Ontario NDP Education Task Force starts

101 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-01-07 18:23

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Ontario NDP Education Task Force starts

Education Funding Task Force

At the ONDP convention in March 2009, a resolution was passed that mandated the party to establish a Task Force on Education Funding in Ontario (see below for resolution) that would consult with party members on this critical issue.

The Task Force was established, and its membership approved, at the November 2009 Provincial Council meeting. The membership is as follows:

Vicky Smallman (co-chair), Bud Wildman (co-chair), Cameron Holmstrom, Pat Chastang, Malcolm Buchanan, Ed Chudak, Effie Vlachoyannacos, Brian MacDonald (staff), Sandra Clifford (ex-officio)

Mandate of Task Force:

The mandate as set out in the convention resolution is to deal with education funding in the broad sense.

· Submissions may deal with legal, constitutional, political, fiscal, equity, taxation,

and governance issues.

Framework and Time-lines:

· This is a task force of the party and will seek submissions from party members, on the assumption that outside interested groups will be represented through the party membership.

· Submissions will be accepted by mail, e-mail, and video, and there will be one in-person session Sunday February 28 between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm at the venue of the Provincial Council meeting. Time-slots for in-person submissions must be booked in advance, and the in-person presentations must be accompanied by a written submission. All submissions must include name, address, phone and e-mail information. Submissions will be accepted until March 19, 2010.

All submissions and requests for time at the in-person session are to be sent to:

Valorie Block

Executive Assistant to the Provincial Secretary, Ontario NDP

101 Richmond Street East

Toronto, ON M5C 1N9

p: 416.591.8637 ext. 244

f: 416.599.4820

[email protected]

CONVENTION 2009 RESOLUTION
3-6 Public Education Funding

Whereas Ontario currently has four publicly-funded school board systems, a French Catholic, a French Public, an English Catholic and an English Public; and

Whereas schools in all board systems currently lack adequate funding due to a flawed provincial funding formula that the McGuinty government has refused to fix despite promising to do so; and

Whereas all proponents of public education should be unified in the fight for excellent schools that have the funding they need; and

Whereas the forced merger at this time of some or all of these school board systems will only serve to divert attention away from the real problems facing public education in Ontario;

Therefore be it resolved that New Democrats oppose the McGuinty government's continued and chronic under-funding of schools in Ontario's four publicly-funded school board systems; and

Be it further 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.

Be it further resolved that Provincial Council establish a Party task force to examine all public education funding options in Ontario and that that task force report back to Provincial Council within a year of this convention.

Fri, 2010-01-08 03:06

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

some might be interested in talking to the task force.

Sat, 2010-01-16 18:36

OL12

peterjcassidy wrote:
some might be interested in talking to the task force.

Thanks Peter. Given that so many NDPers want to see public funding for the Catholic school system eliminated, you can bet your life on it. And despite the limits the framers of the resolution tried to put on the conversation, you can bet the elephant in the room (exclusive, discriminatory, and wasteful Catholic school funding) will be thoroughly discussed. You cannot have an honest discussion about education funding in Ontario with your head in the sand. You can't suppress the democratic will of the majority of members of a democratic party indefinitely either.

The wording of this resolution ranks right up there with the most ridiculous I have ever heard.

CONVENTION 2009 RESOLUTION 3-6 Public Education Funding (emphasis added) wrote:
Whereas the forced merger at this time of some or all of these school board systems will only serve to divert attention away from the [b][u]real problems[/u][/b] facing public education in Ontario;

"[b][u]Real problems[/u][/b] facing public education in Ontario"? The discrimination, segregation, and wasteful duplication in our school system are the biggest "real problems" of them all!

CONVENTION 2009 RESOLUTION 3-6 Public Education Funding (emphasis added) wrote:
Therefore be it resolved that New Democrats oppose the McGuinty government's continued and chronic under-funding of schools in Ontario's four publicly-funded school board systems; and

Be it further 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.

Be it further resolved that Provincial Council establish a Party task force to examine [b][u]all[/u][/b] public education funding options in Ontario and that that task force report back to Provincial Council within a year of this convention.

McGuinty has thrown so much money at the education sytem, it is hard to make a credible claim of "under-funding" anymore. The main problem is not the quantity of money spent on education, but priorities and distribution. Religious school funding should not be a priority. [i][u]Exclusively Catholic[/u][/i] religious school funding even less so. Think of any area of education where funding is insufficient. Is it something parents could do themselves or could afford to pay for themselves? What about Catholic religious indoctrination? Catholic parents can get that for free at their local Catholic Church (you know, those beautiful buildings most of them never set foot in save for weddings, baptisms, and funerals). They do not need the government to be involved. Government is going to be torching public services of much greater importance than Catholic school funding to deal with our massive deficit. It would be a travesty if Catholic school funding were to survive the fire while more important services -- services people can not supply themselves, did not.

Now what of those areas of education where funding is insufficient. Let's list some. First and foremost is perhaps full day kindergarten, which could probably be completely funded from the savings from moving to one school system. Wouldn't it be better (and fairer) to make that program available to as many parents as possible as quickly as possible, rather than rolling it out over half a decade? What about special education? Are special needs children getting adequate support? What about ESL students? Are we doing as much as we should to make sure that immigrants get the language skills they need to be economically successful contributors to our society? What about funding for educational infrastructure so that schools are not crumbling around our children's ears? Given a chance to vote on priorities, I'd bet most Ontarians and most NDPers would put [b][u]ANY[/u][/b] of these spending priorities ahead of Catholic school funding.

The task force should indeed be looking at "[b][u]all[/u][/b] public education funding options" -- without handcuffs or caveats of any kind. How can "[b][u]all[/u][/b]" not include the issue of exclusive, discriminatory, and wasteful Catholic school funding? A truly democratic political party should not be afraid of ideas -- particularly those whose time has come.

Sat, 2010-01-16 18:55

Bookish Agrarian

Can we put to rest the myth that the bulk of NDP members support ending Catholic eduction. Every time this sort of thing has ever come to a vote it has been soundly defeated by NDP members. I understand that for some this is a crucial issue and they are motivated by it, but I for one am sick to death of the rhetoric of some supporters that paint this non-support as some kind of conspiracy. Continue your advocacy and who knows someday you might win the day, but this kind of rhetoric only serves to undermine that advocacy.

Sat, 2010-01-16 19:52

OL12

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Can we put to rest the myth that the bulk of NDP members support ending Catholic eduction. Every time this sort of thing has ever come to a vote it has been soundly defeated by NDP members.

