sure glad that ONDP in the good old days was willing to take on tough issues like gay rights, women's rights before they were politically mainstream, and before polls took over.
but we actually have an issue here that is politically popular. I'm sure the catholic diosese is pleased that the NDP is supporting their position, so they can continue the fight against gay rights, women's rights, and maintaining the patriarchical dominated political system.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
The NDP campaign platform [in the 2007 Ontario election] consisted of six proposals: (1) a $450 health tax rebate for those earning under $48,000; (2) an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $10/hr.; (3) an environmental 'right to know' law which would require that manufacturers divulge what toxins they are releasing into the environment; (4) an addition of $200 per student into Ontario's education system; (5) a tuition fee roll-back to 2003 levels; and (6) improved home care and thus reduced wait times. In many respects it was similar, though not as fulsome as the Liberal platform.[url=http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet079.html][color=mediumblue][u] Greg Albo and Bryan Evans[/u][/color][/url]The cliché assessment of the NDP in Canadian politics is ‘liberals in a hurry.' [b]This was an agenda for ‘liberals at a crawl.'[/b] It was the sort of program any public servant (or party consultant with the usual array of public relations and polling flacks) might cobble together. It bore little resemblance to the struggles of key movements at the moment (and, bizarrely, even some of the things Hampton and the NDP had spent the last Legislature working on, such as energy and wider living incomes issues).
In a time of neoliberalism, the agenda might generously be considered as a set of helpful proposals, at least partly inconsistent with more market-based measures. But that would indeed be generous. [b]It was not a coherent program built around a vision of a more equal, democratic and sustainable economy. NDP officials, when asked ‘why these items?', simply responded: they were easily implementable should the NDP be in a position to shape the agenda of a minority government. This was political clumsy thinking: narrow the agenda as much as possible before the election; run a campaign that is symbolic, about broken promises and features the agenda as a marginal feature; and then hope to negotiate over a few flimsy items in the election platform in the event of a minority government. It is all too easy to point out that this left an impoverished program, a tactical political calculation lacking in imagination, and the failure to appeal to any particular voting constituency.[/b]
Industrial decline, the growing gap between rich and poor, environmental decay and global warming, and an alternate energy policy, for examples, were all possible campaigning issues for social democrats. [b]These would have partly staked out alternate political options and challenged Liberal policies.[/b] Plans for more rapid pacing of minimum wages, more information on pollution or minor increments to home care provisions were not going to excite anybody in particular, and were only going to draw, as they did, a big yawn from the Liberals and voters.
In the last week of the campaign, NDP party leader Howard Hampton berated the media for ignoring the key issues of the campaign with their obsession with the faith-based schools proposal floated by Conservative leader John Tory. He had a point, as the state and private mass media have both become ever more facile and subordinate to capitalist interests in their political coverage. The image and spectacle has, indeed, come to dominate over analysis of ruling interests and the struggles of everyday life in news coverage. But this was also Hampton and the NDP stunningly failing to take responsibility for the dreary emptiness of their "Go Orange" campaign. There was none of the larger problems confronting Ontario's working people being addressed in the NDP's campaign either.
[color=red][b]Hampton's lame griping also spoke to the NDP's own pathetic failure to promote a single public school system, and use this as a basis to attack the spread of private and charter schools, when given the massive opening to do so by the Conservative platform and public controversy. The Greens, in contrast, immediately made funding for Catholic schools a key position and unequivocally stated that all education should be secular. This distinguished the Greens from the rest.[/b][/color] Moreover, along with the stronger position in favour of 'yes' in the referendum for proportional representation, the Greens re-tacked their campaign to exploit these differences with the other parties.
