Canada declares war on Catholicism

[DaShi]

Isn't there an island we can put them all on? That's how we used to do it in the old days.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why doesn't Canada just bite the bullet and build public schols in those areas where they've previously contractred with the Roman Catholic Church to provide primary and secondary education?

[Asher]

Why doesn't Canada just bite the bullet and build public schols in those areas where they've previously contractred with the Roman Catholic Church to provide primary and secondary education?

They don't actually contract with the RCC, as far as I know.

The way it's set up right now, as I understand it, is every resident has the right to choose which school to attend. They're zoned for one of each.

As Wezil has said, all the Catholic whining about this is doing nothing but accelerating the demise of the separate school system.

[Asher]

It's worth noting that the Catholic Teachers Association is actually in favour of this proposed law. Of course, they're the ones that actually see and deal with kids who are bullied on a daily basis...

[bc1871]

Canada unfortunately is broken state, which has since the 1970's folded to the immoral demands of the gay community.

[Krill]

Wezil got his wish.

[Flubber]

Such as?



Well, sure. Back in 1890, in the height of the Riel Rebellion. Things are different now.

Laurier permitted Catholicism to be taught in Manitoba public schools, and that's how it's been ever since. Since then, Catholic school boards have been established in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in BC (1970).



Absolutely, I'm aware of the Manitoba Schools Act. It's interesting legislation that accomplished the goal of establishing a protestant majority west of Quebec. However, things change, over the course of 110 years, and they were re-established later on. Even to the point where provinces that were never under it's regulations (BC), have established Catholic boards like the other provinces.

.

Everyone forgets Newfoundland. Sure the constitutional provisions were Newfoundland-specific but it shows that constitutional reform was possible.-- Not easy but certainly possible.

The Collapse of Denominational Education
Whether or not the province should adopt a non-denominational education system became a controversial issue during the 1980s and 1990s. Under the denominational system, Christian Churches had the right to own and operate schools using public money. Critics argued the system was expensive, ineffective, and discriminated against residents who did not belong to one of the recognized denominations. Supporters argued the denominational system helped to cultivate spirituality and morality in a secular world while strengthening community integrity; they also stressed that the churches' right to educate was entrenched in Newfoundland's Terms of Union with Canada.

Growing Concerns: 1980s and 1990s

Demographic and social changes in the late-20th century affected the quality of education in Newfoundland and in Labrador and altered residents' attitudes towards the denominational school system. The number of school-aged residents dropped as the province's birth rate declined during the late-1970s and 1980s. This pushed enrolment down and caused many schools to become partially empty, particularly in rural areas. Growing migration from outport communities into St. John's and other urban centres further contributed to shrinking enrolments and forced many rural schools to close. Those that remained open were often ill-equipped and underfunded. The province distributed money to school boards based on student numbers, so any drop in enrolment also meant a drop in income.

At the same time, some residents and organizations questioned the relevance of a state-funded denominational school system in an increasingly secular and multicultural society. The denominational system had its roots in the 19th century, when Newfoundland society was relatively homogeneous – most residents were Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic or Methodist, with smaller numbers belonging to other Christian denominations. By 1980, however, significant numbers belonged to religions other than Christianity, or professed no religion at all.

In 1984, the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association (NLHRA) sent a brief to the Minister of Justice criticizing the school system, stating that: “The greatest single threat to equality of religion and freedom of worship [in the province] is the restrictive nature of the denominational educational system. It is recommended that a second alternative be available for students who are not of faiths which benefit from a special constitutional privilege, or that denominational schools be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion.”

Calls for change came from other sectors as well. In 1986, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association (NLTA) and a Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment strongly criticized the denominational system. Both argued it was unnecessarily expensive and resulted in poor student achievement. The NLTA asked the government to establish a royal commission to investigate the education system. Its request was seconded by the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and the St. John's Board of Trade.