To be accurate, I did not claim that most NDPers support ending Catholic education (but I do believe that). I said "Given a chance to vote on priorities, I'd bet most Ontarians and most NDPers would put ANY of these spending priorities ahead of Catholic school funding."

To be fair, the NDP has never actually debated a resolution to end Catholic school funding -- so the idea has not been rejected. The party has yet to even discuss its merits in a full and open way. Michael Prue was willing to let that debate happen had he won the leadership. The Catholic teachers union heavily backed every one of his opponents (follow link) in an effort to ensure that such a debate never saw the light of day.

During the 2007 policy convention, the debate was about whether a one school system policy resolution should even get to the floor for debate (a debate about whether to allow a debate). In speaking to members at that policy convention, I was hard pressed to find anyone not wearing an OECTA (Catholic Teachers' Union) button who did not support the idea of a single public school system. Those who opposed bringing the issue fully forward for debate (if they were not Catholic) were concerned about doing so in an election year -- they were not opposed to the resolution itself. Most I talked to told me they agreed with the idea of one school system in principle, they just didn't think it was the right time. For these reasons, I stand by my belief that most NDPers support one school system. It is a matter of "when" and "when" will someday be "today".

History proved that the party made the wrong decision in 2007. In the ensuing election that was dominated by the faith based school issue, only the Green party reflected majority Ontario opinion in favour of a single public school system (poll after poll confirmed majority support for the elimination of even Catholic schools). They tripled their popular vote on the strength of that position while the NDP became increasingly irrelevant. Had the NDP adopted a one school system policy, they would have drawn considerable support from the Liberals and would not have lost so much support to the Greens.

Sat, 2010-01-16 20:01

Bookish Agrarian

Sorry that post is utter BS from start to finish.

I have been at convention after convention, provincial council meeting after provincial council meeting where this issue comes up. You lose the day every time, mostly due to the over-heated rhetoric like you continue to throw out in this thread turning off people who might otherwise be willing to listen. By all means keep that up as it undermines arguments that people might be open to. There is zero evidence that the convoluted Green policy moved votes out of anyone's column let alone the NDPs.

I am at least mildly supportive of a single school system given certain conditions, however, they type of silly tripe like you are going on about I hear coming from supporters turns me and lots of others off every time. Passion is good, hectoring is not.

Sat, 2010-01-16 20:05

Bookish Agrarian

Anyway regardless of what your views are I would strongly recommend people passing on their ideas and concerns to this task force. It is important people do that, no matter what side you might be on in terms of any education issue.

Sun, 2010-01-17 02:44

Michelle

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Can we put to rest the myth that the bulk of NDP members support ending Catholic eduction. Every time this sort of thing has ever come to a vote it has been soundly defeated by NDP members.

What a pity. In that case, there probably isn't much point in talking to the "task force" about it - especially since it's been pretty clear where the NDP stands on funding religious schools anyhow. (Discriminatory - public money for Catholics and no other religion; and theocratic - spending public funds on indoctrinating young citizens with state-approved and sanctioned religion.)

I mean, heck, the ONDP went out of their way to block the abolishment of the Lord's prayer from the Legislature and then crowed about what a victory it was when they ensured that the Lord's Prayer was recited every day, while prayers from other religions were rotated from day to day after the supreme, much more important Christian prayer was recited. A true victory for religious crusaders everywhere!

Sun, 2010-01-17 06:29

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Pretty sad state of affairs that this can't get no traction. Wake up sheeple.

Sun, 2010-01-17 08:09

#10

George Victor

The spirit of healing integration that came with war's end resulted in Catholic and Protestant coming together to form unions in their workplaces and a centuries-old animosity was buried. But each "side" respected the right of the other to follow their own traditional forms of worship. And this was considered a breakthrough by folks of my parents age. If only we had been able to break with the past entirely. Asking a political party to lead the charge is to counsel suicide. Can't see such righteousness being effective outside of church circles, fellow believers. :D

Sun, 2010-01-17 11:54

#11

OL12

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Sorry that post is utter BS from start to finish.

I have been at convention after convention, provincial council meeting after provincial council meeting where this issue comes up. You lose the day every time, mostly due to the over-heated rhetoric like you continue to throw out in this thread turning off people who might otherwise be willing to listen.

"Utter BS from start to finish"? Really. What part specifically? When and where has a resolution to eliminate Catholic school funding actually been allowed to come to a policy convention floor for debate? Just such a resolution was arbitrarily assigned such a low priority for the 2007 policy convention that it would have never seen the light of day on the convention floor. Sure, there have been debates about whether to actually allow a full debate to happen (the case in 2007, when supporters tried to elevate the priority of the one school system resolution so it could be properly debated at convention), but (to my knowledge, please correct me with [b][u]specifics[/u][/b] if I am wrong) NDPers have never been given the opportunity to actually vote on whether superior education rights for one favoured faith, with all its attendant waste, should continue.

"Over-heated rhetoric"? You'll just have to forgive us for arguing this issue with passion, because we're never going to stop. The status quo in education in Ontario is absolutely outrageous and our reaction to it will reflect our outrage. Suck it up, buttercup. We're not going anywhere. In any democracy, one should be able to take their equality before and under the law for granted. Isn't it a sorry state of affairs that non-Catholics in Ontario cannot?

You who sit upon the pedestal of privilege might think it overheated rhetoric, but those of us seeking equal consideration from a [b][i]religiously neutral[/i][/b] government do not. Those of us seeking to protect Ontario's many more important social programs do not either.

We are seeking to see our [b][i]fundamental[/i][/b] right to equality respected. That should resonate with [b][u]true[/u][/b] social democrats and have their full support. So should the elimination of wasteful duplication that bleeds billions from the funding available for far more important social programs.

Catholic school funding proponents are truly fiddling while Ontario burns -- while far more important social programs go wanting for adequate funding. They will no doubt fiddle some more when McGuinty slashes and burns more services to deal with Ontario's staggering budget deficit. You can bet most of those cuts will be to services most Ontarians value more than Catholic school funding. Ontarians and NDPers should not stand by and allow the suffering of their neighbours to increase while Catholic school funding proponents look away and lie low. [u]Catholic school funding should be the first cut on the table.[/u] Hospitals, schools, care for the elderly and disabled, and many other priorities are all far more important than Catholic school funding. Sadly, all of these services stand to incur unnecessary damage if we keep Catholic school funding in place.

Sun, 2010-01-17 12:36

#12

Martha B

I have taught in both systems and both have their good and bad points. Simply though as a matter of equity there is no argument funding Catholic schools and no others is unfair.