[color=red][b]The NDP, in contrast, banally mimicked the Liberals and defended the status quo. This was a position that dates back to the NDP's sordid back-room support for the extension of Catholic school funding in the 1980s.[/b][/color] The NDP's burying of support for proportional representation in the referendum confirmed the status-quo reading by the electorate as well. Across the array of issue, the NDP was barely distinguishable from the Liberals. [b]They both occupy what exists as the 'centrist' political space in an era of neoliberalism.[/b]
The success of the Greens in winning 8 percent of the popular vote spells trouble for the NDP. The Green showing can be interpreted several ways. But there can be little doubt that the Greens, in the electoral imagination and their own self-identification (something clearly less true for, say, the German Greens who have become cold militarist political calculators), stand for something good and positive: defence of the environment and spread of democratic participation. There are, indeed, serious political questions to be directed at the Green's proposals. They have, for example, thoroughly embraced market ecology. Their vision of society is one comprised almost wholly of consumers and small "off-the-grid" entrepreneurs. But that is not the point here. They embody a vision. [b]The old-line parties saw their vote drop more than 7 percent in this election. Rather than cast their lot with the NDP, the Greens were the primary beneficiary of voter dissatisfaction. But the Greens also gained support for the positive vision of a single, secular public school system,[/b] a more inclusive voting system and improved ecology and energy policies.
Good article - better than [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/881888/Re-Who-Should-Replace-Howard-Hampton... posts of last October[/color][/url], but in the same spirit.
The NDP refused to take the opportunity to link electoral reform to working class economic and political interests. The disintegration of social justice networks added to the difficulties of campaigning.
I dont think the NDP refused. All the ONDP literature on the issue I received was positive in favour of electoral reform. I believe it was agreed to beforehand that political parties would not campaign for or against MMP. Hampton was the only leader who openly supported the citizens' assembly decision through a statement on the party's web site. Wilf Day said something to the effect that the public education campaign began too late and was not well-funded at all compared to the BC campaign for STV.
It is ultimitely fair for families to have the choice on how their children are taught. Religious or secular schools that aren't part of the public system must be upheld, as must the option of home-schooling.
If I as a parent choose to home school my child, I should be given the same grant monies and opportunities as the public school would as long as I were to ensure my child meet public standards, and should have my grants extended to match any excess in education I would meet.
M. Spector, I agree with the political analysis in Greg Albo and Bryan Evans article. It was right on.
During that election I had a meeting with Tabuns, along with 2 other public school trustees, and a retired secondary vp with OSSTF. We talked about the one school system and the NDP's non-position. He said that the NDP could not change mid-stream in the campaign and it wasn't our policy position as it had not been voted on at convention.
I find it very interesting now, that his position is to prevent the debate from happening at our policy convention. I guess not now means never. At the time, he did not disclose his "real position" which was against, but allude to that we as a party need to debate that and have policy on it.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
While you're at it, why not ask us to pay for you to get private medical care in your own home, so you can avoid the public medicare system?
All in the name of "choice", of course.
---
ETA: [url=http://www.alternet.org/story/96685/homeschooling%3A_america%27s_hidden_... America's Hidden Breeding Ground for Conservative Ideology[/u][/color][/url]
But...but Howard tried to raise these pressing issues and he was drowned out by McGuinty and Tory spatting it out over school funding. If it weren't for that idiotic, divisive, non-important issue I swear the NDP would have done far better.
I think your point is adequately refuted by Albo and Evans in their next two paragraphs:
In the last week of the campaign, NDP party leader Howard Hampton berated the media for ignoring the key issues of the campaign with their obsession with the faith-based schools proposal floated by Conservative leader John Tory. He had a point, as the state and private mass media have both become ever more facile and subordinate to capitalist interests in their political coverage. The image and spectacle has, indeed, come to dominate over analysis of ruling interests and the struggles of everyday life in news coverage. But this was also Hampton and the NDP stunningly failing to take responsibility for the dreary emptiness of their "Go Orange" campaign. There was none of the larger problems confronting Ontario's working people being addressed in the NDP's campaign either.Hampton's lame griping also spoke to the NDP's own pathetic failure to promote a single public school system, and use this as a basis to attack the spread of private and charter schools, when given the massive opening to do so by the Conservative platform and public controversy. The Greens, in contrast, immediately made funding for Catholic schools a key position and unequivocally stated that all education should be secular. This distinguished the Greens from the rest.
