And there you have it, folks. The moral and political bankruptcy of social democracy.
What does the ONDP say to people who want public funding for Muslim schools?
Wed, 2009-03-11 16:09
#52
M. Spector
Wed, 2009-03-11 16:19
#53
And it will cure voter apathy and preserve our obsolete electoral system, too!
Wed, 2009-03-11 16:34
#54
It's not social democracy that's declining its just that the ONDP has become an outlet for angry white people who only support minority rights if they kiss their white benefactor's ass.
Wed, 2009-03-11 17:01
#55
I do not wish to see the party which for the time being I vote, make a statement which amounts to political suicide. However, my beef with the NDP is that they can be too risk averse. (I had to choke on that a bit when the federal NDP signed the coalition, but that's both ancient history and another thread.) I think the ONDP, anyway, suffers from what Pierre Vallieres called the "half a loaf" outlook. They're too afraid of losing what little they have.
Ya know sometimes you have to risk taking a short term hit over a point of principle. If the party stands firmly behind supporting one strong publicy funded education system for everyone, is able to communicate this effectively and with one voice (I know, this IS the ONDP) and if the media reports it fully and fairly, (THAT would be a miracle) then just maybe this would differentiate the NDP sufficiently from the other parties in a positive way to get a few votes. This is a logically defensible position if you have the spine to defend it.
Lets be the party that has the courage of it's convictions, and the convictions to have the courage of!
ETA: oh yeah, and start now. Don't look like you just pulled the idea out of your ass in the first week of an election campaign.
Wed, 2009-03-11 17:51
#56
I vote for oldgoat! And M. Spector. Are either of you planning to run? If so, could you come and run in my riding? Because I'd really like to vote in the next provincial election but I don't see how I'm going to be able to do that, what with no one to vote for and all.
Wed, 2009-03-11 18:21
#57
So which is it Michelle? M. Spector is promoting Extending funding to religious schools. And OldGoat is saying to make One School System, (Just not right way, which is then a copout, because if not now when?)
No wonder you can't vote, you have to choose between two extremes.
School funding is the only issue you base your vote on??? That is a minority position.
What I do find interesting is that I hope you are kidding when you say you won't have anyone to vote for in 2011. There are many parties and at least one of them has to support your position... Just ask Old Goat or M. Spector to run for that party.
Wed, 2009-03-11 18:22
#58
peterjcassidy
Would babblers allow this group into the debate on school funding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto's schools now reflect the changing reality in Canada with a school population that speaks many languages, practices different religions, and comes from diverse social and cultural backgrounds.
Living, working, and learning together in harmony is a challenge for students and their families.
The Toronto District School Board has, over the years, responded to this challenge by moving forward to accommodate the needs of its changing community by providing policies and programs to promote "an atmosphere of acceptance for people of all cultures, faiths, languages and the full range of Canadian heritages.
MENTORS is a Muslim organization seeking accommodation for Muslim students within the public school system. MENTORS was founded in 1996 as the Muslim School Advisory and Support Group for the Scarborough Board of Education. It aimed to assist the Scarborough Board by providing policy advice on issues impacting Muslims and to provide support for Muslim parents and students.
Since amalgamation in 1999, MENTORS has provided services for the entire Toronto District School Board.
We work to make sure Muslims in the public school system have recognition and respect from their peers and teachers, and will be able to practice their faith without any negative consequences.
Wed, 2009-03-11 18:37
#59
M. Spector
M. Spector is promoting Extending funding to religious schools.
Where on earth did you get that idea? Have you been asleep through the last 5 threads on this topic?
Wed, 2009-03-11 18:50
#60
Wed, 2009-03-11 19:10
#61
peterjcassidy
and do Babbler think the ONDP should hear from these Muslims and other faiths who want funding for their disabled children..
Demanding provincial funding for their disabled children, eight families are teaming with a coalition of multi-faith schools to sue the McGuinty government.
Allan Kaufman, Multi-Faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Faith-Based Schools’ legal counsel, says they realized they needed to take drastic action after a Ministry of Health civil servant told them only $4.5 million of the $14.4 million allotted for Ontario’s disabled students in faith-based schools is being spent.
“The government is slicing and dicing the children with disabilities in our religious schools. The situation is intolerable and we are not going to permit it anymore,” says Kaufman.
Traditionally, faith-based schools, other than Catholic schools, did not receive any government funding. This changed in 2000, when the Ministry of Health began funding students in faith-based schools who needed speech therapy, nursing services, occupational therapy or physiotherapy.
