Who should be forced to support a "god-of-the-nanny-state" religion-based school system?
Same idea but Mr Horvath actually made the paper
Secular Humanism and public schooling
National PostPublished: Monday, September 24, 2007
Re: All Education Is Faith-Based, letter, Sept. 21, and Don't Fear Secularism, letter, Sept. 22.
Zoltan Horvath, Langley, B.C.
Dear Nat Post Editors,
Executive Summary
....
The story indicates the certain probability that the case will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada - perhaps that will be an opportunity for Canadian parents to prompt/demand that the Quebec government finally proclaim the still-delayed provisions of the 1982 Charter of (justiciable) Rights and (conditional) Freedoms in that province. (23.(1)(a) Citizens whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside ... have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province)
Perhaps as well Canadians will absorb the idiocy of maintaining a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws regarding religion-based education in Canada - rooted in the Quebec Act 1774, entrenched in BNA 1867, spread unevenly across the 'nation' as additional provinces were added to the Protestant=English & Roman Catholic=French original concoction. (see footnote (50) to the BNA).
This idiocy that was exacerbated when, in 1998, Quebec bi-laterally opt-ed out of the original 1867 provisions that were crafted to extend reciprocally, the purposefully special rights of minority vis a vis majority religious schools, within both Ontario & Quebec. This opting out officially and finally switched the 'schools game' in Quebec from a religion-based spat to a language-based tussle.
The amendment (though its uprooting-the-foundations ridiculousness was ignored) was quite appropriate since in reality, the god-of-the-nanny-state had subsumed the God of the Christian Churches roles in administering social welfare, hospitals, schools and Universities (and of course official thought too).
....
In Ontario it's about religion ... isn't it?
Surely it's about fairness ... isn't it?
About minority rights...?
No it's about money. Who should be forced to support, via property and income taxes, a god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system that teaches/professes/represents a philosophy and morality that the taxpayer considers inferior and wrong?
Quick answer - everybody.
If you want something better - go pay extra for it yourself ... just like in our official policy on Healthcare ... oops, no that's wrong - in Healthcare we say that everybody's gotta stay in one system .... but what about the fact there's already a Catholic parallel system? ... and the fact that Quebec opted out of the religious-based school business altogether.
It doesn't make sense ... locally, intra-provincially, inter-provincially, pan-Canada ... a patchwork.
Options - Vouchers in an amount equal to the per capita portion of your Income and Property taxes that now is allocated to central School Boards? -- parents pick the school and/or curriculum, give parents the voucher and the 'parent-chosen' schools will find the teachers and premises that suited the number of students that had opted out of the nanny-state schools.
It'll be madness for a few years, but gradually the schools with the good curriculum, that attracts the parents' money will pool together and form a Board etc etc and we'll eventually have a curriculum-based school system consistent with the parents wishes .
Robert Ede
Classroom Controversies:
Quebec Court strikes down Quebec language rule; Reopens English Private School Loophole
& Ontario Faith-based schools idea backward: McGuinty; Tory's Pledge Seized As An Election Issue
Very interesting how superficially we Canadians observe the Constitutional provisions and protections (as amended) afforded the education of our children in this fine country of 10+3+33 million solitudes.
The reporter, Hubert Bauch, CanWest News Service, notes a strong dissent from the Quebec Judge in the 2-1 decision and then neglects to include any of the Judge's points.
The story touches the case's seeming success in re-opening a loophole in Quebec's law that permitted a year of private school to suffice in satisfying a Citizen's right to have his/her child educated in the linguistic minority language of the province of their residence. The English minority in Quebec apparently "... already has access to its schools severely limited," (attributed to Marcus Tabachnick, president of the Quebec English School Boards Association).
The story indicates the certain probability that the case will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada - perhaps that will be an opportunity for Canadian parents to prompt/demand that the Quebec government finally proclaim the still-delayed provisions of the 1982 Charter of (conditional) Freedoms and (justiciable) Rights in that province. (23.(1)(a) Citizens whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside ... have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province)
Perhaps as well Canadians will absorb the idiocy of maintaining a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws regarding religion-based education in Canada - rooted in the Quebec Act 1774, entrenched in BNA 1867, spread unevenly across the 'nation' as additional provinces were added to the Protestant=English & Roman Catholic=French original concoction. (see footnote (50) to the BNA).