The Greens managed to stake out a principled opposition to the Liberals and Tories on separate school funding, and gained votes as a result. They did what the NDP should have done.
I agree 100% - and certainly in my riding of Trinity-Spadina there was a surge in the Green vote which seemed to be almost entirely at the expense of the NDP (Marchese's margin of victory was cut in half) and similar developments occurred in Toronto-Danforth and Beaches-East York as well. Certainly the school funding issue played some role as it turned out to be the important issue of the campaign.
Anyway I'm glad you liked my impression of an ultra-partisan ONDPer.
Sorry, I missed the irony!
But I did kinda wonder what you had been smoking tonight...
Industrial decline, the growing gap between rich and poor, environmental decay and global warming, and an alternate energy policy, for examples, were all possible campaigning issues for social democrats. [b]These would have partly staked out alternate political options and challenged Liberal policies.[/b]
But...but Howard tried to raise these pressing issues and he was drowned out by McGuinty and Tory spatting it out over school funding. If it weren't for that idiotic, divisive, non-important issue I swear the NDP would have done far better. Fortunately the NDP didn't blow it completely by taking a stance far more popular among the public than both Tory's plan and the status quo and stood up for "public education" (including the reactionary and discriminatory separate school system).
This was a position that dates back to the NDP's sordid back-room support for the extension of Catholic school funding in the 1980s.[/b][/color]
But Gilles Bisson said it was "already debated"...so who cares whether it was done by the brass behind closed doors or whether 20 years have gone by...case closed.
Why not lobby the elementary teachers federation of Ontario to drop their feud with McGuinty over the funding formula gap and join the secular school movement across Ontario? www.etfo.ca/ They number more than 70,000
So Fidel, you think we can't fight underfunding and segregation at the same time?
How about child poverty, job creation, minimum wage, and climate change?
One election campaign per issue?
No, Fidel thinks the NDP should be tail-ending the ETFO, instead of developing its own political policies. Never mind that the ETFO has its own agenda and its own turf to protect, and is leery of getting into fights with its Catholic teacher union counterpart (OECTA), because they have to rely on a united front of all teachers to present a strong face to the Fiberal government.
I believe parents should have a much bigger say on what and how their kids are educated in our schools. The current system does not seem very friendly for parental input. Mostly because the school boards are huge, complex and murky for most parents.
My kids always went to a private primary school. Not for religious reasons, but for reasons of parental involvemnt and school size. The local public primary school has something like 600 kids, has a bad reputation. To the point that some of the teachers there sent their kids to small private schools.
So at the moment I am for a diversity of schools. Public primary schools should be small and local in my opinion. To sent a six year old early in the morning on a halve hour bus ride into a large school full of strangers seems somewhat iresponsible to me.
Whereas I think children should all receive the same education. I have a problem with the notion of parents owning their kids' consciousness until age... 18 is it? 16?
"Whereas I think children should all receive the same education. I have a problem with the notion of parents owning their kids' consciousness until age... 18 is it? 16?" (Unionist)
We might well have to disagree on this, Unionist. Why should kids receive the same education? Is education not a tool to help the kids fit into the community they live in? Communities can be quiet different, the same education might not fit all. But maybe we should clarify what is meant by education.
I am not sure what you mean by "owing their kids consciousness".
No, Fidel thinks the NDP should be tail-ending the ETFO, instead of developing its own political policies. Never mind that the ETFO has its own agenda and its own turf to protect, ...
Yes, and they're not too happy with McGuilty's 22 percenters right now for renegging on promise number 50-something to fix the funding formula. But who are they to question this government's continuing of the Harris agenda's chronic underfunding of public schools in Ontario?
So whatever you do, for goodness sake dont vote NDP. Because what you really want is more of the same old line party agenda for chronic underfunding of public elementary schools. And whatever the Liberals promise voters in the next election campaign, rest assured team Pinocchio will come through for the kids with flying colours.
So the only case here made in support of the separate school system is that since the NDP supports "public education" and the Catholic schools receive public funding, they must be supported even if violates liberal-democratic (let alone socialist) principles such as separation of church and state and opposition to discrimination. Nice to see Hampton's 9 percenters take such a principled stance.