Sun, 2010-01-17 12:37

#13

Bookish Agrarian

Hectoring never works on an issue like this. Period. OL12 do you even read what you write infering the teaching children or funding hospitials is an either or proposition. That is just plain offensive. Period.

Nor do any of you seem to understand what this means for rural communities where local schools are often Catholic schools, the only school in the community, so you can guarentee school closures in those communities as they are only being kept open because they do not fall under the school review process in the same way - or at least it is not interpreted in the same way.

Again I am at least agnostic on this issue, but the more over the top the rhetoric, the more people are turned off. There are a good number of people who still remember that being progressive was to support serperate school funding, to overcome the years of Protestant domination in Ontario ignoring that undermines those peoples efforts.

Sun, 2010-01-17 12:41

#14

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Can we put to rest the myth that the bulk of NDP members support ending Catholic eduction. Every time this sort of thing has ever come to a vote it has been soundly defeated by NDP members.

What a pity. In that case, there probably isn't much point in talking to the "task force" about it - especially since it's been pretty clear where the NDP stands on funding religious schools anyhow. (Discriminatory - public money for Catholics and no other religion; and theocratic - spending public funds on indoctrinating young citizens with state-approved and sanctioned religion.)

I mean, heck, the ONDP went out of their way to block the abolishment of the Lord's prayer from the Legislature and then crowed about what a victory it was when they ensured that the Lord's Prayer was recited every day, while prayers from other religions were rotated from day to day after the supreme, much more important Christian prayer was recited. A true victory for religious crusaders everywhere!

What I am objecting to is this foolish notion that there is some kind of conspiracy around this issue.

And pointing out that if those who support a single school system want to actually convince people who do not see this as their number 1 prority amongst the pantheon of issues that face us, then they better learn how to communicate better, learn some reality in many of our smaller communities, take some time to understand the history of this issue and stop such over-the-top hectoring.

Sun, 2010-01-17 13:22

#15

Prophit

I am supportive of one single public school system. This is the 21st century, we no longer have state sanctioned faith-based discrimination. Funding the Roman Catholic system while refusing to fund other faiths schools is discrminatory no matter what anyone claims. Its time to end it one way or another. Fund only one public system OR fund all other faith schools.

Sun, 2010-01-17 14:10

#16

George Victor

And the people of the 21st century have not brought their faith and priests with them from the 20th? ANd fund everyone to the detriment of what...medicine?, homes for the aged?, rebuilding of infrastructure? What delusional nonsense.

"Fair". What is "fair" about people sitting about in their own excrement because the people of this province voted in big Mike who immediately reduced the requirements of time for care for each individual in Long Term Care. The Liberals have brought it back from the primitive state, but only barely, and tens of thousands of home caregivers cannot find professional help for their loved one.

But we must be "fair", because some wish to brainwash the kids in their own version of "God's" teaching, laid down for the provision of an afterlife.

And I'll bet Hudak sells the silly bastards on his program in typical prostituting fashion because again, he will promise lower taxes while playing to the singular needs of the fundamentalists of any faith.

Which would only be "fair" of course... that concept so very important in the Grade 2 schoolroom, but on an overcrowded planet inhabited by political barracudas, really a very, very inadequate reason for post-sandbox political decisions.

Sun, 2010-01-17 14:38

#17

OL12

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Hectoring never works on an issue like this. Period.

If by "hectoring" you refer to our relentlessness, like I said before "[i]Suck it up buttercup. We're not going anywhere.[/i]" We've been put off and brushed off for decades by self-interested Catholic school funding fans who say "there are more important issues", but we won't be put off or brushed off any longer. They have made our relentlessness necessary. We're not going to let them change the channel this time. Not when maintaining Catholic school funding means that far more important priorities go wanting for adequate funding or face a blowtorch in upcoming budgets.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
OL12 do you even read what you write infering the teaching children or funding hospitials is an either or proposition. That is just plain offensive. Period.

News flash Bookish Agrarian: [b][u]Ontario does not have an infinite pot of money[/u][/b]. We have an absolutely staggering and unprecedented $24.7 billion budget deficit (follow link) that is going to mean [u]a lot[/u] of either-or choices ahead. Responsible governments prioritize spending. The point I will continue to drive home in this forum and others is that most of the programs that will find themselves on the chopping block are a lot more important to most Ontarians (and most Ontario Catholics, I'd even wager) than Catholic school funding. Catholic school funding should top the list of cuts in the coming budget.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Nor do any of you seem to understand what this means for rural communities where local schools are often Catholic schools, the only school in the community, so you can guarentee school closures in those communities as they are only being kept open because they do not fall under the school review process in the same way - or at least it is not interpreted in the same way.

From your comments, it is apparent that your only concern is that Catholic children have a segregated Catholic school to attend. Screw everyone else. You don't seem to realize, Bookish Agrarian, that when a Catholic school is the [b][i]only[/i][/b] school in a community, the corollary is that [u][b]THERE IS ALREADY NO PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THAT COMMUNITY!!!![/b][/u].

In communities with only a Catholic school, non-Catholic children are bussed long distances to a public school outside of their community. Under one school system, schools in all of those one school communities will become true neighbourhood schools open to all children without discrimination. The rural situation you cite is an example of the great discrimination between Catholics and non-Catholics in Ontario. It is one of the most outrageous aspects. When a community has only one school, Catholic children can attend whether it is public or Catholic. When that one school is Catholic, the community is effectively a no school community from the non-Catholic perspective. Whenever there is but one school in a community, it [b][i]should[/i][/b] be a public school open to all without discrimination. That would happen under one school system. Insistence on continued Catholic school funding has a very negative effect on non-Catholics in these rural communities. Please don't overlook that.

Declining enrolment will mean continued school closures. More rural communities, along with northern communities and inner-city neighbourhoods, are destined to become one school communities in the future. Because of the discriminatory admissions policies of Catholic elementary schools, non-Catholics are disproportionately affected by declining enrolment and school closures. Under one school system, we could cherry pick the best buildings from the combined public and Catholic school inventories and guarantee that every community would retain a school that all children can attend without discrimination. The pain to be felt in Ontario communities will be far greater if we maintain two separate school systems.

Stephen Lewis, former leader of the ONDP wrote:
[i]The only way to effect social change is to keep the pressure on... be persistent, and never given the beggers a moment's rest.[/i]

Amen brother. Amen.

Sun, 2010-01-17 15:35

#18

Bookish Agrarian

From your comments, it is apparent that your only concern is that Catholic children have a segregated Catholic school to attend. Screw everyone else. You don't seem to realize, Bookish Agrarian, that when a Catholic school is the only school in a community, the corollary is that THERE IS ALREADY NO PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THAT COMMUNITY!!!!.