This idiocy that was exacerbated when, in 1998, Quebec bi-laterally opted out of the original 1867 provisions that were crafted to extend reciprocally, the purposefully special rights of minority vis a vis majority religious schools, within both Ontario & Quebec. This opting out officially and finally switched the 'schools game' in Quebec from a religion-based spat to a language-based tussle.
The amendment (though its uprooting-the-foundations ridiculousness was ignored) was quite appropriate since in reality, the god-of-the-nanny-state had subsumed the God of the Christian Churches roles in inspiring the administration of social welfare, hospitals, schools and Universities (and of course official thought too).
In contrast, the companion story from Ontario is all about religion-based schools. Dear Ol' Premier-of-the-Day Wm Davis, pushed the envelope down a slippery slope in a calculated move to shore up re-election support (oops same circumstances) by extending Catholic School funding to High School (previously funded until Grade 8).
For a series of groups of parents, not enamoured with the mores, morals (or lack) and official thought taught/ subliminally-introduced in the god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system, to want to opt out and educate THEIR children in an environment that teaches and reinforces their family beliefs is not silly, or selfish or wrong - it's just not the law yet (and implementation will be tricky).
Surely if one segment of the Christian-based faith has its own education system furnished from public resources ALL segments of the Christian-based faith should have that right (now that the nanny-state/Public schools no longer to teach Protestantism - as was the original, tacit understanding) AND surely then, once all the Christian-based schools are accommodated from public funds, then any faith-based school should be funded on the same formula.
Never mind language... in Ontario it's about religion ... isn't it?
Surely it's about fairness ... isn't it?
About minority rights...?
No it's about money. Who should be forced to support, via property and income taxes, a god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system that teaches/professes/represents a philosophy and morality that the taxpayer considers inferior and wrong?
Quick answer - everybody.
If you want something better - go buy it yourself ... just like in our official policy on Healthcare ... oops no, we say there that everybody's gotta stay in one system .... but what about the fact there's already a Catholic parallel system? ... and the fact that Quebec opted out of the religious-based school business altogether.
It doesn't make sense ... locally, intra-provincially, inter-provincially, pan-Canada ... patchwork.
Options - Vouchers in an amount equal to the per capita portion of your Income and Property taxes that now is allocated to central School Boards? -- parents pick the school and/or curriculum, give the parents the voucher and the 'parent-chosen' schools will find the teachers and premises that suited the number of students that had opted out of the nanny-state schools.
It'll be madness for a few years, but gradually the schools with the "good" curriculum, that attracts the parents' money will pool together and form a Board etc etc and we'll eventually have a curriculum-based school system consistent with the parents wishes.
Any reason that once Ontario got its education system straighten out that we couldn't have a national program? (Except the one obvious and perpetual reason?)-- Robert Ede
25 Dersingham Cres
Thornhill ON L3T 4P5
905-747-0336
Background Foundational Documents - unread, unfollowed ... Oh well ...
British North America Act/Constitution Act 1867
ed.- All underline & red is added for emphasis or clarity + HTML links to supporting documents from Justice Dept page
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section. (50)
93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec. (50.1)
(50) - An alternative was provided for Manitoba ...
-An alternative was provided for Alberta ...
-An alternative was provided for Saskatchewan ...
-An alternative was provided for Newfoundland by Term 17 ...
-Prior to the Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland Act), ...
-Prior to the Constitution Amendment, 1997 ...
-Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada ...
See also sections 23, 29 and 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 23 provides for new minority language educational rights and section 59 permits a delay in respect of the coming into force in Quebec of one aspect of those rights. Section 29 provides that nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
(50.1) Added by the Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Quebec) . See SI/97-141.
The Constitution Act 1982
23.(1) Citizens of Canada
(a)
whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)
who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (91)
(91)
Paragraph 23(1)(a) is not in force in respect of Quebec. See section 59 infra.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)
applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b)
includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
59. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec. (105)
(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(1 05)
No proclamation has been issued under section 59.