Is Fidel's claim that anyone who disagrees with his beloved NDP is a supporter of the old-line parties...
a.) amusing
b.) annoying
c.) offensive
d.) all of the above
It was a bastion of conservatism for 50 years. And in all seriousness, the large minority who voted old line party last election werent thinking about fairness in public school funding or for the welfare of children in this frozen Puerto Rico. Theyre going to have to experience more post-cold war era economy in decline before the NDP becomes more popular in spite of Bay Street funding going the other way.
the large minority who voted old line party last election werent thinking about fairness in public school funding
That's because one of the old line parties (the Tories) had a plan that was far more unpopular than the status quo and the NDP took an identical position to the other old line party (the Liberals) in opposing "segregated schools" (except for Catholics). In other words, none of the three parties stood for one secular school system.
Why should kids receive the same education?
[I meant, of course, kids within the same nation, and I'll talk here only about public education.]
Why should kids receive the same education? For the same reason they should receive the same health care, the same access to public services, roads, transit, health care, libraries, telecommunications, internet, jobs, skills training, and so on. That doesn't rule out optional and diverse programs and courses, but it does rule out separate buildings and segregatio.
Is education not a tool to help the kids fit into the community they live in?
Well, that's one use, although when you put it that way it's very depressing.
Communities can be quiet different, the same education might not fit all.
Now we come down to the problem. You apparently believe that the Roman Catholic (or Mormon or Buddhist or Muslim) faithful in a particular region (neighbourhood? city? county? province? world?) form a "community". And, you appear to say, they have a right to use education as a tool to make their children fit into that "community". That's a pretty depressing thought, too. But assuming for the sake of argument that it's true, be certain that [b][i]they have no entitlement to use the public's money and resources to make their helpless children "FIT" into their parents' "COMMUNITY".[/i][/b]
But maybe we should clarify what is meant by education.
No. Maybe we should clarify what is meant by "community".
I am not sure what you mean by "owing their kids consciousness".
I said "owning", not "owing". Would it be clearer if I said "controlling"?
The ONDP is still the most child-friendly political party hands down. And yet the Tories still won more votes than the NDP.
Which of the two true-blue old line parties does Bay Street support, Lord? Is it:
a) John "Let's fund faith-based schools" Tory's conservatives?
b) Dalton "Gepetto's boy" McGuinty's Liberals?
or
c) Bay St supports both old line parties roughly equally in hedging their bets, and this funding formula always tends to be equitable?
I agree with Andrea Horvath that the issue of chronic Harris-hangover underfunding of education has to be addressed first.
My understanding of school enrolment/closure/building, a la Harris, is that a Board cannot build a new school unless all other schools in a board are at a certain 'capacity' designated by the province. Thus, the scenario suggested earlier, I believe by unionist, where there are half filled Catholic and public schools in the same area is very unlikely to happen, at least in urban areas, as these decisions are made within a school board. Thus, in my area there was a senior public and a junior public, and also a k-8 catholic and a junior catholic. There are now only two k-8 schools, one public and one catholic. They combined within boards and downsized, not between boards.
It's possible in smaller centres and rural areas, there may be places where public and catholic schools could/should/may share facilities, but I am not aware of any. However, I could see that happening with provincial assistance in defining parameters: Eg, If a public school closure means students have to be bused more than x#km to another public school, the local catholic school can be required to accommodate those public students instead.
In fact, catholic/public parents already have the option of sending students to either type of school. My understanding is that public students in catholic schools are 'exempt' from religion classes, but are still exposed to catholic religion to the extent that it pervades the curriculum.
One thing I would like to know is whether public funds are spent on religion class materials, because I believe that should be only church money, not public education funds. The Ontario curriculum guidelines/directions are clear: Students can be taught about different religions but they cannot be indoctrinated into a particular religion in public schools.
In catholic schools they can, by agreement of their parents.
'Schools within schools' is an option where public and catholic students share facilities but maintain their own schedules and classes.