This funding excludes disabled children who are blind, deaf or have learning disabilities, after the Ontario government, in what the coalition calls an arbitrary move, designated the Ministry of Education to be in charge of these students. Kaufman says the families and schools have never received money for these students.
This lack of funding has limited who schools can allow in, says Khalid Khokhar, officer of the Multi-Faith Coalition and principal of the Islamic School of Cambridge. He says his school has had to turn down some disabled children, sending them back to public school, because they didn’t have the money to take care of their special needs.
About 50,000 students attend Ontario’s faith-based schools. The relatively small amount of money needed to help special needs students in those schools would be far outweighed by the good the money would do, says Bill Shell, the human rights lawyer representing the families in the lawsuit.
"We provide all kinds of money for all kinds of purposes that are hardly as valuable then our investment in the welfare and futures of children in Ontario who have disabilities," says Shell.
Nadia Moussa, a Scarborough mother with two young visually impaired daughters, says she is taking part in the lawsuit because her daughters deserve to learn about their faith in school while getting the extra attention they need.
Moussa’s 10-year-old daughter, Tebat, who is legally blind, says when she moved from public school to an Islamic school, she lost the extra help she needs, like specialized computer software and a teacher’s assistant to tell her what is on the blackboard.
Tebat says she gets hassled by classmates when she blocks their view of the board when she goes for a closer look.
“I’d like them to stop yelling at me,” she says quietly.
Wed, 2009-03-11 19:33
#62
Madmax, I think you've misunderstood me. In my first post, I was being sarcastic. In my second, somehow an edit wound up in the middle of a paragraph BTW, and I fixed it.
M. Spector can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood him too.
Wed, 2009-03-11 19:51
#63
peterjcassidy
And to anticipate teh next thread, I guess babblers would not want the ONDP to hear from a member of the Jewish faith in Ontario claiming a violation of his rights.
--------------------------
1.1 The author of the communication is Mr. Arieh Hollis Waldman, a Canadian citizen residing in the province of Ontario. He claims to be a victim of a violation of articles 26, and articles 18(1), 18(4) and 27 taken in conjunction with article 2(1).*
1.2 The author is a father of two school-age children and a member of the Jewish faith who enrols his children in a private Jewish day school. In the province of Ontario Roman Catholic schools are the only non-secular schools receiving full and direct public funding. Other religious schools must fund through private sources, including the charging of tuition fees.
1.3 In 1994 Mr. Waldman paid $14,050 in tuition fees for his children to attend Bialik Hebrew Day School in Toronto, Ontario. This amount was reduced by a federal tax credit system to $10,810.89. These tuition fees were paid out of a net household income of $73,367.26. In addition, the author is required to pay local property taxes to fund a public school system he does not use.
Wed, 2009-03-11 22:11
#64
Michelle is right - it is the Christian/Catholic Supremacy Party.
Wed, 2009-03-11 22:16
#65
Yes that's right. The ONDP is the Christian/Catholic Supremacy Party.
And there's not a hint of hyperbole in that.
Get some perspective.
Wed, 2009-03-11 22:36
#66
M. Spector
What I really find amusing is that [b]peterjcassidy doesn't even realize that his last three posts all cut directly against the logic of the current NDP policy on religious education funding.[/b]
• A post on how the [b]public secular school system[/b] is doing such a great job of accommodating religious minorities. And yet the NDP would have us believe that Catholics - alone among all religious sects and denominations - need to have their own publicly funded separate schools!
• A post about how a multi-faith coalition is suing the government to get more money for their non-Catholic religious schools. This is the kind of thing John Tory would use in his quest to extend funding to all religuious schools - but the NDP opposed it.
• A post about Jewish schools wanting public funding. John Tory all over again. Is this what peterjcasidy wants the NDP to support? Because it didn't in the last election, and it was right not to support it.
Wed, 2009-03-11 22:58
#67
Frustrated Mess
FM
Why shouldn't other languages have equal status?
Why can't Canada have several official languages?
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
We put too much value in the terms "official language" which really means the language of government.
I think it is highly reasonable and desirable for the government to publish information on web sites in as many languages as possible. I would disagree with that for print due to the obvious expense and wastefulness.
In terms of education, I think the item linked to by Fidel above is an excellent program. I think where numbers warrant, schools can tailor programs to cultural and linguistic minorities. But teaching Sinhalese or Mandarin as part of a regular curriculum to kids in Weasel Grove, Ontario would take away dollars for those kids from other programs, perhaps athletics, music programs, arts programs, or libraries, from which they could derive immediate and lasting benefit. And if their parents believe their children would benefit from a languages such as Mandarin, then they can pay for it themselves or buy the tapes.
