Free Our Schools

Merowe wrote:

everything

Weren't we supposed to have a "like" button by now?

Any student can pray in any school.  If they decided to do their prayers in the middle of math class, that might be a problem, but it would be dealt with according to established rules and precedent.

This is about the school, not the students.  By carving space out of the curriculum whereby all students of one faith are grouped together  in prayer, the school is becoming entangled in the activity.  They are forcing non-observant Muslim students to identify as such and not go to the cafeteria.    In this case, the school took action because their initial accommodation was taken advantage of by students some of whom DID NOT EVEN GO TO THE MOSQUE TO PRAY.  Clearly, THESE students didn't especially WANT to pray.  It is inappropriate for the school to bring the activity indoors, to, in effect, make it MORE DIFFICULT FOR THESE STUDENTS TO NOT PRAY EVEN IF THEIR PARENTS WANT THEM TO.

THAT is the violation of freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, that really disturbs me, and is surely unconstitutional.

Yes, I get that. It's a problem. But the solution to the Christian version of that problem is to give everyone Sunday off. What's the correlating solution to this one?

And the structure of our week notwithstanding, refusal to work on the sabbath is not enshrined under the law the way it used to be. 

I am sorry about the imposition, but it is not, nor should it be the job of the school to solve that problem.  I am more concerned about being able to keep the door closed to "youth for Christ" groups when they see the door is suddenly open again.

(edit)

Also, to turn the quesiton around, anything that goes on in schools is the responsibility of the division, the board, and ultimately the department of education. If someone sees a practice which might be discriminatory, ultimatley that practice is the responsibility of the school. Do religious people really want to bring their practices into a space where they might be told they can worship in part, but not according to the fullness of their beliefs?

Do board members or the ministry want to be responsible for telling people how to practice their religion,  or to be liable for discrimination? Do we want to open the door to having religion a school board election issue?  Seems to me it creates an even bigger mess than just staying out of it altogether.

I'm responding to this because the first quote is mine:

Catchfire wrote:

Quote:

So the main gist of the argument is this:  Since there are still vestiges of Christianity in schools and women are oppressed anyway, Muslim prayer in school and the segregation of girls should be allowed.  Have I got that right?

Quote:

we women are being told that since there is still remnants of Christianity floating around our secular systems, that we are racists if we do not want sexist prayer and actions in our public schools to equal things out.

Of course not. There are two questions at play, the first one related to Christianity only insofar as the West is a fundamentally Christian culture: Mallick is applying Western standards and beliefs onto a non-Western practice. Mallick, and others, see difference and try to erase it, marking it as "sexist" and "backwards" rather than "different." This is the same mentality which justifies our wars in the Middle East, protecting the women there by removing their agency and bombing the shit out of them. Rather than allow these practices to find an expression in Canadian culture autonomously and organically, Mallick prefers to raise ire and outrage (with the JDL and CMC) and put these Muslim women in their place.

What Muslim women are we putting in their place?  What I've seen so far are men advocating for exception to the rule that public schools are secular.  Could you please clarify what Muslim woman I have supposedly put down or ignored?

It's not about erasing difference, it's about first principles, which is a popular idea around here.  Prayer of any kind in schools violates the first principle of the seperation of church and state and the segregation of girls (and shaming of them for having normal bodily functions) within a public institution violates the first principle of the equality of women in Canadian society (a constitutional right, no less!)  Yes, Mallick is applying Western standards.  No shit.  You do know where you are, right?  Do we not have a right to expect that these standards, these first principles, be respected in this country?

Here's an interesting question:  Is it "backwards" and "sexist" when segregation of men and women is insisted upon by Hasidic Jews?  How about some minority Christian sect?  I'm sorry, but some things just are.  What about domestic abuse?  It's okay in some cultures, if someone emigrates to Canada should that be grandfathered in that it's okay for it to continue?  After all, if it can be explained away as an aspect of that culture...  Oh, and honour killings....  But let's not go there.

I want to make it clear that I do not think all Muslims condone either domestic abuse or honour killings - the vast majority do not.  I merely bring it up because its conflation with this issue is slightly less tenuous than the conflation that decrying prayer in school and public segregation of girls is connected to support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There has been no justification of the wars in the Middle East in this thread, and your conflation of my position with such is dishonest and dishonourable and just shy of sneaky personal attack. 