I do not believe that it is feasible for the NDP or anyone else to publicly debate or adopt a policy/platform of getting rid of publicly funded catholic schools: It's just too much of a 'hot-button' issue. However, I do believe some progress in beginning to integrate schools may be possible through other means relating to economic and other practical considerations. As grist for party platform though, it's a dead issue best kept quiet.
Unionist: Earlier in this thread I commented that no catholic person(s) had come forward to explain/defend public funding for catholic education. You (somewhat snidely) questioned whether I could tell a catholic from their syntax. No, but I can tell whether anyone felt safe enough in this thread or the last one to identify themselves as a catholic and express their views in support of funding of catholic schools. No one has.
I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.
I raised the subject above, and I raise it again here, because I have some discomfort since the manner in which this topic is being discussed is such that no catholic apparently felt comfortable participating. That's embarrassing for a supposedly 'tolerant and progressive' board, imo.
If election campaigns are not the right time to deal with "hot-button issues", what is the right time? Never?
No, but I can tell whether anyone felt safe enough in this thread or the last one to identify themselves as a catholic and express their views in support of funding of catholic schools. No one has.
Gosh, how do you explain the fact that this debate has been raging on for at least two threads? Or do you have a device attached to your computer that filters out Fidel's posts? And where can I get one?
I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.I raised the subject above, and I raise it again here, because I have some discomfort since the manner in which this topic is being discussed is such that no catholic apparently felt comfortable participating. That's embarrassing for a supposedly 'tolerant and progressive' board, imo.
Not to put too fine a point on it, this is bullshit.
If election campaigns are not the right time to deal with "hot-button issues", what is the right time? Never?
I assume parties do polling, focus groups, etc to determine which policies are likely to be useful in an election. I would think that is the time.
Springing a 'hot-button' issue on the public during an election campaign, without any preparation or information, is political suicide, as we just saw with John Tory.
I am pretty much non-partisan and cynical about the political party processes in Canada. It's very odd that I am the one explaining them here! 
Springing a 'hot-button' issue on the public during an election campaign, without any preparation or information, is political suicide, as we just saw with John Tory.
Of course it is. That's exactly why the NDP should not waste another day before informing and preparing the public for an election on this issue.
Only if you want your party to die an ignoble death. Seriously ... reopen the discussion just after it killed John Tory?
Like I said ... I'm no politician nor even a fan, but I know political suicide when I see it!
There are better ways of addressing it gradually - eg through school enrolment/consolidation considerations and regs.
Um, it killed John Tory because his position was [b]stupid.[/b]
I'm advocating that the NDP [b]not[/b] advance a stupid position. That should make a big difference.
Unionist: Earlier in this thread I commented that no catholic person(s) had come forward to explain/defend public funding for catholic education. You (somewhat snidely) questioned whether I could tell a catholic from their syntax. No, but I can tell whether anyone felt safe enough in this thread or the last one to identify themselves as a catholic and express their views in support of funding of catholic schools. No one has.
I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.
I raised the subject above, and I raise it again here, because I have some discomfort since the manner in which this topic is being discussed is such that no catholic apparently felt comfortable participating. That's embarrassing for a supposedly 'tolerant and progressive' board, imo.
You think I was being "snide"?
How about this: Your above comment is disgusting and anti-progressive. In fact, it makes me question all the valuable contributions you have made on other issues. As for "Catholics" being "afraid" to comment here, Fidel isn't afraid, is he?
Moderators are welcome to intervene here. If they ever gave your asinine comment the slightest bit of time, I would never waste my time on this board again. Fortunately, I'm confident that that won't happen.
ETA: Sorry, I crossposted with M. Spector, who made some of the same points. Saga, if you think anyone will moderate their opposition to funding of Catholic-run "public" schools because of your fearmongering about the poor ONDP, go get some more experience in life. These "faith-based" anachronisms will end, no matter how much you and others like you scream.
It wasn't "political suicide" for the Green Party to take a principled stand against funding for Catholic schools in the last election campaign.