And for the record, I don't believe any religious education should be publicly funded.
Wed, 2009-03-11 23:27
#68
peterjcassidy
What I really find amusing is that [b]peterjcassidy doesn't even realize that his last three posts all cut directly against the logic of the current NDP policy on religious education funding.[/b]
• A post on how the [b]public secular school system[/b] is doing such a great job of accommodating religious minorities. And yet the NDP would have us believe that Catholics - alone among all religious sects and denominations - need to have their own publicly funded separate schools!
• A post about how a multi-faith coalition is suing the government to get more money for their non-Catholic religious schools. This is the kind of thing John Tory would use in his quest to extend funding to all religuious schools - but the NDP opposed it.
• A post about Jewish schools wanting public funding. John Tory all over again. Is this what peterjcasidy wants the NDP to support? Because it didn't in the last election, and it was right not to support it.
I have always supported our party position- full funding for catholic schools, being of the experience that Catholics were openly discriminated against in school funding (and othere areas) I was proud of my paty supporing my rights against the discriminatroy Tory regime that ruled Ontario for 43 years- Family compact meets Orange Orde. Then came oru Quiet Revlutioin, the Liberal/NDP accord=full fudnign rfor Catholcis schools and a lot of other proressive things
.I have geranlly seen who opposed funding catholci schoosl in Ontario as Orange Order Englsuh Protestabt bigots. I have come to reaize however that there are some, particulary sustrers and borhters in the ONDP, some of whom post on this thread, who have legitimate argumetns to make. I publicly committed to doing all I could to facilate a debate in our party on that issue and have been opnely proud that our party is having that debate.
I am frankly disaointed that sisters and brothers on babble want to limit the debate to: should we abolish funding for Catholic schols -yes or no. No other options-not even consideraion of the UN case that won their cause some semb lance of tolderance and diversity. . They do not want to hear Muslims and Jews argue that their rights were violatedeven thoiugh they know it is true. . All they want to hear is the sound of their own voices braying: Abolish funding for Catholic schools. Shame.
Wed, 2009-03-11 23:30
#69
RevolutionPlease
You're right Spector, they've been sleeping through the 5 threads.
Oldgoat's post was awesome.
Wanna get rid of the economic anchor, take a platform that can withstand stormy waters.
Wed, 2009-03-11 23:36
#70
RevolutionPlease
NDP cannot win on the economy, it needs to be bigger.
Wed, 2009-03-11 23:58
#71
(erasing post; partly redundant, partly dopey and off topic.)
Thu, 2009-03-12 08:47
#72
Incidentally, one thing that has not been discussed very much is the fcat that the overwhelming favourite to become the next Tory leader in Ontario is Tim Hudak. Guess what? Hudak is a leading champion of religious school funding and is one of the people who put extreme pressure on John Tory to bring in that plank. It will be interesting to see whether he will now try to retreat from that position after the fiasco of the last election.
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:01
#73
What does the ONDP say to people who want public funding for Muslim schools?
Short answer? We'll get back to you within 2 years (ie: just after the next election).
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:11
#74
M. Spector
I'll put you down for (j) then.
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:34
#75
I think that if people want public funding for any schooling their children get, whether they are disabled or not, they should send their kids to public schools instead of private religious schools. If they choose to send their kids to private religious schools, or home school them, or whatever they do outside the public system, and there aren't the proper resources there for their kids, then they need to ask the private school why they aren't providing those resources.
That's the drag about sending your kids to private school - you pay the whole freight. Yep, it's unfair if your private school doesn't provide the services that all children need - file a human rights complaint against them if they're discriminating against your child because your child is disabled. OR! Consider sending your kids to a public school instead of cramming religion down their throats and expecting taxpayers to pay for it, would be my response.
And yes, I'm against funding for Catholic schools. See above re: cramming religion down kids throats and asking for public funding to do it. That's what your churches, temples, mosques and other religious institutions are for. Pay for it yourself if you want to indoctrinate your kids with religion.
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:38
#76
M. Spector
I'll put you down for an (i) then.
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:42
#77
P.S. I understand the history behind separate schools. Back when public schools were de facto "Protestant schools" and still had religion taught in them and prayers said in them, I can see why Catholic schools were set up - so that the largest minority faith group wouldn't have Protestant religion crammed down their throats and then have to pay for it through their taxes. I totally get it, although of course their solution discriminated against other minority religions - but back then, Christianity was the only religion that counted.
So, god bless the ONDP for upholding that value, that Christianity is the only religion that really counts.