Royal Commission Appointed

The government appointed a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Education in 1990, which was chaired by Leonard Williams, an Education professor at Memorial University. The Commission's mandate was to investigate and make recommendations concerning all aspects of the organization and administration of the province's primary, elementary, and secondary school systems. During the next two years, the Commission held 36 public hearings in 29 centres across the province and met with students, parents, teachers, principals, school district staff, government agencies, and other interested parties to seek advice and gain insight into the education system. It also conducted research projects to investigate such matters as the cost of the denominational system, the use of instructional time, curriculum delivery, and the history of cooperative services in education.

In September 1991, the Commission surveyed 1,001 people equally distributed throughout the province and found that 79 per cent favoured a single school system for all children. The most widespread reported complaints against the denominational system were that it was needlessly expensive, did not adequately educate the province's youth according to North American standards, and was undemocratic; although the government provided the money, church-appointed officials decided how to spend it.

The Commission presented its report, Our Children Our Future, to the provincial government in March 1992. In it, the Commission recommended that there should be a single education system which “involves the formal integration of all faiths and the development of policies and practices which would involve all citizens in schooling and school governance. At stake is not only the moral direction of the school system, but the basic quality of education for all our children.” (221)

Non-Denominational School System

The government took steps to replace the traditional denominational school system with a single secular system soon after receiving the Commission's report. In 1994 it published a white paper called Adjusting the Course, which outlined the government's plan to create a unified inter-denominational education system. To do so, however, the government would have to make constitutional changes to the province's Terms of Union with Canada. Specifically, the province would have to amend Term 17, which guaranteed the churches' rights to administer education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On 5 September 1995, the province held a referendum in which the majority of voters (54.4 per cent) supported amending Term 17 to create a single inter-denominational education system that would encompass all denominational systems. The federal government approved the revised Term 17 on 4 December 1996 and the province passed legislation later that month re-designating denominational schools as inter-denominational.

During the summer of 1997, however, the Roman Catholic Church, Pentecostal Assemblies, and 29 parents successfully challenged the re-designation process in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Justice Leo Barry ruled on 8 July 1997 that the province did not have the right to abolish separate denominational schools and that unidenominational schools could not be closed without consent from denominational committees.

With the education reform process effectively stalled, the provincial government decided to propose a second amendment to Term 17 that would establish a non-denominational education system and remove entirely the churches' rights to administer education in the province. It held a second referendum on 2 September 1997, in which 73 per cent of all voters supported the proposed amendment.

Backed by a substantial majority vote, the province received permission from the federal government to again amend Term 17 on 14 January 1998. The revised Term 17 stated that: “(2) In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination”.

The provincial government passed legislation to create a uniform, publicly funded non-denominational school system and it assumed full responsibility for education in Newfoundland and Labrador. It also established larger school districts, reduced the number of schools operating in the province, and created parent advisory councils to allow the public to make a greater contribution to the education system. School boards became non-denominational and members were to be elected by the public instead of appointed by church.

The Roman Catholic Church challenged school reform at both the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, but court rulings invariably upheld the constitutionality of the revised Term 17. The province successfully adopted the non-denominational system at the start of the 1998-99 school year and it remains in effect to this day. In the wake of this reform, several religion-based private schools opened to accommodate families not in favour of the non-denominational system; these include Holy Cross Community School at St. Alban's and St. Bonaventure's College at St. John's.

Article by Jenny Higgins. ©2011, Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site.


.

[Flubber]

This sums it up

Newfoundland offers religious school lessons
Published On Sun Sep 16 2007Email Print Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on diggShare on deliciousRss Article
Photos (4)

Brian Tobin, then premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, casts his vote in the 1997 referendum.

CP FILE PHOTO
Andrew Chung
Staff Reporter


The intense animosity between people of different faiths was bound to spill on to the ice. Parents, fans, they all encouraged it among the hockey players at school.

Such was the violence of Newfoundland winters. "The hockey matches between Protestants and Catholics in Grand Falls where I grew up were legendary," remembers former premier Roger Grimes. "These were wars on ice, and designed to be so. One of the highlights of the winter was to see the bloodbath."