Unionist: Earlier in this thread I commented that no catholic person(s) had come forward to explain/defend public funding for catholic education. You (somewhat snidely) questioned whether I could tell a catholic from their syntax. No, but I can tell whether anyone felt safe enough in this thread or the last one to identify themselves as a catholic and express their views in support of funding of catholic schools. No one has.
I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.
I raised the subject above, and I raise it again here, because I have some discomfort since the manner in which this topic is being discussed is such that no catholic apparently felt comfortable participating. That's embarrassing for a supposedly 'tolerant and progressive' board, imo.
You think I was being "snide"?
How about this: Your above comment is disgusting and anti-progressive. In fact, it makes me question all the valuable contributions you have made on other issues. As for "Catholics" being "afraid" to comment here, Fidel isn't afraid, is he?
Moderators are welcome to intervene here. If they ever gave your asinine comment the slightest bit of time, I would never waste my time on this board again. Fortunately, I'm confident that that won't happen.
ETA: Sorry, I crossposted with M. Spector, who made some of the same points. Saga, if you think anyone will moderate their opposition to funding of Catholic-run "public" schools because of your fearmongering about the poor ONDP, go get some more experience in life. These "faith-based" anachronisms will end, no matter how much you and others like you scream.
wtf?
Yes it was snide.
I've limited my comments to the political feasibility of withdrawing public funding from catholic schools. I remain absolutely certain it simply won't fly with the public and would be political suicide for any party that tries to resurrect it.
You don't like that truth? Attack the idea, not the poster. (Remember?)
PROVE ME WRONG, unionist, but don't resort to more snide and personal insults!
I've been very clear about my personal views: We should publicly fund all or none religious education, preferably in shared facilities. The current situation is inequitable. However, changing the current situation is not very likely as it JUST WON'T FLY POLITICALLY!
Like it or lump it, that's the truth, unionist, unless you can prove that there is the 'public stomach' for this discussion, but I certainly haven't seen evidence of that.
As for my "disgusting and anti-progressive" comment, please be clear which one you are referring to and address that further because I'm not sure what you mean. I think you have misinterpreted me.
As for Fidel ... I see him making the same arguments I have, so why is it so "disgusting" when I say it? HMMMM!??!?!
Fidel said: This issue is not an ONDP "principle" issue or anything else you claim it is. The two old line parties dont want to own up to this issue, and the ONDP is not going to promise to layoff workers in the separate school system in what is now another economic downturn due to the bad economic policies of federal and provincial governments, those phony-majority governments of the recent past which glommed onto neoliberal voodoo 30 years ago.
I believe he means it isn't politically feasible.
And yes, I do believe we have to consider perceptions of anti-catholicism in these discussions that may inhibit some people from posting, but that wasn't intended as a personal comment directed at you. I apologize if it seemed so by juxtaposition.
I wish there was this much support for scrapping the red chamber and an obsolete electoral system and dealing with child poverty in old Ontario.
It wasn't "political suicide" for the Green Party to take a principled stand against funding for Catholic schools in the last election campaign.
Well then perhaps the ONDP should go for it!
I'm still of the opinion it won't fly, but then perhaps the ONDP doesn't have catholic supporters so perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to know that.
It's certainly a potentially very divisive issue, as we see here in this thread, and I suspect in the party as well.
The Greens gained some PC protest votes, it's true, but are pretty much still under the radar too.
You don't like that truth? Attack the idea, not the poster. (Remember?)
PROVE ME WRONG, unionist, but don't resort to more snide and personal insults!
Excuse me - you asked the moderators to consider whether they should censor my and others' posts here. That makes you (you, individually) fair game. Retract that attack and I'll go back to just dealing with your ideas.
As for my "disgusting and anti-progressive" comment, please be clear which one you are referring to and address that further because I'm not sure what you mean. I think you have misinterpreted me.
No sweat, saga, though M. Spector called you on it too:
[size=15]I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.[/size]
Retract that bullshit, please. What the fuck is this place - a comfort zone for Catholics? Who the fuck expressed "anti-Catholic" sentiments here? When I say things like, the Pope is a neo-Nazi women-hating freak, you consider that comment to be worthy of censorship????? Too fucking bad.