Yes exactly, so what will happen is that there will be NO school whatsoever. Right now many non-Catholics send thier kids to the local school, not because it is Catholic, but because it is the local school. You can live in a fantasy world all you want, but out here in the real world what will happen is that there will be no school period. Tell me how that is responsible. As someone who has been involved in education issues and figting against the accomidation review process I can tell that you really don't understand the issues and pressures in small communities.

The rest of your post with the arrogance, hostility and confused logic just proves my point of why some of the proponents of a single school system get tuned out by many who might be sympathetic, or agnostic. But really- trying to have a conversation with the funamentalist crowd you represent, is about as useful spent time as trying to talk to your local Christian school supporter- both are so steeped in their own dogma they lose sight of rational discussion.

Sun, 2010-01-17 15:51

#19

Bookish Agrarian

There are a lot more issues going on in education besides Catholic funding. A lot.

As a parent of three kids in the public system here's hoping this process does not get hijacked by a single issue focus

Sun, 2010-01-17 17:22

#20

demokrat

Perhaps Bookish Agrarian is having more trouble adjusting to the extended logical criticism of the continuation of Ontario's Catholic school system, then the tone as he perceives it.

The general public discussion to-date is so mushy, with so little recognition of the civil wrong that we have allowed to be perpetrated on the majority of Ontarians by a privileged minority, that BA can be forgiven the discomfort of these inconvenient truths.

Just so BA knows where he stands:

- in opposition to the UN Tribunal on Civil Liberties and Human Justice which has criticized Ontario and Canada for its public support of sectarian schools

- against the Ontario provincial NDP constitution which trumpets the party's opposition to any state funding of sectarian institutions

- in opposition to the federal NDP party which recently adopted a resolution clearly positioning itself for a non-sectarian school system

- against public opinion where various polls have 70 to 80% support for a one school system - depending on how precise is the question asked - and rising depending on how hot the discussion gets publicly

- against all provinces except Alberta and Saskatchewan where state and religion mix

- against the Parliament of Canada which has twice recently shown its willingness to allow the elimination of provincial educational religious favouritism in Newfoundland/Labrador and Quebec..

Incidently the change in Quebec is particularly important because it was Quebec that pushed Catholic schools on Ontario by legislation in 1855, 1863 and 1867.

Civil wrongs can be economic and social wrongs. Witness the segregation that existed in the US south. The losers were those who experienced the lack of jobs and associated lack of opportunities to be full citizens.

Here in Ontario we see a reverse situation - segregation by a minority. We actually have self-imposed segregation in education by a number of groups - religions and the economically empowered. According to fence-sitters like BA, it is OK to single out one religion for privileged funding, while dumping on other religions who seek the same.

The point made by OL12 is that we all pay for this festering sore - and in times of looming budget cuts we continue to pay while some within us, like the sick, will suffer from cuts that needn't be.

The civil wrong of public funding of one religion's schools is that so many Ontarians want to have an egalitarian society but see special privilege being offered some, and are frustrated by our politicians - like the NDP party - ducking and weaving, when they are not stonewalling.

Perhaps BA has an answer why we need to continue down the path of religious privilege. Perhaps BA would like to reflect on where that leads.

Sun, 2010-01-17 17:31

#21

Jaku

It seems to me I have heard this all before. And yet little has changed.

I agree with those who hold the following maxim:

FUND ONE FAITH'S COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FUND THEM ALL

Sun, 2010-01-17 18:41

#22

Bookish Agrarian

The very arrogance to assume that I don't know anything about these issues, is exactly the very thing I am talking about.

What is very clear to me is that people who are the loudest proponents of this anti-Catholic stuff don't look back far enough and know almost nothing about how we got here. Now I know there are some proponents that provide very cogent and compelling arguments, but I am specificially talking about the yellers. Those who do not hector base their arguments on simple and straight-forward argument that makes a lot of sense. This thread is not an example of that so far.

The reason we have the current seperate school system goes very deep into our history. There was a time when Catholics were a very significant, but very oppressed minority in this province. There was also a major linguistic prejudice to that oppressive behaviour. That minority was given Consititutional protection in education - a protection that was long ignored by the majority through their government.

Ontario has changed a lot even from my youth when it was true that constitutionally guarenteed Catholic education was dramatically under-funded by the Protestant majority through their control of the apparatus of the State. This is a reality that is within the living memory of a great many Ontarians, especially in communities outside the GTA who did not have sufficient numbers to fund things properly by themselves. (Heck it is only 40ish years when JFKs Catholicism was a major issue in the States) Ignoring this history is very dismissive of the legitimate concerns of many of our fellow citizens and betrays a lack of analysis on the part of some proponents.

You can easily make the argument that either all or no religious schools should be funded, something I agree whole-heartedly with by the way, however, no other community has this constitutional guarantee. This is the rub. Many people believe you don't overturn constitutional rights just on a whim, it is that set of rights we use to support the legitimate aspirations of oppressed minorities like gays and lesbians, to support a women's right to choose and many others. You tread carefully in this area and you do it not by imposing the will of a majority on a minority without making sure you are gaining real support and buy in by that minority. The problem is also that this issue is a crossroads of a number of rights and values and despite the pretence there is no easy answer that would not hammer someone.

As such I maintain and will maintain that the behaviour of some of the proponents of a single school system are doing the issue a major disservice and are acting in very unprogressive ways. Those unprogressive ways are very thinly anti-Catholic rhetoric that has more in common with the Orange Lodge than progressive values. I haven't heard much of that here, but it is out there make no mistake.

Sun, 2010-01-17 18:42

#23

George Victor

Yes, one liners are the annwer, Jaku. And the funding for everything else as we slide into a deep, deep recession? You represent a philosophical sump hole. Try to speak to the total reality, not your own crimped perspective. (Or don't ever expect a humane leave-taking from this life... unless, of course, you have $ exuding from all your orifices and you don't give a fiddler's fart about anyone else.)

Sun, 2010-01-17 19:50

#24

OL12

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

OL12 wrote:

From your comments, it is apparent that your only concern is that Catholic children have a segregated Catholic school to attend. Screw everyone else. You don't seem to realize, Bookish Agrarian, that when a Catholic school is the [b][i]only[/i][/b] school in a community, the corollary is that [b][u]THERE IS ALREADY NO PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THAT COMMUNITY!!!![/u][/b].