It was a grim fact of life in that province under its historically sectarian education system in which the churches ran the schools with money from the public purse. Besides the rivalries, students and neighbours were divided along religious lines, often driven on half-empty buses across town to schools that were homogenous but under serviced.

By the 1990s, the tensions had eased, but the economic burden of too many groups operating too many schools remained. That is, until a dramatic and complex political move uncoupled schools from the churches, turning the education of Newfoundland youngsters on its head, from one that was entirely denominational, to one that entirely was not.

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory now wants to do precisely the opposite in this province, extending public funding to all religious schools – provided they follow the provincial curriculum – if he's elected next month.

It's "very difficult to look people in the eye who are Hindu, or Greek Orthodox or Muslim and say, `I know we made arrangements for that faith (Roman Catholic), but not for you,'" he said Friday explaining his policy choice.

Even those who disagree with his plan seem to understand his logic, except they'd prefer to end public funding for all religious schools.

Extracting Newfoundland's schools from the church's grasp was no easy task. The provincial Liberals of the day had to try twice, holding two referenda on the subject, and obtaining two constitutional amendments from the federal parliament, to get it done.

Most educators today say the sea change was for the better. But nearly a decade after the province changed course from sectarian to secular, the controversy and hard-feelings linger. So do the fears, especially among Catholics, that what happened in Newfoundland could play out in other places, such as Ontario, which funds Catholic but not other religious schools.

The Newfoundland experience, in fact, served as a wake-up call for Ontario Catholics, to do everything in their power to keep their school lights on.

Missionaries from the Church of England set up the first schools in Newfoundland in the 1720s, beginning its long history of entrenched religious differences in schools. Church control was so profound that it became entrenched in the Terms of Union, which spelled out Newfoundland's entry into Canada in 1949, making it a constitutional matter.

A first referendum in 1995, held by then-premier Clyde Wells, passed by a slim margin. A change to the Terms of Union required a constitutional amendment, and thenprime minister Jean Chrétien vowed to push ahead with it.

The Catholic and Pentecostal churches were especially vocal on the streets and from the pulpit. They launched high-profile ad campaigns and canvassed door to door.

Their Ontario counterparts also joined in the debate. Catholic school trustees as well as church officials lobbied the federal government, fearing that a Newfoundland precedent could lead to abolishing Catholic schools in Ontario too.

Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter admonished Chrétien in a letter to protect minority rights. "If your government rubber stamps (the Newfoundland amendment)," he wrote, "how can it in principle resist similar requests from voting majorities in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario?"

Grimes, at the time education minister, says the plan unravelled since it still allowed for religious schools where numbers warranted, putting an effective public system at risk. So the government, now under the leadership of Brian Tobin, drew up a new referendum, this time removing churches from the education landscape.

The province pushed the need to save millions by ending overlap. "We couldn't see a justification to fund four to five separate systems when there was no evidence in our view they were providing a higher quality education," Grimes says.

Other critics noted how unfair it was that a secular education simply wasn't available.

Newfoundland was also experiencing its own kind of "Quiet Revolution" in which the churches were being met with increasing skepticism, says Bill McKim, a psychology professor at Memorial University, who edited a book about denominational education. "The memories of Mount Cashel were still fresh and many people were sympathetic to getting churches out of the school system," McKim says, referring to the sex abuse scandal at a Catholic orphanage.

Voters approved the measure in 1997, this time with 73 per cent of the vote. A court injunction failed, and by the next year, the province had a single, secular system.

There was tremendous upheaval. In some cases, thousands of students, teachers and staff had to move buildings. Dozens of schools were shuttered. In some cases, even the names of schools were changed to non-religious ones.

"One day we had Catholic schools, the next we did not. I don't have good feelings about it," says Bonaventure Fagan, who fiercely opposed the changes as a Catholic administrator, and is now president of the Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association.

"It took us through a period of a great deal of animosity," he says. "It harnessed the old feelings of bigotry (against Catholics) that some used to foster their own aims."

He blames the political loss on "misleading" referenda questions, and after years of squabbling, people were simply tired of the debate.