As for Fidel ... I see him making the same arguments I have, so why is it so "disgusting" when I say it? HMMMM!??!?!
Because Fidel has the decency to make his arguments without asking for censorship of the opposing point of view. You should pick up some shame and follow his example.
And yes, I do believe we have to consider perceptions of anti-catholicism in these discussions that may inhibit some people from posting, but that wasn't intended as a personal comment directed at you. I apologize if it seemed so by juxtaposition.
Unacceptable, disgusting. You can make comments directed against me all you like, no need to apologize. But if you want me to consider the looney "perceptions" by some people who are too brain-dead or cowardly to read critiques of Catholic school funding and/or the Catholic Church, that will [b]NEVER[/b] happen. If they don't like it here, they should go read some other page on the World Wide Web.
Well then perhaps the ONDP should go for it!I'm still of the opinion it won't fly, but then perhaps the ONDP doesn't have catholic supporters so perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to know that.
With the exception of Northern Ontario, I think Catholics and separate school supporters do tend to vote for the old line parties. So it's no surprise that while many of them want their old line parties to deal away separate school funding - which is really an old line party legacy issue - they dont want the ONDP to scoop up any of their votes by remaining neutral. The Liberal Party would like to socialize the risk for this "hot button" issue without actually risking their borderline support base or offending long-time supporters.
The anti-Catholics and those who are against separate schools in general probably tend not to throw their support behind other similar progressive movements, like abolishing the very undemocratic senate- scrapping our 19th century electoral system - or supporting social democratic values in general. I think the ONDP should let the Liberals run with this "hot button" issue in the next election, if this is what they think will be their defining moment of glory in a province bleeding full-time jobs and economy in tail spin for several years in a row.
I'm still of the opinion it won't fly, but then perhaps the ONDP doesn't have catholic supporters so perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to know that.
You suggest that all Catholics are (a) right-wing, and (b) support public funding for separate schools. Aren't you the one who was concerned about alleged defamation of Catholics on babble?
In fact, there are many Catholics who support the NDP and there are many who support a single secular public school system.
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education." - from an undated document entitled "Preserve The Legacy Of The Enduring Gift Of Catholic Education", posted on a separate school board web site.[url=http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/fast_facts.html][color=mediumblue][u]Sour...
We are talking about dismissing (from babble) the views of a very substantial portion of the population, though, and I don't see how beneficial changes can be entertained without engaging them too.
Bullshit. I said if someone can't stand to read anti-Catholic funding posts or anti-Catholic Church posts, they are welcome to change the channel. I never said we should "dismiss" anyone's views here. That's your apparent aim, and you will fail.
There's something like 630,000 Catholic school students in Ontario. That means there are over 1.2 million adults with kids in separate schools, and some number of them who may not even be voting. The ONDP received just over 740,000 votes in 2007.
You don't like that truth? Attack the idea, not the poster. (Remember?)
PROVE ME WRONG, unionist, but don't resort to more snide and personal insults!
Excuse me - you asked the moderators to consider whether they should censor my and others' posts here. That makes you (you, individually) fair game. Retract that attack and I'll go back to just dealing with your ideas.
As for my "disgusting and anti-progressive" comment, please be clear which one you are referring to and address that further because I'm not sure what you mean. I think you have misinterpreted me.No sweat, saga, though M. Spector called you on it too:
[size=15]I think perhaps there is a need for moderators to consider the nature and extent of anti-catholic sentiments expressed/allowed here within babble policy.[/size]Retract that bullshit, please. What the fuck is this place - a comfort zone for Catholics? Who the fuck expressed "anti-Catholic" sentiments here? When I say things like, the Pope is a neo-Nazi women-hating freak, you consider that comment to be worthy of censorship????? Too fucking bad.
As for Fidel ... I see him making the same arguments I have, so why is it so "disgusting" when I say it? HMMMM!??!?!Because Fidel has the decency to make his arguments without asking for censorship of the opposing point of view. You should pick up some shame and follow his example.