I don't know that there is an organic way for treatment of women as second-class citizens and as responsible for the "distraction" of men to find expression in Canadian culture.  I certainly hope not. 

Catchfire wrote:

The second, related to the first, is a question of choice. Why is this the bugbear which finds such great traction in public discourse? Why not mini-skirts? Make-up? High heels (a friend of mine calls high heels the only evidence of patriarchy one needs)? Would taking these young girls out of their prayer space bring more public good than creating a board-wide program explaining the way gendered clothing oppresses us? I doubt it, personally--but the question never comes up.

[sarcasm]  Thanks so much for mansplaining my oppression, Catchfire.  I had no idea my penchant for wedge heels and a wee tad of mascara was equivalent to making sure that everyone in the room knows I'm on my period on a regular basis, or having to hide in the back because I'm so gosh-darned distracting when going about my usual business that I'm causing all sorts of sin and perdition.  I'm so very glad you're here to let me know which feminist issues should take priority over others, I can't imagine how I'd figure it out all by my little own self.  [/sarcasm]

This is not about taking anyone out of their "prayer space".  It's about having prayer spaces in appropriate venues and managing them in appropriate ways in public venues.  That's where this begins.  Organized prayer in public schools is inappropriate.  End of story.  The misogyny shouldn't be a debate at all and wouldn't be if the principle of schools as entirely secular institutions had been respected in the first place.

But stemming from the initial issue, we also have a complicating factor, which is the misogyny in how this being handled and the expectation that we must accomodate misogyny in the name of "difference".  I'd also like to point out that female images in advertising, body image and the effects of extremely gendered clothing are dealt with in the school system.  Or so my 13 yr old daughter reports.  I'm assuming Saskatchewan isn't that much more advanced than Toronto, so I'm quite sure that such issues are in play within the school system there.

Catchfire wrote:

Mallick, and others, would like to flatten the question to "no religion in public schools." A fine platform, but one that is not really providing the motivation for this issue. It's a confederate, a red herring. Stirring up outrage over Muslim practices has very little to do with public education--if you want to save public education, do that. Don't attack marginalized communities already alienated by a culture which mercilessly and incessantly antagonizes them. Set up pan-community and religion grassroots organizations set on taking religion out of public schools. Don't throw in with racist, fascist groups like the JDL and Canadian Hindu Advocacy railing against the "Muslimification" of our public schools. 

For some of us, it is absolutely the motivation for the issue.  remind was right to be offended - you clearly imply that by objecting to something that distasteful groups also object to that we are in sympathy with them, much the same way that you implied support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  You can try to weasel out of it, but I'm not buying it.  You are very clear in your meaning, and it's a way to impugn the argument by its association with groups that are unconnected with our objections to prayer in school.  And maybe, for once, even if their motivations are not something I would support in any way, these groups might have made a point that's half-assed correct - no prayer in schools, not Muslim or Christian or Hindu or Jewish.  None of it.

I'm interested in the characterization of the debate above - I don't think any of us on the secular side are antagonizing Muslims in this instance, and certainly not mercilessly or incessently.  Keep it out of schools and I've got little to say about it.  Rather, in the OP, you have a person who doesn't live here or in the UK coming in and telling us how we should run our schools.  Who's being antagonistic here?  Who tried to bring religion into a secular school system?  And why should they have a greater expectation that it's okay for them to do that than the Pentacostal Church? 

Even if you grant that they're being picked on (which I don't), the situation in question should not be allowed because it opens a great big can of worms.  Let one religion in, you have to let them all in because you've set a precedent, then added a precedent of sexism as a garnish to the whole mess.  That's not supportable.  Mallick isn't trying to flatten the question, she's going to the basis of the whole fuss. 

Beyond the question of reasonable accommodation for minority communities, which I think is a good thing, there is also the matter of how something like this is going to be seen by other communities. If the articles on the protest are any indication,. some definitely see it as a double standard. 