Yes exactly, so what will happen is that there will be NO school whatsoever. Right now many non-Catholics send thier kids to the local school, not because it is Catholic, but because it is the local school. You can live in a fantasy world all you want, but out here in the real world what will happen is that there will be no school period. Tell me how that is responsible.

Bookish Agrarian: Have you ever stopped to wonder why Catholic schools in communities having [i][b]only[/b][/i] a Catholic school (no public school) are threatened with closing? I can tell you why. It is because their enrolment has dropped to a level where they are no longer financially or even educationally viable (you need a certain critical mass of students to offer a good selection of programs).

Now if those same Catholic schools were to become truly public, open to all, and religiously neutral as they would under a single school system, what would happen to their enrolment? I can tell you that too. All the non-Catholic kids in those communities, who are now bussed ridiculous distances to other towns to attend a public school, would suddenly start going to the formerly exclusive Catholic school (now public) in their own community. The formerly exclusive Catholic school would suddenly have much higher enrolment and become viable once again. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Those schools would have a new lease on life and a much more secure future. The icing on the cake is that they would suddenly become [b][i]real[/i][/b] community schools drawing children of all backgrounds together and, by extension, their families as well.

I am confident you can follow that logic. I don't think there is a person living who can't. I apologize if I sound a little frustrated explaining the situation sometimes. It is just so brain-dead obvious to me. Many of the communities facing the loss of their only school, be it public or Catholic, face such a prospect [i][u]precisely because[/u][/i] Ontario still sorts kids into Catholic and non-Catholic bins.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

As someone who has been involved in education issues and figting against the accomidation review process I can tell that you really don't understand the issues and pressures in small communities.

I guess I am lucky to have you to explain it to me. Thanks for that.

Sun, 2010-01-17 20:11

#25

demokrat

BA you obvouosly don't know very much about Ontario history. If you are going to throw up generalities in the face of facts stay with it, but don't try to use facts you don't know to be true.

In the 1840s the immigrant population of Irish Catholics was set on and generally degraded by the existing English and Scottish majority in Ontario. The way to protect the children was to create separate schools, literally to create a separation from the Protestant children. It wasn't to protect or advance anyone's religion.

Under the auspices of the Catholic Bishop of Toronto, sent over as a specially picked (by the Pope himself) envoy to conduct the then new policy of Pope Pius 9 (1792-1878) to have the Roman Catholic church disengage from society, a society which had recently (1848 mostly) turned against the Catholic church and oligarchs in Europe, involving revolutions in France, Italy and elsewhere, a coalition of Catholics between Quebec and Ontario was created. This coalition lobbied - primarily but not only - Quebec Catholic legislators to create a legislated Catholic school idenity.

This was particularly effective as there were more Quebec legislators than those from Ontario. By 1855 the first Catholic majority action was to require separate Catholic schools (with no administative identity) to be set up in Ontario. Incidently, this was accomplished by the Quebec legislators voting for the bill AFTER THE ONTARIO LEGISLATORS HAD LEFT IN THE SPRING to attend their farms.

So the problem went from real intolerance in the 1840s to some residual religious intolerance by 1855, to a full blown example of what Protestants had come to characterize 'Popery'. From there it was a slow march for the Quebec legislators as Ontario was growing quickly and going into the 1860s was about to overtake Quebec's representation. Nevertheless an opportunity arose with a bunch of Ontario railway barons who wanted power so bad they would give the Quebec legislators whatever it took to control a minority government. The result was the Scott Bill of 1863 (eventually) which set up Catholic school boards with powers to control their Catholic separate schools.

While all this was going on, Ontario was getting very angry about Quebec's imposition of their religion on the province. The leader of that movement was George Brown of the Globe. It was clear by the beginning of the talks on Confederation that Ontario could reverse the school situation and was about to do so. Unfortunately for Ontario, Brown was also the leader of the Ontario Confederation movement. So it took a visit by MacDonald and Cartier to Brown in his room in the St Louis Hotel in Quebec City, to derail the dump-Catholic-schools movement.

These gentlemen told Brown he could have Confederation or the end of Catholic schools in Ontario but not both. Brown chose Canada and Ontario was stuck with Catholic schools. It was written up in the BNA of 1867 such that Ontario would allow Catholic schools, unless it changed its mind and followed the amending formula in Section 93.

(Manitoba didn't buy on to this deal and, when it joined Canada, used these clauses to stop the imposition of Catholic schools in their province - which sent Quebec into a state of rage and fostered the Riel rebellion.)

Ontario felt itself bound to uphold its end of the bargain, essentially with Quebec as a condition of it supporting confederation. I emphasis this point - it was not because Ontario ever felt that Catholics in Ontario were owed a separate, publicly funded religious school system because of maltreatment - only that Ontario, as much as it hated Brown's choice, felt duty-bound to honour the 'Grand Compromise'.

So when Quebec (12 years ago now) asked and received permission to be exempted from its committment to funding religious schools in Quebec, Ontario had no further need to honour its committment to the same in Ontario.

Much of what BA recites comes right off the playlist for the Catholic lobbyists in Ontario. Like all good propoganda, the bigger the exaggeration and the more often it is said, the more it must be true.

Sun, 2010-01-17 20:22

#26

Bookish Agrarian

Bookish Agrarian: Have you ever stopped to wonder why Catholic schools in communities having only a Catholic school (no public school) are threatened with closing? I can tell you why. It is because their enrolment has dropped to a level where they are no longer financially or even educationally viable (you need a certain critical mass of students to offer a good selection of programs).
Now if those same Catholic schools were to become truly public, open to all, and religiously neutral as they would under a single school system, what would happen to their enrolment? I can tell you that too. All the non-Catholic kids in those communities, who are now bussed ridiculous distances to other towns to attend a public school, would suddenly start going to the formerly exclusive Catholic school (now public) in their own community. The formerly exclusive Catholic school would suddenly have much higher enrolment and become viable once again. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Those schools would have a new lease on life and a much more secure future. The icing on the cake is that they would suddenly become real community schools drawing children of all backgrounds together and, by extension, their families as well.
I am confident you can follow that logic. I don't think there is a person living who can't. I apologize if I sound a little frustrated explaining the situation sometimes. It is just so brain-dead obvious to me. Many of the communities facing the loss of their only school, be it public or Catholic, face such a prospect precisely because Ontario still sorts kids into Catholic and non-Catholic bins.

This is factually incorrect, which makes me believe you are basing your understanding of rural education from a large city. The Seperate schools are kept open because of other factors, and are already filled with lots, and lots of local non-Catholic kids because it is the local school. What would happen is that there would be no school as the public Accomidation Review process uses different markers than the Seperate system and under that system most of those schools would have to be closed. To believe that those small schools would somehow remain open through a single school system is either naive or stupid.