And yes, I do believe we have to consider perceptions of anti-catholicism in these discussions that may inhibit some people from posting, but that wasn't intended as a personal comment directed at you. I apologize if it seemed so by juxtaposition.Unacceptable, disgusting. You can make comments directed against me all you like, no need to apologize. But if you want me to consider the looney "perceptions" by some people who are too brain-dead or cowardly to read critiques of Catholic school funding and/or the Catholic Church, that will [b]NEVER[/b] happen. If they don't like it here, they should go read some other page on the World Wide Web.
I don't see any harm in the moderators having the discussion. It's clear from your post that you think catholics should just 'go elsewhere' if they are offended. I'm not sure that is babble policy, though and some clarification would be welcome. We are talking about dismissing (from babble) the views of a very substantial portion of the population, though, and I don't see how beneficial changes can be entertained without engaging them too.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am not in favour of removing public funding for students where it is already in place. I think that is barbaric, often prejudiced, and going the wrong direction. I think we should be extending public education funding to ALL children, regardless of faith. I see no problem with scheduling religious education/observance in public schools where it is by choice, and it is funded by the churches, not the taxpayers.
Assuming that the NDP wants to 'grow' its support, it appears that such a policy would exclude a substantial portion of the population of Ontario, leaving the NDP to gain support only within the less-than-two-thirds of the population remaining.
From that purely practical standpoint, I don't see any of this as politically feasible at this time.
I think I get it: nobody cares about school funding - except Catholics who will all massively reject the NDP if they call for one school system.
I agree with Andrea Horvath that the issue of chronic Harris-hangover underfunding of education has to be addressed first.
Separate schools are not "underfunded" as long as they remain religious schools.
I noted in your pie chart that the 3 biggest blocks are christian, Catholic, and non-religious. It would appear that that combining christian and no-religious types as the biggest voting blocks, so it's no surprising that polling suggests that "one school system" is a winner.
Beyond that, the reason given for Catholic school funding was/is to protect their minority religious rights; however, it is obvious from the picture that this has now become a very priveleged minority because they are obviously are the biggest minority in relation to other religous minorities with their priveleged funding. Ontario has really changed since the constitution was inacted in 1867 in the makeup of people who relate to a certain religion or non-religion. What's of most importance of say the Catholic identifying group is if they are demonstratably Catholic - you know attend church regularly. Why this is important has to do with why they (and not all those who identify as Catholic have their children attend Catholic schools) send their kids to catholic school.
OSSTF did a research project and found out that the vast majority send their kids to catholic schools do to programming. Religion was number 3 on their list and way down in terms of numbers. So why are we supporting separate schools if its not really about religion but better programming, which is all made possible by getting alot more money through the funding formula.
Incidently, separate schools can discriminate against accepting students who are not Catholic in elementary schools. They do this in areas of high enrolment. In areas where they need more student bodies, they open their doors to non-catholics to keep their schools open. And they can discriminate in hiring practices of their teachers, who must also show they are catholic. Those are not social democratic principles but it appears that some NDPers think that our lofty principles are dispensible!
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
I'm still of the opinion it won't fly, but then perhaps the ONDP doesn't have catholic supporters so perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to know that.
You suggest that all Catholics are (a) right-wing, and (b) support public funding for separate schools. Aren't you the one who was concerned about alleged defamation of Catholics on babble?
Your words not mine. I was simply asking/speculating that perhaps support of Catholic Ontarians isn't important to the NDP. Thanks for clarifying.
In fact, there are many Catholics who support the NDP and there are many who support a single secular public school system.
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education." - from an undated document entitled "Preserve The Legacy Of The Enduring Gift Of Catholic Education", posted on a separate school board web site.[url=http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/fast_facts.html][color=mediumblue][u]Sour...
That's interesting data. Perhaps it could have been presented earlier as part of the rationale for this thread? It would have made for better discussion.
However, they voted on "unified" meaning with Catholic religious education in public schools, I believe, not secular schools as I understood were being proposed here.
I support this, as I support integration of all religious schools into the public system, with provision for religious education/observance funded by the churches, not the taxpayer.