I don't know if Toronto schools have the practice of not being able to mention Christmas trees in their "winter pageants" - I know that in at least some schools in Montreal it is the case.  But to go to the length of erasing what has essentially become a secular holiday in order to hold to a strict line on religion in schools and then to allow prayer in school may cause more bad blood than it is worth. 

I don't doubt that the people who started this had only good intentions, but I think they should have thought it through first.

Timebandit wrote:

Yes, Mallick is applying Western standards.  No shit.  You do know where you are, right?  Do we not have a right to expect that these standards, these first principles, be respected in this country?

I know I'm on unceded Algonquin territory, so it's not entirely clear to me what "right" I have to expect that colonialist standards and principles be respected in this country. Just sayin'.

@ Freedom 55

Well I am not sure how moral relativism applies to the law of the land (even as it applies to treaty land) , but I can think of plenty of groups which would be more than happy to exploit the little loophole you are proposing.

My guess is that if nothing was "right", the crew teaching hellfire, death to gays, anti-choice, and where a woman's place is would probably be at the front of the line wanting to fill in that moral and legal vacuum for our kids.

Yes our government stands on an illegal foundation, and yes our society is unbalanced and unfair. 

Do you really want to remove the the principles that are most important in trying to change that - separation of church and state and equality - in order to prove the point?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

the FN's reference seems odd to me.

Just as an assumed "right" to the hegemony of "Western standards and principles" seems odd to me. 

I don't get your connection.  This is not about FN's rights this is about the public institutions that provide services to the millions who live in the GTO.  No one in this thread is arguing that FN's on their territories are the same as settlers who come here.  The people we are talking about freely immigrated to Canada and should be expected to follow the rules that the majority accept as good for the society we live in.  Apples and oranges while still fruit are not exactly the same fruit.  

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I don't get your connection.  This is not about FN's rights

I'm not saying that it is. I'm talking about the hubris of settlers to talk about "standards and principles" as if they literally come with the territory.

Merowe wrote:

I suggest its based on a simple lack of familiarity with Muslim culture, an over-reliance on a toxic media construct and I can't think of a better way to demystify it for a young and still mutable population than to expose them to one of Islam's innocuous rituals, the Friday prayer. Why NOT use the public school as a platform from which to educate non-Muslims about the practices of a quarter of the planet's  population? It might make it a bit harder for governments to drop 500k GBUs on Libyan hospitals, down the road.

That is what comparative religion courses are for. I am opposed to all religions conducting religious services in public schools. Having prayer sessions in school teaches that Moslem are different and with no comparative analysis of the similarities between the dominant Xian religion and Islam the result will be more intolerance not less. I have a good understanding of Xian religion and my response would be the same if any of the various sects wanted to have prayer sessions. I have a moderate understanding of Islam from reading about it and having many friends and neighbours who are adherents of that faith. I consider them to be about the same. Some parts of both religions are all about love and respect for others while other parts of them are overtly misogynist.  I support the rights of anyone to practice the misguided religion of their choice but that does not extend to bringing it into our secular institutions. 

I will again go back to one of my main objections which is the children who do not want to go to Friday services have the weight of the public school system behind their parents insistence on their indoctrination.  The children who want to go to services need to be accommodated but this in school prayer session forces some children into a very difficult conflict with their parents.  The school should not be siding with the parents in this indoctrination process but should be neutral.  Freedom of religon includes freedom from being forced to attend at religious serivces.  

The fact is the original story said they stopped that practice because the kids were leaving classes and then not going to the mosque.  That tells me the school is being used to enforce religious practices. 

So you think the Imam leading the services in the school is not going to keep his own tally of who attends and who doesn't?  You don't seem to be that naive to me so are you merely being disingenuous.

So if you think this Imam believes that then why did you throw out the red herring that he was keeping attendance at regular Friday prayers?  

Northern Shoveler wrote:

So if you think this Imam believes that then why did you throw out the red herring that he was keeping attendance at regular Friday prayers?  

He is not the imam from the mosque they have to go to, at least not the regular one. Nor would he be the only one there. If his offer that students could do it is BS then of course I retract my appraisal but I prefer to believe him at the moment. And someone at the mosque has to keep track otherwise they wouldnt know that kids were leaving for it but not actually going to it

It seems from the articles Ive read that the school could indeed make it student driven should they choose. And any criteria I would leave to those involved. Im merely going by the fact its been going on for 3 years with no incidents that I believe its a BS racist stirup from the JDL

Actually schools have been held accountable for such happenings. Plus leaving it up to the parent kind of is what I fear for those kids.