Come out of the city and visit we rural people., you might learn a thing or two. But of course we are quite used to being lectured about how things really are in our own communities from people who have never been there. I already know about rural busing, by the way having put my children on a bus for some time, but thanks for the sanctimonous lecture.

Sun, 2010-01-17 21:00

#27

demokrat

BA - Don't let the facts get in the way of your biases.

If you think that the 70+% of Ontarians that want a one school system are all Orangemen you have either been watching some spooky, mind-warping videos or again you are unaware of what that coalition of like-mind progressive Ontarians consist of.

It has at its core the more highly educated in Ontario - you know them as they are the ones most against Tory's proposal to fund all religious schools - who can recognize a civil wrong even if the Ontario media and legislators can not. It includes moderate Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Protestants etc - people who believe in the promise of Canada -

Opportunity for all. Favouritism for none.

It even includes 25% of identifiabled Roman Catholics who don't see their Ontario as one where we privilege some and can see the hypocracy we all practise of shaming other countries/jurisdictions that do the same.

Are you sure you don't work for Opus Dei?

Sun, 2010-01-17 21:29

#28

j.m.

Getting rid of the Catholic School system will not remove religion from publicly-funded schools. Has anyone investigated into Christian schools in the Public School Board?

http://www.thespec.com/article/200778

Sun, 2010-01-17 21:30

#29

ndpman

ZAP! Here comes the third rail of politics. Lets keep this one so far from the ndp that it don't cause electoral death by public electrocution next year! OL12 should harness some of his/her juice and help the street nurse out. A much better use of time and energy. Seriously is this even an issue any more? (btw was loving the way James Ryan OECTA and Sid Ryan destroyed M Buchanen and the like at the last ONDP convention at the mics. Give it up you all. Jesus has beaten your sorry asses and will now hear confession. Get to steppin'.... ya HEARD!

Sun, 2010-01-17 21:51

#30

OL12

Linking this thread to related discussions for the benefit of those of us who never tire of discussing Ontario's wasteful and discriminatory dual school systems (until there is one anyway ):

Jan 13, 2010: In Ontario, in education, it pays to be Catholic II (full day kindergarten)

Jan 7, 2010: Ontario NDP Education Task Force starts

Oct 1, 2009: Catholic school fires teacher for changing God-given gender

Sep 26, 2009: In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic

Mar 25, 2009: Why the constitution is relevant to discussion of denominational schools

Mar 13, 2009: Is there a principled, progressive case for continued support for funding separate schools?

Mon, 2010-01-18 00:11

#31

demokrat

BA I see your respect for others is only underwhelmed by your contempt of their temerity to suggest that the privilege bestowed on Ontario Catholics by their Quebec brethern 150 years ago is unworthy of a modern multi-racial society.

It matters not whether your - and your friends' - insulting behaviour continues ad nauseum, but rather whether men and women of principle recognize that a few see themselves as entitled to privilege.

How about we stage some debates across the province in the next election? Oh.I forgot. Catholics don't debate. Why should they? When you know that others are inferior, what's the use?

Pray to your god there are none of like-mind who dare debate your entitlement or your cause will go the way of the arrogant Conservative campaign that pushed privilege for the chosen onto the Ontario voters - into an political abyss from which the only way back is divine intervention.

Go ahead. Write a letter to any general readership newspaper of your choice. Tell them that Catholics are entitled to their privilege.

But of course anyone who might criticize such a position would be an Orangeman.

So tell them that up-front so they can better assimilate your message.

Mon, 2010-01-18 07:59

#32

Michelle

Hey BA and demokrat, accusing each other of being followers of Opus Dei and the Orange Lodge is not okay. Cut it out.

Mon, 2010-01-18 08:15

#33

Ciabatta2

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You can easily make the argument that either all or no religious schools should be funded, something I agree whole-heartedly with by the way, however, no other community has this constitutional guarantee. This is the rub. Many people believe you don't overturn constitutional rights just on a whim, it is that set of rights we use to support the legitimate aspirations of oppressed minorities like gays and lesbians, to support a women's right to choose and many others. You tread carefully in this area and you do it not by imposing the will of a majority on a minority without making sure you are gaining real support and buy in by that minority. The problem is also that this issue is a crossroads of a number of rights and values and despite the pretence there is no easy answer that would not hammer someone.

I think this was very well put. Those in favour of eliminating Catholic schools would do well to heed this message as a means of achieving their stated objective.

I understand and appreciate the basic argument of proponents of ridding Ontario of taxpayer-funded Catholic schools. But the fact that this cause brings out such sanctimonious zeal and holds such a delicious appeal to its supporters speaks a lot to the divided nature of Ontario politics/society today, and the disoriented state of the progressive movement as a whole in this province. I think it indicates a true loss of focus on what really needs to be done, and the people we really need to be fighting for, in order to make true progress for society. As if there are no other more pressing battles to be won in this province...

Mon, 2010-01-18 09:36

#34

George Victor

"As if there were no other more pressing battles to be won in this province," indeed, Ciabatta 2.

I can only repeat, for the reality-challenged:

"But we must be "fair", because some wish to brainwash the kids in their own version of "God's" teaching, laid down for the provision of an afterlife.

"And I'll bet Hudak sells the silly bastards on his program in typical prostituting fashion because again, he will promise lower taxes while playing to the singular needs of the fundamentalists of any faith.

"Which would only be "fair" of course... that concept so very important in the Grade 2 schoolroom, but on an overcrowded planet inhabited by political barracudas, really a very, very inadequate reason for post-sandbox political decisions.

Mon, 2010-01-18 10:00

#35

OL12

George Victor wrote:

"As if there were no other more pressing battles to be won in this province," indeed, Ciabatta 2.

They're not unrelated George. Our ability to fund more important priorities is negatively affected by our insistence on continuing to fund things the government has no business being involved in -- like Catholic religious education. Government needs to set priorities -- and Catholic school funding should not be one of them. There are far more pressing needs wanting for funding.

George Victor wrote:

"And I'll bet Hudak sells the silly bastards on his program in typical prostituting fashion because again, he will promise lower taxes while playing to the singular needs of the fundamentalists of any faith."