Secular Humanism and public schooling
National PostPublished: Monday, September 24, 2007
Re: All Education Is Faith-Based, letter, Sept. 21, and Don't Fear Secularism, letter, Sept. 22.
Zoltan Horvath, Langley, B.C.
Dear Nat Post Editors,
Executive Summary
....
The story indicates the certain probability that the case will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada - perhaps that will be an opportunity for Canadian parents to prompt/demand that the Quebec government finally proclaim the still-delayed provisions of the 1982 Charter of (justiciable) Rights and (conditional) Freedoms in that province. (23.(1)(a) Citizens whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside ... have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province)
Perhaps as well Canadians will absorb the idiocy of maintaining a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws regarding religion-based education in Canada - rooted in the Quebec Act 1774, entrenched in BNA 1867, spread unevenly across the 'nation' as additional provinces were added to the Protestant=English & Roman Catholic=French original concoction. (see footnote (50) to the BNA).
This idiocy that was exacerbated when, in 1998, Quebec bi-laterally opt-ed out of the original 1867 provisions that were crafted to extend reciprocally, the purposefully special rights of minority vis a vis majority religious schools, within both Ontario & Quebec. This opting out officially and finally switched the 'schools game' in Quebec from a religion-based spat to a language-based tussle.
The amendment (though its uprooting-the-foundations ridiculousness was ignored) was quite appropriate since in reality, the god-of-the-nanny-state had subsumed the God of the Christian Churches roles in administering social welfare, hospitals, schools and Universities (and of course official thought too).
....
In Ontario it's about religion ... isn't it?
Surely it's about fairness ... isn't it?
About minority rights...?
No it's about money. Who should be forced to support, via property and income taxes, a god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system that teaches/professes/represents a philosophy and morality that the taxpayer considers inferior and wrong?
Quick answer - everybody.
If you want something better - go pay extra for it yourself ... just like in our official policy on Healthcare ... oops, no that's wrong - in Healthcare we say that everybody's gotta stay in one system .... but what about the fact there's already a Catholic parallel system? ... and the fact that Quebec opted out of the religious-based school business altogether.
It doesn't make sense ... locally, intra-provincially, inter-provincially, pan-Canada ... a patchwork.
Options - Vouchers in an amount equal to the per capita portion of your Income and Property taxes that now is allocated to central School Boards? -- parents pick the school and/or curriculum, give parents the voucher and the 'parent-chosen' schools will find the teachers and premises that suited the number of students that had opted out of the nanny-state schools.
It'll be madness for a few years, but gradually the schools with the good curriculum, that attracts the parents' money will pool together and form a Board etc etc and we'll eventually have a curriculum-based school system consistent with the parents wishes .
Robert Ede
Classroom Controversies:
Quebec Court strikes down Quebec language rule; Reopens English Private School Loophole
& Ontario Faith-based schools idea backward: McGuinty; Tory's Pledge Seized As An Election Issue
Very interesting how superficially we Canadians observe the Constitutional provisions and protections (as amended) afforded the education of our children in this fine country of 10+3+33 million solitudes.
The reporter, Hubert Bauch, CanWest News Service, notes a strong dissent from the Quebec Judge in the 2-1 decision and then neglects to include any of the Judge's points.
The story touches the case's seeming success in re-opening a loophole in Quebec's law that permitted a year of private school to suffice in satisfying a Citizen's right to have his/her child educated in the linguistic minority language of the province of their residence. The English minority in Quebec apparently "... already has access to its schools severely limited," (attributed to Marcus Tabachnick, president of the Quebec English School Boards Association).
The story indicates the certain probability that the case will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada - perhaps that will be an opportunity for Canadian parents to prompt/demand that the Quebec government finally proclaim the still-delayed provisions of the 1982 Charter of (conditional) Freedoms and (justiciable) Rights in that province. (23.(1)(a) Citizens whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside ... have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province)
Perhaps as well Canadians will absorb the idiocy of maintaining a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws regarding religion-based education in Canada - rooted in the Quebec Act 1774, entrenched in BNA 1867, spread unevenly across the 'nation' as additional provinces were added to the Protestant=English & Roman Catholic=French original concoction. (see footnote (50) to the BNA).