Our public schools are now completely secular. No prayers, no religious instruction. Public schools are no longer "Protestant schools". That doesn't mean there isn't racism and that the majority of children who go them them aren't Christian. Sure they are. But they aren't taught religion there. So there is no longer a reason to have separate, religious Catholic indoctrination publicly funded in schools. (Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!)
Thu, 2009-03-12 11:55
#78
Just having a little fun.... Sarcasm and humour frequently gets mistaken on forums and I am no different. Just pulling a few chains in the thread. I thought it was so outrageous and over the top that everyone would get it was meant to raise an eyebrow.Madmax, I think you've misunderstood me. In my first post, I was being sarcastic. In my second, somehow an edit wound up in the middle of a paragraph BTW, and I fixed it.
M. Spector can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood him too.
BTW .... I wouldn't vote for either of you guys 
Thu, 2009-03-12 12:19
#79
[QUOTE]
BTW .... I wouldn't vote for either of you guys
[/QUOTE]
Thank god. I'd be awful. I'm a crappy public speaker, my closet is full of skeletons, I drink, and frankly I'm a tad lazy.
Thu, 2009-03-12 12:51
#80
actually the myth that children in non-public and non-catholic schools do not get health supports is just not true. CCAC's which deliver all health services to schools in public and "private" schools through an RFP process do deliver to private schools.
There are 2 pots of money. 1 is for the public and catholic the second is dedicated funding for those children in schools who require services.
The catch is that it is health money not education so if you look at speech and language pathology their are 2 types. articulation and language. one is assisted by board SLPs through education money, the other through CCAC. So kids in non-public and non-Catholic only get 1 of the 2 services.
Thu, 2009-03-12 13:03
#81
BTW .... I wouldn't vote for either of you guys
Thank god. I'd be awful. I'm a crappy public speaker, my closet is full of skeletons, I drink, and frankly I'm a tad lazy.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one 
oldgoat for premier, oldgoat for premier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Thu, 2009-03-12 18:03
#82
I'm still waiting to hear why from madmax why he thinks a LibDem '05-type showing would be "disastrous" for the ONDP.
Thu, 2009-03-12 23:46
#83
RevolutionPlease
I'm firmly of the opinion it has the "potential" to catapault the NDP if they played it right. Economic anchor, so the economy issue is out the window if you're talking about electability.
Oldgoat for Premier!!!!!
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:06
#84
peterjcassidy
P.S. I understand the history behind separate schools. Back when public schools were de facto "Protestant schools" and still had religion taught in them and prayers said in them, I can see why Catholic schools were set up - so that the largest minority faith group wouldn't have Protestant religion crammed down their throats and then have to pay for it through their taxes. I totally get it, although of course their solution discriminated against other minority religions - but back then, Christianity was the only religion that counted.
So, god bless the ONDP for upholding that value, that Christianity is the only religion that really counts.
Our public schools are now completely secular. No prayers, no religious instruction. Public schools are no longer "Protestant schools". That doesn't mean there isn't racism and that the majority of children who go them them aren't Christian. Sure they are. But they aren't taught religion there. So there is no longer a reason to have separate, religious Catholic indoctrination publicly funded in schools. (Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!)
I consider those comments-(Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!) way over the line . Please withdraw them/
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:11
#85
Cueball
I think she is referring to the South American Catholic Bishop who excommunicated the family of a 9 year old for arranging for an abortion of a feotus concieved by her father, but not the father, because the crime of abortion is worse than the crime of rape, peodophilia, child abuse and incest, in the eyes of the lord.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:11
#86
I consider those comments-(Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!) way over the line . Please withdraw them/
I'm confident Michelle won't withdraw them, but just in case, let me add my voice:
The Vatican earlier this week validated the action of the Brazilian bishop who declared that the mother was worthy of excommunication but not the rapist step-father, because the crime against the foetus was worse than the crime against the 9-year-old child.
For that act, alone, the Catholic Church must be cut off from its charitable status at once, and all forms of grants or subsidies (including any public funding of Catholic religious indoctrination) must cease.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:14
#87
M. Spector
I doubt she will withdraw those words. But if she does, I'll repost them myself.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:15
#88
Cueball
Actually that was such a good line I will repost them in bold: Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:17
#89
M. Spector
Me too.
Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:18
#90
RevolutionPlease
Did I ever tell you fabulous people, I can't stand the catholic church. Ooops.
Give yourselves a slap in the noggin people, works for me.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:24
#91
Cueball
What would I say to Muslim people who ask this question?
I would say that supporting a religiously segregated school system might seem to be a good way to preserve and protect the Muslim community, but in fact will only act to breed further mistrust and ghettoization of the Muslim community, and increase the impact of negative stereotyping of the Muslim community, at a time when familiarity, friendship and understanding is needed.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:34
#92
M. Spector
That sounds rather patronizing, Cueball.