Hudak is an especially rabid supporter of religious schools. "The force" is strong in that one. But he is no idiot. He will not do like Eves in 2003 and propose a tax credit for private and religious schools. He will certainly not do like Tory in 2007 and invite all other religious schools to a place at the trough of public funding. I think he will bring in religious school funding as a surprise after he has won an election. It will be introduced gradually at first, once again under the pretense of "fairness" and putting us into [partial] compliance with our international human rights obligations, but it will grow over time. Hudak's Nirvana is a thoroughly divided, religiously segregated, system of non-unionized private schools. Take away Catholic school funding now and you take away his pretense of "fairness" in extending funding.

Mon, 2010-01-18 10:56

#36

demokrat

BA. Let me try another tack with you. Perhaps you as a self-acknowleged progressive, would like the NDP to become relevant in Ontario politics - perhaps even contend for power. I would be surprised if you didn't.

To get there requires a simple vital ingredient - the people want something you offer that the other guys don't. Guess what that could be?

Let's review the political landscape as we begin the march to the next election.

The Tories have a new leader, Catholic Hudak, whose resume has been described by one Legislative journalist as 'razor thin' - which is code for no depth at all. Their legislative representation has been reduced to a couple of progressives and a majority of right wingers, who still hold a well-shaded candle for the Multifaith coalition seeking public monies for their schools. The caucus members are sworn to never bring up the topic that washed them out in 2007 - never to mention religion and education in the same sentence. They are currently riding high on Liberal bungling and the smell of scandal. Add the HST and Hudak is banking on following in Harris' shoes.

It won't happen. Just like last time, with the Liberals as much as 30 points back, the gap will narrow as the Liberals start announcing goodies. However they would never have made it if the discussion on school funding had not come up. They cleverly rapped themselves in the cloth of protectors of public education, forgot to mention the flaw of an existing major recipient of public funds, and let the Tories self-destruct. Watch them paint Hudak as another Harris and watch the reaction.

The Liberals will sail in again unless someone lays a hand on them. They have taken their hypocritical position on funding one but not all religious schools and have built some defenses. The Education Minister and some others have been busy travelling the province assuring Catholic-only crowds of educators that her party stands 4-square against any change in their privileged school system. They have organized Catholic-led committees on the problems of declining school enrollments and a new mode of dependent governance for the school boards - where it was specifically written in the terms of reference that no discussion could occur that touched on the present public-Catholic school system. In addiition the Minister has arranged a Parents Council which has a majority of Catholics (they have 1/2 the students that the public system has) as well as its a Catholic chairperson. In fact when the Council rejected her (as much too much an avid Catholic) the Minister reappointed her.

You can bet that McQuinty will not let down his Catholic friends and that party will never discuss the one school system. So much for so-called liberals!

Now the NDP. This party dropped its opposition to publicly funding religious schools to gain some semblence of power in the coalition government with Peterson. It has remained afraid of Catholic reaction should it revert to its position of principle as stated in its own constitution. It is afraid of a backlash amongst Catholics in Northern Ontario. It has remained the captive of OECTA whose members are the most privileged teachers in the province as they can guarantee Catholics jobs in the Catholic system and have the public system jobs as a backup as there is no restriction by religion there. Recently they significantly funded the election of all candidates except Michael Prue who had the fortitude to say the party needed to discuss the funding issue. From that the NDP elected its Catholic/OECTA leader, Horwath.

Her problem is that there are still enough principled grassroots members around who are unhappy with the party's position on OSS that she and the party brass had to retreat and offer up the NDP committee that we are discussing. Of course in good-old political fixing there is not a chance in a million that the picked members, with a sop to Buchanan and all the riding presidents behind him, will give her a report she doesn't want.

All that aside, how can the NDP actually take advantage of the school issue?

First it needs votes and when 70-80% of the voters want something you are not going anywhere unless you 'alone' can offer it.

Second the NDP still has a positive image for caring about social justice issues.

Therefore if on the basis of its own stated principles, the NDP through say this report or an open vote (finally) at a convention were to announce that it was on side with the majority of voters who want a OSS, it can scoop the Conservatives and Liberals who are mired in lobbyist control of this issue.

There is nothing like riding to power on principle.

Mon, 2010-01-18 12:20

#37

Bookish Agrarian

It has at its core the more highly educated in Ontario

Religiously intolerant and an elitist all in one, what a great combination for turning people off a legitimate issue of discussion.

If you think your anti-Catholic and anti-Quebec factless extremist diatribe is representative of those who support a single school system I expect you have been smoking something stronger than what is availabe at your local corner store. What it does do is undermine those who have a legitimate point to make and I know single school supporters who are thoughful and do not base their arguments on intolerance and conspiracy theories worthy of the Orange Lodge. If those people had a lick of sense they would quickly disassociate themselves with arguments like yours and reveal it for the anti-progressive pile of poo it is. As arguments presented as they are in this thread undermines any chance of responsible debate.

Mon, 2010-01-18 12:21

#38

Bookish Agrarian

demokrat wrote:

BA you obvouosly don't know very much about Ontario history. If you are going to throw up generalities in the face of facts stay with it, but don't try to use facts you don't know to be true.

In the 1840s the immigrant population of Irish Catholics was set on and generally degraded by the existing English and Scottish majority in Ontario. The way to protect the children was to create separate schools, literally to create a separation from the Protestant children. It wasn't to protect or advance anyone's religion.

Under the auspices of the Catholic Bishop of Toronto, sent over as a specially picked (by the Pope himself) envoy to conduct the then new policy of Pope Pius 9 (1792-1878) to have the Roman Catholic church disengage from society, a society which had recently (1848 mostly) turned against the Catholic church and oligarchs in Europe, involving revolutions in France, Italy and elsewhere, a coalition of Catholics between Quebec and Ontario was created. This coalition lobbied - primarily but not only - Quebec Catholic legislators to create a legislated Catholic school idenity.

This was particularly effective as there were more Quebec legislators than those from Ontario. By 1855 the first Catholic majority action was to require separate Catholic schools (with no administative identity) to be set up in Ontario. Incidently, this was accomplished by the Quebec legislators voting for the bill AFTER THE ONTARIO LEGISLATORS HAD LEFT IN THE SPRING to attend their farms.

So the problem went from real intolerance in the 1840s to some residual religious intolerance by 1855, to a full blown example of what Protestants had come to characterize 'Popery'. From there it was a slow march for the Quebec legislators as Ontario was growing quickly and going into the 1860s was about to overtake Quebec's representation. Nevertheless an opportunity arose with a bunch of Ontario railway barons who wanted power so bad they would give the Quebec legislators whatever it took to control a minority government. The result was the Scott Bill of 1863 (eventually) which set up Catholic school boards with powers to control their Catholic separate schools.

