News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

tkip said:
Public funding for Catholic schools is actually in the constitution. I don't see what the commotion is save for bending too far over backwards to accommodate which seems to be the main sticking point with many.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether it is in the constitution or not it is anti-constitutional. I'm not a lawyer or anything but I imagine it exists thanks to a 'notwithstanding clause'?

The social-historic context that justified such a clause is no longer relevant, and in fact the exact opposite is true. Again, not to pick on the catholics per se, so much as the unentitled privilege they enjoy vis a vis all other groups.

Accommodations are civilized but I suspect in this case it is the people who should be making accommodations to the system and not the other way around...
 
Public funding for Catholic schools is actually in the constitution. I don't see what the commotion is save for bending too far over backwards to accommodate which seems to be the main sticking point with many.
Click to expand...

I have heard that 7 of 10 provinces do not provide such funding.
 
tkip said:
The shooter was a blonde Norwegian man. He was also apparently in Oslo, in the vicinity, before the bomb went off. No link to Islam or Muslims. This is what it appears to be. A nut job.
Click to expand...
You're right Tk. The Muslim group that originally claimed responsibility has appaently recanted. I regret I did jump the gun on this one. Sorry folks.
 
Tewder said:
Regardless of whether it is in the constitution or not it is anti-constitutional. I'm not a lawyer or anything but I imagine it exists thanks to a 'notwithstanding clause'?

The social-historic context that justified such a clause is no longer relevant, and in fact the exact opposite is true. Again, not to pick on the catholics per se, so much as the unentitled privilege they enjoy vis a vis all other groups.

Accommodations are civilized but I suspect in this case it is the people who should be making accommodations to the system and not the other way around...
Click to expand...

It's in the Constitution and therefore can't be anti-constitutional :) It predates the Charter and the Notwithstanding clause by 115 years. Some people posit that the Fathers of Confederation meant French schools as francophones were all Catholic and the overwhleming majority of anglos were Protestant. If this is the case funding for Catholic schools could easily be eliminated in Ontario as minority-language education rights are now guaranteed as per the Charter of Rights (i.e. English schooling in Quebec for the children of Canadian Citizens whose first language still understood is English or the language of their primary schooling was English and received in Canada or vice-versa for Francophones outside of Quebec)
 
Last edited:
uptown said:
It's in the Constitution and therefore can't be anti-constitutional :) It predates the Charter and the Notwithstanding clause by 115 years. Some people posit that the Fathers of Confederation meant French schools as francophones were all Catholic and the overwhleming majority of anglos were Protestant. If this is the case funding for Catholic schools could easily be eliminated in Ontario as minority-language education rights are now guaranteed as per the Charter of Rights (i.e. English schooling in Quebec for the children of Canadian Citizens whose first language still understood is English or the language of their primary schooling was English and received in Canada or vice-versa for Francophones outside of Quebec)
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the history of public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario was never really about language. By the time Confederation was being negotiated, English-speaking Irish Catholics outnumbered Francophone Catholics in Canada West and many, if not most, Catholic schools used English as the language of instruction. The French-speaking Catholics of Canada East were instrumental in getting funding for Catholic schools in Canada West during the Province of Canada era and they defended that funding going into Confederation, but it was about ensuring Catholic students wouldn't be forced into a Protestant educational system by the majority. It had very little to do with language rights (which are addressed elsewhere in the Constitution).
 
uptown said:
It's in the Constitution and therefore can't be anti-constitutional :)
Click to expand...

.... or can it?

uptown said:
It predates the Charter and the Notwithstanding clause by 115 years. Some people posit that the Fathers of Confederation meant French schools as francophones were all Catholic and the overwhleming majority of anglos were Protestant. If this is the case funding for Catholic schools could easily be eliminated in Ontario as minority-language education rights are now guaranteed as per the Charter of Rights (i.e. English schooling in Quebec for the children of Canadian Citizens whose first language still understood is English or the language of their primary schooling was English and received in Canada or vice-versa for Francophones outside of Quebec)
Click to expand...

Yes, I think there are all kinds of ways in which anti-constitutional parts of the constitution can be challenged.
 
uptown said:
In 1987 a Supreme Court ruling found that separate schools were constitutionally-protected.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1987/1987scr1-1148/1987scr1-1148.html
Click to expand...

Whether or not they're constitutionally protected is beside the point. I think everyone's aware that abolishing separate school funding would require a relatively easy constitutional amendment. Funding for separate schools made sense when the public boards were de facto Protestant schools and society was more or less divided into two religious groups (Protestants and Catholics). It's been decades since that society existed, and the public boards have now been secularized. Catholic schools are a relic of a different era, a complete anachronism in a pluralistic society. It's time we amended the constitution and abolished separate school funding. Afterall, it's been criticized by the UN for being discriminatory, and is incompatible with the spirit of the Charter of Rights (not that it can be found in violation of the Charter - as with the discriminatory succession laws, the Charter cannot overrule other parts of the Constitution).
 
uptown said:
In 1987 a Supreme Court ruling found that separate schools were constitutionally-protected.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1987/1987scr1-1148/1987scr1-1148.html
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court had also ruled that the Quebec religious school boards were constitutionally-protected as well. And when they did, Quebec simply side-stepped this by voting to amend the Constitution; the House of Commons and Senate quickly approved the change, as they've done every time a province has asked for a Consitutional amendment.
 
There's nothing wrong with amending parts of the constitution that are out of date. Especially if we expect Muslims to change some traditions that we consider out of date. Those traditions are based on a belief of what a supreme being expects them to do. The constitution was written by mere men.

I think our population is more secular than the numbers would have us believe too. Most young people, including many baptised as Catholics don't go to church.

And for Aheel regarding women praying behind men, can they pray beside men too? So women on the right side, men on the left side for example.

It also looks like in the last few years, there have been cases in Canada where women will lead a mixed gender congregation, so basically female imams. Meanwhile, women still cannot be ordained as Catholic priests... so I think there are gender issues in many religions, but I don't think there should be any rules regarding who can pray and where in public schools.
 
nfitz said:
Should we keep religion out of the Catholic school board as well?
Click to expand...

I know non-religious kids who say they went to Catholic school and said the religious influence was minimal and they didn't mind. However, I have met Catholic Board teachers are very religious and said they not allow kids to be non-religious in their classes. They think they can get away with that attitude and they can; it's the Catholic board after all.
 
The catholic board needs to be erased, once and for all. We are an embarrassment of a society, and complete hypocrites, until we do this. This is not to bash catholics in any way, however, only their priviledge.
 
Please, there are some people here on UT that find they have to bash christian beliefs of an existing century-old provincial funded school board, to make themselves feel more politically correct towards other religions..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top