Im not a supporter of any religion in any way in schools (and I would lvoe to see gov't funding for catholic schools disappear) but this has been runnign for 3 years with no problems but now there are demonstrations? Thats whats fishy to me

Bacchus wrote:

No Ive seen the interviews with him. He's even said a student could do it if they wanted, a Imam wasnt necessary so Im willing see him as more benign than the alternatives

correction: he said a male student could do it. So, another instance where gender equity standards would be violated. 

Timebandit wrote:

Merowe wrote:

What I pick up in this thread is an IRRATIONAL fear artfully concealing itself behind plausible argument around precedent and principle.

I suggest its based on a simple lack of familiarity with Muslim culture, an over-reliance on a toxic media construct and I can't think of a better way to demystify it for a young and still mutable population than to expose them to one of Islam's innocuous rituals, the Friday prayer. Why NOT use the public school as a platform from which to educate non-Muslims about the practices of a quarter of the planet's  population? It might make it a bit harder for governments to drop 500k GBUs on Libyan hospitals, down the road. 

Or not.  That's a mighty big assumption you're making, my friend.  Could you please point out the irrational parts of my argument?  Or the fear aspect (since I'm pretty sure I didn't express fear and it would be odd if I had, since I don't actually have any)?  If you aren't able to, please go stick your assumptions up your jumper.

I am, actually, somewhat familiar with Muslim culture.  We acted as a host family to some recent immigrants who came to Canada as refugees from the violence in Sudan.  For over a year we helped them learn about Canadian customs, coaching on speaking English and how to manage in a strange place and they shared with us aspects of their culture.  We were invited to their Eid al Fitr celebration, for example, and we learned a great deal.

It's not that I'm unfriendly to Islam (or any more unfriendly than any other religion, barring JWs on my doorstep - there I reserve the right to outright hostility) or multiculturalism.  It's that there are appropriate times and places for the expression of religious belief and differing cultures.  Public school is an inappropriate place for organized prayer.  When that happens and compounds the problem by a demonstration of sexism in the public sphere, I think it becomes doubly inappropriate. 

It's really that simple - so don't knock yourself out looking for ulterior motives, pretty please.

TB, I am sincerely sorry to antagonize you.  It warms me to learn that you hosted a Sudanese family, I spent a remarkable  year there myself and know a little of the tragedies visited upon its peoples.

I was unaware that an Imam directed the prayer and that conditions my position. Somewhat. This is where my lack of knowledge hampers me. Its my understanding that in distinction from Christianity there is no structural requirement for any sort of priest to mediate the worshippers' communion with their God and I had pictured a group of students informally gathering of their own volition, to do communally what they would otherwise do alone. 

Once a week I teach a yoga class in a Max Planck institute. I have no formal affiliation with this scientific research institute, which abides the weekly visits of a suspiciously New Agey practitioner in the enlightened interest of its staff, as the practice improves their wellbeing. (It is a proper workout. We sweat. I have stripped away all New Age fluff.) My students and I begin each class by pushing tables and chairs aside and sweeping a patch of floor on which to lay our mats. While I lead the class it is not necessary for the practice and i have often teased them for paying good coin to do something they can do for free without my direction. They report that it is easier to  follow someone else and there is a pleasant dynamic when it is done in a group. I imagined something similar was happening in the school cafeteria at the center of this discussion.

While our own culture freed itself from much of the patriarchal bondage of Old Testament Christianity decades ago, the better to serve Mammon, other cultures have followed a different path. We should be careful when we judge them. Conventional Islamic practice is integrated far more organically into daily life, it serves a more structural role in the elaboration of the devotee's daily tasks than Christianity. It asks something of the faithful to effect the same compartmentalizing of their religion as modern life has imposed on Christianity. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't; simply that we should be aware of this difference.

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1030513--protesters...

'They waved signs that warned of "creeping jihad" and proclaimed "Islam must be reformed or banned."