This idiocy that was exacerbated when, in 1998, Quebec bi-laterally opted out of the original 1867 provisions that were crafted to extend reciprocally, the purposefully special rights of minority vis a vis majority religious schools, within both Ontario & Quebec. This opting out officially and finally switched the 'schools game' in Quebec from a religion-based spat to a language-based tussle.
The amendment (though its uprooting-the-foundations ridiculousness was ignored) was quite appropriate since in reality, the god-of-the-nanny-state had subsumed the God of the Christian Churches roles in inspiring the administration of social welfare, hospitals, schools and Universities (and of course official thought too).
In contrast, the companion story from Ontario is all about religion-based schools. Dear Ol' Premier-of-the-Day Wm Davis, pushed the envelope down a slippery slope in a calculated move to shore up re-election support (oops same circumstances) by extending Catholic School funding to High School (previously funded until Grade 8).
For a series of groups of parents, not enamoured with the mores, morals (or lack) and official thought taught/ subliminally-introduced in the god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system, to want to opt out and educate THEIR children in an environment that teaches and reinforces their family beliefs is not silly, or selfish or wrong - it's just not the law yet (and implementation will be tricky).
Surely if one segment of the Christian-based faith has its own education system furnished from public resources ALL segments of the Christian-based faith should have that right (now that the nanny-state/Public schools no longer to teach Protestantism - as was the original, tacit understanding) AND surely then, once all the Christian-based schools are accommodated from public funds, then any faith-based school should be funded on the same formula.
Never mind language... in Ontario it's about religion ... isn't it?
Surely it's about fairness ... isn't it?
About minority rights...?
No it's about money. Who should be forced to support, via property and income taxes, a god-of-the-nanny-state (aka Public) school system that teaches/professes/represents a philosophy and morality that the taxpayer considers inferior and wrong?
Quick answer - everybody.
If you want something better - go buy it yourself ... just like in our official policy on Healthcare ... oops no, we say there that everybody's gotta stay in one system .... but what about the fact there's already a Catholic parallel system? ... and the fact that Quebec opted out of the religious-based school business altogether.
It doesn't make sense ... locally, intra-provincially, inter-provincially, pan-Canada ... patchwork.
Options - Vouchers in an amount equal to the per capita portion of your Income and Property taxes that now is allocated to central School Boards? -- parents pick the school and/or curriculum, give the parents the voucher and the 'parent-chosen' schools will find the teachers and premises that suited the number of students that had opted out of the nanny-state schools.
It'll be madness for a few years, but gradually the schools with the "good" curriculum, that attracts the parents' money will pool together and form a Board etc etc and we'll eventually have a curriculum-based school system consistent with the parents wishes.
Any reason that once Ontario got its education system straighten out that we couldn't have a national program? (Except the one obvious and perpetual reason?)-- Robert Ede
25 Dersingham Cres
Thornhill ON L3T 4P5
905-747-0336
Background Foundational Documents - unread, unfollowed ... Oh well ...
British North America Act/Constitution Act 1867
ed.- All underline & red is added for emphasis or clarity + HTML links to supporting documents from Justice Dept page
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section. (50)
93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec. (50.1)
(50) - An alternative was provided for Manitoba ...
-An alternative was provided for Alberta ...
-An alternative was provided for Saskatchewan ...
-An alternative was provided for Newfoundland by Term 17 ...
-Prior to the Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland Act), ...
-Prior to the Constitution Amendment, 1997 ...
-Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada ...
See also sections 23, 29 and 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 23 provides for new minority language educational rights and section 59 permits a delay in respect of the coming into force in Quebec of one aspect of those rights. Section 29 provides that nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
(50.1) Added by the Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Quebec) . See SI/97-141.
The Constitution Act 1982
23.(1) Citizens of Canada
(a)
whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)
who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (91)
(91)
Paragraph 23(1)(a) is not in force in respect of Quebec. See section 59 infra.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)
applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b)
includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
59. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec. (105)
(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(1 05)
No proclamation has been issued under section 59.
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 9:24 am
|
0 comments