"The worst model we can have in education is the reductionist model," Fagan says. "In other words, everybody goes to the same box, and comes out of the same box, with the same imprint. That's not life. Not everybody wants the same thing for their kids."

The controversy still simmers there. Fagan says many parents today still chafe at not having a choice.

Long-time Roman Catholic teacher and administrator Brian Shortall, who now leads the school boards' association in Newfoundland, says it was only after the fact that many realized "the depth of feeling to the way things used to be. Some individuals took a long time to accept the fact that a fundamental social, cultural foundation was being changed."

Nevertheless, Shortall, who was superintendent of the St. John's Catholic board before and after it was switched into a public board, said the changes have been good for the province.

"At the end of the day, our overall academic performance and the expansion of programs within the buildings reflected positive gains as a result of the reorganization," he says.

It was an intensely political fight. Fagan was so impassioned he wrote a book, which he called Trial.

Last year he gave a presentation to trustees from across the country, outlining how Newfoundland Catholics' rights were dissolved and warning them to take action to prevent the same elsewhere.

The trustees heard that in many cases, people's faith did not rally them to speak up, or that political or other affiliations trumped faith. Fagan recalls how "people in positions of influence, at the political level or the business level, didn't have much to say."

"Our point," Fagan says, "was that Catholics simply cannot be indifferent to their system and think that they're going to have it. You have to be committed to it and have an active faith.

"You're only going to fight when you're committed," he says.

Ontario Catholics took notice. The Newfoundland transformation was viewed as a complete debacle. As one Catholic education official, who asked not to be named, puts it, "We saw how it could happen, and it put everyone in Ontario on alert."

Ontario Catholics learned that "a good offence is the best defence." The biggest lesson was the idea of erecting a strong and effective "infrastructure" that would be a formidable force against anyone trying to dismantle it.

Bernard Murray, who heads the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association, says, "Catholic education in Ontario is supported by a strong infrastructure of organizations."

That includes the Institute for Catholic Education, which promotes publicly-funded Catholic schools, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, parents groups, teachers' unions, and the trustees association, which regularly lobbies provincial politicians.

Any assault on the system and "there would be a great backlash," Murray says. He points out that Catholic education has the support of all three main parties in Ontario.

But politics can be fickle. In Newfoundland, many pointed to the sanctity of the Constitution and its enshrined rights of religious education. Some make the same argument here. But as Newfoundland shows, even the Constitution can be changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I am talking specifically about Canada ...

And the laws in Canada are set right now.

would you, if the canadian government had exactly the same constitutionally guaranteed agreements

I would oppose any changes to the constitution, along these lines, full stop .

agree, that muslims should be allowed to teach (in public schools, on canadian soil), that apostates have to be killed or imprisoned?

The English common law specifically forbids sharia for a reason. There are people who are pushing for changes along these lines - and yes, honour killings are a problem in Canada.

If I had a say in the legislature of arabian countries then yes, I would say exactly this. Religion should have certain limits in what they are allowed to teach within schools, this involves the treatment of other (minority) groups (i.e. people of other faiths or other sexual orientation) as well as the treatment of other genders.

There's a difference between the Church teachings contrary to homosexuality and Islam's persecution of non-Muslims. The Church isn't calling for the execution of gay people whereas sharia does permit this to take case. I think it's very important to draw that distinction between the two.

The Canadian government doesn´t force you to host the Vagina Monologues in public schools (at least I asume so)

That's what is happening here. The Ontario provincial government is forcing the Catholic schools to host events contrary to their faith.

they don´t even force you to say good things about homosexuality

The Corren agreement - look it up, requires that all public school teachers in BC - irrespective as to whether they are in the Catholic system or no, teach that homosexuality is good. So yes, they are forcing me to act contrary to my faith.

it just forces you to abstain from saying bad things about people who do such things.

What's the difference from being told you can't say "X is sinful", to being forced to say, "X is good". There's no difference - both are contrary to religious freedoms.

I assume the new laws don´t even prevent you from telling the kids in public school, that homosexual behavior (or sex before marriage etc. ) are against the rules

Again, you are assuming things that aren't true. Yes, it does. That's the problem.