While all this was going on, Ontario was getting very angry about Quebec's imposition of their religion on the province. The leader of that movement was George Brown of the Globe. It was clear by the beginning of the talks on Confederation that Ontario could reverse the school situation and was about to do so. Unfortunately for Ontario, Brown was also the leader of the Ontario Confederation movement. So it took a visit by MacDonald and Cartier to Brown in his room in the St Louis Hotel in Quebec City, to derail the dump-Catholic-schools movement.

These gentlemen told Brown he could have Confederation or the end of Catholic schools in Ontario but not both. Brown chose Canada and Ontario was stuck with Catholic schools. It was written up in the BNA of 1867 such that Ontario would allow Catholic schools, unless it changed its mind and followed the amending formula in Section 93.

(Manitoba didn't buy on to this deal and, when it joined Canada, used these clauses to stop the imposition of Catholic schools in their province - which sent Quebec into a state of rage and fostered the Riel rebellion.)

Ontario felt itself bound to uphold its end of the bargain, essentially with Quebec as a condition of it supporting confederation. I emphasis this point - it was not because Ontario ever felt that Catholics in Ontario were owed a separate, publicly funded religious school system because of maltreatment - only that Ontario, as much as it hated Brown's choice, felt duty-bound to honour the 'Grand Compromise'.

So when Quebec (12 years ago now) asked and received permission to be exempted from its committment to funding religious schools in Quebec, Ontario had no further need to honour its committment to the same in Ontario.

Much of what BA recites comes right off the playlist for the Catholic lobbyists in Ontario. Like all good propoganda, the bigger the exaggeration and the more often it is said, the more it must be true.

That is most, nonfactual histroical spin I have seen in some time. Did you copy that from some Orange Lodge pamphlet or something?

Let's see your thesis seems to be that Catholic education is a Quebec conspiracy foisted upon us good Protestants by the evil Catholic church. You clearly have no understanding of Ontario historical context in terms of religous intolerance that lasted well into the middle of the last century that also had a strong linguistic element in many areas of the province. I remember well attended Orange Lodge parades still going on in my youth. That intolerance was experienced by many of the parents of kids who currently attend seperate schools and certainly by their grandparents in many parts of this province. Ignoring it is both offensive and anti-progressive. It was real and frankly seeing it as a youth is one of the reasons I have spent my life fighting intolerance of every kind. It sickened me then and sickens me still.

Go hang out with the King Billy crowd, this is a waste of my time. Although thanks again for proving my point about the problems legitimate proponents of a single school system will always have while such extremists are allowed to dominate the discussion.

Mon, 2010-01-18 12:24

#39

Bookish Agrarian

Recently they significantly funded the election of all candidates except Michael Prue who had the fortitude to say the party needed to discuss the funding issue. From that the NDP elected its Catholic/OECTA leader, Horwath.

Thanks again for making my point again while also being so offensive.

Is there a shortage of tinfoil in your neighbourhood?

Mon, 2010-01-18 12:29

#40

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:

Hey BA and demokrat, accusing each other of being followers of Opus Dei and the Orange Lodge is not okay. Cut it out.

Uh I didn't suggest anyone was a follower of the Orange Lodge. If you read what I wrote again I merely pointed out that the weird twist on history being supported by one poster was worthy of the Orange Lodge. Big difference in my books, but I'll try to be good for you.

Mon, 2010-01-18 13:51

#41

George Victor

OL12, you believe Hudak will win, but you say nothing about how he will achieve that. Yet you know damned well it would depend on his promise of lower taxes. And if Hudak is going to be "smart" about the schools question(s), why would you advocate New Democrats rolling the dice?

I'm simply pointing out that people talking about "fairness" for religious schools, in this setting of electoral ignorance and greed, where many old people and their caregivers are living in a hellish state, is a sign of skewed values. Add the pressures on medical services - you know, people dying before their time - and the tendency to talk about sacrificing chances at the polls to be virtuously "fair" to the religiously inclined, adds up to seriously warped values and political ignorance to boot. You should not be taken seriously.

Mon, 2010-01-18 17:03

#42

OL12

George Victor wrote:

OL12, you believe Hudak will win, but you say nothing about how he will achieve that. Yet you know damned well it would depend on his promise of lower taxes. And if Hudak is going to be "smart" about the schools question(s), why would you advocate New Democrats rolling the dice?

You're not really thinking about what I've been writing George - or you read only the parts you want to twist.

I was saying that Hudak would not do as Eves and Tory did and propose some form of [b][u]extended[/u][/b] religious school funding as part of an election platform. The 2003 and 2007 elections showed that the electorate does not want [b][u]extended[/u][/b] religious school funding and they will have nothing to do with any party that wants to [b][u]increase[/u][/b] public support for religious schools. Hudak will sneak in some form of [b][u]extended[/u][/b] religious school funding after a win (if he can pull one off) and early in his term so people calm down a bit about it by the time the next election rolls around.

I'm not proposing the NDP roll the same "dice" as the Tories and if you'd actually read anything I've posted beyond the first couple of sentences it would have been impossible for you to miss that. I am proposing that the NDP [b][u]eliminate[/u][/b] (not [b][u]extend[/u][/b]) religious school funding and [b][u]decrease to nothing[/u][/b] (not [b][u]increase to everything[/u][/b]) public support for religious schools. That proposal (the one school system proposal) is as different from the Tory proposal as night and day and black and white. That proposal is the polar opposite of the Tory proposal (the "anti-Tory" proposal if you like).

The Tories found out that if you use false pretenses (i.e. "fairness") to try to bring in a policy the public is strongly against ([b][u]extended[/u][/b] religious school funding) you will get crucified. The Greens found out that if you honestly try to address a real problem in a manner that the public strongly supports ([b][u][i]eliminating[/i][/u][/b] even existing religious school funding), you will be handsomely rewarded. The Greens would have benefited even more had they been a more established party. Some voters won't take a flyer on a new party until it has a bit of history behind it.

Being the unique champion for a very popular idea (like one school system) can only help, not hurt, a political party.

The next election will be about the decimation of essential public services due to deficit-induced austerity measures and the party that puts forward the most credible plan to protect those services will gain the most ground. The one school system idea should be part of any such plan. If it is not, it is a given that some far more important social program will face the axe in its place. I hope everyone contemplates that when the cuts come.

Mon, 2010-01-18 17:39

#43

madmax

OL12. The only party "rewarded" was the Liberal Party.

I believe

Mon, 2010-01-18 17:39

#44

madmax

OL12. The only party "rewarded" was the Liberal Party.

I believe they

Mon, 2010-01-18 17:39

#45