They chanted - "No Islam in our schools"; "No Mohamed in our schools"; "No Sharia law in our country."

About 100 protesters, many from groups such as the Jewish Defense League, the Christian Heritage Party and Canadian Hindu Advocacy, came to the Toronto District School Board Monday evening to protest its approval of formal Friday prayer services for Muslim students at Valley Park Middle School.'

'creeping jihad'????

I ABSOLUTELY share your abhorrence of the patriarchal traits intrinsic to many mainstream religions. The lessons we learn in eliminatiing it from our indigenous practices will serve other faiths well when they decide to emulate us. I don't doubt they will in time adopt much of what is good in our culture and I'm sure that is what draws them to us in the first place. 

Bacchus notes the Friday prayers have been going on for three years so why, suddenly, NOW with a demonstration? Following SO closely on the heels of the obscenity in Norway? Just how badly do we want to frighten them? 'Creeping jihad' because they pray to their God in the cafeteria of a school their taxes contribute to? Whatever legitimate point the protest had PALES in comparison to the cultural insensitivity displayed by that sign-waving, racist filth. I note that two of the hate-mongering groups at the protest continue to avoid being criminalized as the terrorist organizations they are which further demonstrates the unevenness of the playing field. No wonder observant Muslims shelter in their native religion. What of Hinduism? Orthodox Judaism? I see those bastions of misogyny continue to practice their sexist creeds unhindered. Not a lot of signwaving there!

I note that none of the students at the school complained.

NONE.

NONE.

It was simply some brave, public-spirited citizens who suddenly decided to start sounding off about Mohammedans and their disgusting beliefs. And such shining lights, these worthy champions of all that is good and decent, your fellow travellers, enlightened feminists to a MAN, I'm sure!

All the sundry supplementary arguments floated in this thread are just noise: cover for cultural paranoia. That they may in part be true is IMMATERIAL.

I can imagine a COLLABORATIVE process by which some other solution might be arrived at that spares students the need to cross heavy traffic and miss school which might for example involve a relocation off-premises but still proximate - so as not to offend the refined sensibilities of... the Christian Heritage whatever-the-fuck-these-bible-thumping pinheads call themselves. Interested groups could meet with the relevant parties for constructive dialogue. That would be where you START. Not waving signs about, demonstrating to the entire planet just how fucking ignorant we are.

I can't think of a better way to further alienate Muslims from their adopted culture; to disrupt their integration and deepen the artificial gulf we insist on carving between us; make them dig in their heels and tighten their grip on their cherished barbarian ways.

The Star reports one of the Muslim girls donned the burqa for the first time, on the day of the demonstration.

Think about it.

Excellent post again, Merowe.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If I wanted to walk into the school tomorrow and have a holy roller meeting, with speaking in tongues and juggling snakes, what grounds would the school have to refuse me (other than the rattlesnakes) having allowed this?

The fact that this is merely something you [i]wanted[/i] to do, rather than something that your faith [i]requires[/i] of you.

Well, I'll admit my ignorance when it comes to snake juggling. If you can direct me to a chapter and verse that requires certain folks to drop what they're doing in order to congregate at 10:30 am every Tuesday to juggle snakes, and show me stats that point to a community need that's in any way comparable to those of Muslim students in Toronto, then maybe I'll understand how your hypothetical scenario is relevant to this discussion.

@ Freedom 55

Again, I don't doubt that the people who started this had only good intentions.

As for what is valid religious belief, there is a lot of it that is not written down, so I don't think that is relevant. Although I am not a believer, I can appreciate the demonstration of faith that people make by coming face to face with deadly snakes. 

My concern is about bringing religion into a place where it does not belong for two reasons - the initial conlfict between religious freedom and the law, and the fact that other religions will see it - with good reason - as an indication that they can jump in and play too.

and @ Merowe

Sorry, but that's not a great foundation for an argument for religious tolerance. I may not believe what the snake jugglers do, but I recognize it as valid - in its rightful place.

One thing is for sure, if the snake jugglers don't have a big lobby, then I bet the anti-choice people, with their placards of chopped up fetuses certainly do.

Heh heh. Looks like I cross-posted with everyone.