What would you then say if the Muslim responds by saying "Why not let [b]us[/b] decide how best to protect and defend our community?"
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:37
#93
M. Spector
And now Pinocchio's Liberals want the NDP to gang up with them in putting the kibosh to Catholic school funding...
When did McGuinty come out against funding for Catholic schools?
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:38
#94
Michelle is right - it is the Christian/Catholic Supremacy Party.
So 1.2 million Christian/Catholic supremacists in Ontario must have voted NDP last election then?
And now Pinocchio's Liberals want the NDP to gang up with them in putting the kibosh to Catholic school funding, just in case some miniscule percentage of Catholic/ social democrat fundies happen to be long-time OLPers. Afterall, that 22 percent of registered voter support was earned the hard way.
I still think the NDP should let the McGuinty dictatorship claim all the credit for this progressive maneuver. They deserve it.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:41
#95
And now Pinocchio's Liberals want the NDP to gang up with them in putting the kibosh to Catholic school funding...
When did McGuinty come out against funding for Catholic schools?
Wasnt that Lord's posited title in another thread of the same theme with a difference? - Would the ONDP support the Liberals in the event that executive Liberals decided to actually make an executive decsision on school funding?
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:47
#96
RevolutionPlease
But Fidel it seems such a critical issue that it must ignite the sleeping majority to vote, no?
C'mon, what are you scared of?
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:56
#97
Cueball
Well, you're the expert on patronizing around here, so I guess I'll take your words on it.
But, as for a rebuttal to that, I would probably laugh at them like I know something that they don't. That usually peaks the interest proslethyzing blowhards, and plays well to the audience, because it is the audience I am playing to, not the "convinced". Most Muslims are perfectly happy to send their kids to secular schools, precisely because they are far more concious of the need to integrate their children into the greater whole of Canadian society, and really not all a bunch of xenophobes clamouring for the Qu'ran to be the staple of their childs education.
Probably, making some kind of specific accomodations might be in order too, such as allowing for prayers in schools, during the schools session, at the appropriate times. That would probably do more to sell the whole package, than any appeal to atheist secular deamonology, and "Origin of the Species" thumping.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:58
#98
[color=blue][b](Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!)[/b][/color]
Well said!
Fri, 2009-03-13 01:04
#99
But Fidel it seems such a critical issue that it must ignite the sleeping majority to vote, no?
According newspaper reports after the election, McGuinty's Liberals won because they did not support expansion of provincial funding to faith based school and John Tory's Tories announced that they would. Apparently this was evidence that Ontario voters are progressive and want to satisfy UN calls for fair and equal funding of a secular public school system one size fits all.
And these were the same newspapers which reported that MMP went down to "resounding defeat" with just
37% support - and the same papers with printed headlines that said: McGuinty's Liberals win by a "landslide" with 42% of the vote. Apparently five percent is the difference between landslide victory and resounding defeat in Ontario.
Fri, 2009-03-13 01:06
#100
[color=blue][b](Furthermore, any religious institution that teaches its adherents that it's morally more acceptable to rape a child repeatedly from age 7-9 years old than for a 9 year-old rape victim to get an abortion has absolutely NO BUSINESS receiving public funding to run schools!)[/b][/color]
Well said!
I agree, Unionist!
Fri, 2009-03-13 01:17
#101
Cueball
But Fidel it seems such a critical issue that it must ignite the sleeping majority to vote, no?
According newspaper reports after the election, McGuinty's Liberals won because they did not support expansion of provincial funding to faith based school and John Tory's Tories announced that they would. Apparently this was evidence that Ontario voters are progressive and want to satisfy UN calls for fair and equal funding of a secular public school system one size fits all.
And these were the same newspapers which reported that MMP went down to "resounding defeat" with just
37%
support - and the same papers with printed headlines that said: McGuinty's Liberals win by a "landslide" with 42% of the vote. Apparently five percent is the difference between landslide victory and resounding defeat in Ontario.
This is a very interesting study in double-think. In the first instance the poster establishes his point by referring to media reports in the mainstream press, assessing its views on who won the election as credible. In the second instance, the poster then seems to be suggesting that the post-election analysis was flawed in its interpretation of the results, and therefore not credible.
It is almost as if the poster cherry-picks evidence from sources that conform to the views that the poster is predisposed to suppor based on their political alignment, and then dismisses any contrary information as fraudulent because it does not likewise conform.
Could that be the case? Either the source is credible, or not, am I not right?