And as for similarities between muslims teaching that apostates have to be killed/imprisoned and your teachings that homosexuals (and other "sexual sinners") are immoral and will burn in hell:

So there's no difference? Really? You'd argue that the Church teaching that unrepentent sinners go to hell is no different from saying that Islam has a duty to kill apostates?

Wow. That's bad.

Muslims are not allowed (at least I suspect so) under canadian law, to teach in public schools that apostates have to be killed /imprisoned, as well as you aren´t allowed anymore (under canadian law), to teach that homosexuals are immoral beings who will burn in eternal hellfire.

Honor killings are permitted in Canada. There have been examples where a family has killed a girl for marrying someone who isn't a muslim, and they've gotten away scott free.

Also, Muslims (at least certain muslim groups) with the assumed same status as the catholic church in Canada (with regards to having state funded public schools) would surely, with regards to the killing/imprisonment of apostates, argue the same way as the catholic church does, i.e., that it impedes their religious freedom, not being allowed to teach the things they do.

Which is why Sharia needs to remained banned. Muslims are arguing that unless they are permitted to kill those who leave Islam that they are being discriminated against. Essentially, unless the protections in religious freedoms are upheld - you're going to be seeing gay people targetted, not by Catholics, but by Islam. This is why gay people are fighting the wrong war. Attacking the people who are protecting you is a bad thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

The more the bigots complain about not being allowed to continue their bigotry the more palatable the "3rd rail" becomes.

Attacking religious freedoms is like a man chipping away at the foundations of his house with a sledgehammer.

You really think that people that aren't from the west are going to care about such niceties as 'non discrimination?'

[Ben Kenobi]

It's "very difficult to look people in the eye who are Hindu, or Greek Orthodox or Muslim and say, `I know we made arrangements for that faith (Roman Catholic), but not for you,'" he said Friday explaining his policy choice.

Welcome to Sharia, Flubber. Don't complain when you're forced to pay for Muslim schools. They are coming.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why doesn't Canada just bite the bullet and build public schols in those areas where they've previously contractred with the Roman Catholic Church to provide primary and secondary education?

It goes back to the constitution. Canada isn't just a smaller clone of the United States. They have been providing state support for the Catholic church to ensure that they had a say within Canada. Same with official bilingualism.

Now, Canada may decide to recognise every language under the sun, and provide public dollars to everyone - but doing so comes at a very dear cost. What's the whole point of 'Canada'? This is what all the other groups recognise. Ask a Greek, why they provide recognition for the Orthodox church in Greece, and you'll get the very dear answer that they were under muslim persecution.

Why is Canada not allowed to do the same thing as Greece is allowed? To have a Canadian culture that provides public support for Christianity?

[Asher]

You can call assaulting women and harassing gays Christian religious freedoms, but when your "freedoms" infringe on the more fundamental rights of other people, they no longer apply...especially with public money.

No one is stopping the Catholic church from teaching in their sermons that it's fine to bully gay teens into suicide, the problem is that they're doing it with public money in public schools.

Ben, shut the **** up about the constitution. This case is a no-brainer. You're deluding yourself by saying it's not possible to get rid of the district because it's in the constitution. It has been done, several times already. There're precedents.

Further, you've yet to actually point to the section of the constitution which actually says that the Catholic schools will be allowed to teach whatever the **** they want, even if that infringes on other people's rights. It says nothing of the sort. It just says provinces can run the education system, with the proviso that a separate system for the "Catholic minority" is provided.

[Asher]

Which is why Sharia needs to remained banned. Muslims are arguing that unless they are permitted to kill those who leave Islam that they are being discriminated against. Essentially, unless the protections in religious freedoms are upheld - you're going to be seeing gay people targetted, not by Catholics, but by Islam. This is why gay people are fighting the wrong war. Attacking the people who are protecting you is a bad thing.

Hardcore Catholics are protecting gays?

Christ on a stick, you continue to say impressively moronic things.

[Dinner]

Has the Vatican been over run yet? If not then it isn't much of a war.