Is Canada being hypocritical?

[Machjo]

Canadians are quick to point out human rights violations abroad, and rightfully so. Yet when the UNHRC condemned Canada and Ontario of having violated the equality provisions (Article 27) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, not only do we remain silent about it, but even chose to vote in governments that plan to enforce the violation:

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Concluding Observations/Comments - Canada

Some Canadians might argue that such a human rights vioilation is far less bad than what goes on abroad. That argument, however, is equal to that of the thief who argues that his theft of a chocolate bar ought to be overlooked because his neighbour has done far worse by committing murder. We all know that in a just society, such an argument doesn't cut it. The thief is guilty of theft independently of what his neighbour has done. His abidance with the law is not judged relatively to other persons' abidance to the law, but rather on its own merit.

Looking at it that way, what violations other nations does not lessen Canada's culpability in this any more than the neighbour's murder of a stranger makes the theft any more excusable.

If Canada can ignore international conventions to which it's a signatory, then why not other countries? Why do we hold other nations to a higher standard than we do ourselves?

 

[Machjo]

If anything, it should be the reverse. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do other nations.

 

[china]

Machjo,

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do other nations.

We do ,in this very forum ; but then we are hidden , no one sees us.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo,


We do ,in this very forum ; but then we are hidden , no one sees us.

That's the problem. Last provincial election, the Liberals one in party by promissing to mainting the current violation of the UNHCR! And to think we have troops abroad fighting and dying for the same rights for the Afghan people. And then we expect the world to take us seriously?

 

[gerryh]

:roll::roll::roll:

 

[china]

Machjo

And then we expect the world to take us seriously?

My God.

 

[Machjo]

:roll::roll::roll:

So it's OK for Canada to go abroad trying to defend international human rights while we can't even abide by the conventions we ourselves are signatory to?

 

[Machjo]

Machjo


My God.

?:-?

 

[lone wolf]

So it's OK for Canada to go abroad trying to defend international human rights while we can't even abide by the conventions we ourselves are signatory to?

The powers that be live in bubbles isolated from reality. They hear only what their yes people are paid to tell them.

 

[Machjo]

The powers that be live in bubbles isolated from reality. They hear only what their yes people are paid to tell them.

So I take it that's a yes?

Harper and McGuinty: Hey, you Afghans need to start treating your women better.

Taliban: And what about your Ontario separate school policy in violation of the UNHCR Article 26?

Harper and McGuinty: Hey, do as we say, not as we do. Besides, what you do is worse than what we do, so our violations are excused.

Taliban: Oh, we see. So we'd better find someone worse than us so we can be excused too.

Is that more or less what you had in mind lone wolf?

 

[captain morgan]

Ontario offers the options Machjo.. And for those groups/cultures that aren't specifically catered to, there is no law that prevents them from opening a charter/private school.

What are the other UN requirements that you feel Canada has breeched?

 

[Machjo]

Ontario offers the options Machjo.. And for those groups/cultures that aren't specifically catered to, there is no law that prevents them from opening a charter/private school.

What are the other UN requirements that you feel Canada has breeched?

Not that I feel Canada has breeched, but that the document in the OP (an official document of the UNHCR from its website concerning Ontario's separate school system) does. According it, in order to comply with the rules, all religions must be treated equally, which gives the province a few options to remedy the situation. Among them:

1. All religious communities get the same legal status as Catholics in getting government funding for religious education.

2. No religious school gets funding. This I believe is the Green Party platform, though it's been wiling to allow elective courses in world religions for interested pupils.

3. Leave it up to parents to decide, through a voucher system for example. I know the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has proposed this idea.

The case was brought before the UNHCR by a Jewish Ontario resident who'd complained that while he had to pay for his child's religious education, that had he been Catholic, he would not have since his taxes would then have paid for it. Anyways, you can read the official report at the link in the OP.

Again, it's not I who is claiming that the Ontario government is in contravention of Article 26 of the Convention, but the UNHCR itself that has officially stated it. This is official.

 

[Machjo]

My personal preference would be to go to a voucher system or even that parents are free to give a portion of their income to a public school of their choice.

 

[Machjo]

By the way, to the best of my knowledge, it was only the Liberal government that opposed the ruling, and the people of Ontario supported that government and still do, while it sends soldiers abroad to promote those same principles abroad.

Again, this violation is not just my opninion, but an official opinion of the UNHCR in its ruling on a case brought to it by anOntario resident, and it ruled in his favour against the Ontario government.

How dare an Ontario resident challenge Canadian government human rights practices in world courts! Where's his sense of patriotism eh?

 

[lone wolf]

So I take it that's a yes?

Harper and McGuinty: Hey, you Afghans need to start treating your women better.

Taliban: And what about your Ontario separate school policy in violation of the UNHCR Article 26?

Harper and McGuinty: Hey, do as we say, not as we do. Besides, what you do is worse than what we do, so our violations are excused.

Taliban: Oh, we see. So we'd better find someone worse than us so we can be excused too.

Is that more or less what you had in mind lone wolf?

I was thinking of the Common Sense Revolution.

What part of the separate school issue bothers you? The charter says everyone has the right to an education ... and we do have public schools. How does that compare to women being treated as subhuman or people who displease the clerics being beheaded?

 

[Machjo]

I was thinking of the Common Sense Revolution.

What part of the separate school issue bothers you? The charter says everyone has the right to an education ... and we do have public schools. How does that compare to women being treated as subhuman or people who displease the clerics being beheaded?

Actually, it's not the separate schools themselves that bother me, but the principle of singing a Convention and then snubbing it. Had Canada never signed onto the Convention, I'd see no issue with this any more than I would if Canada should wirthdraw its signature from the Convention and then keep the separate school system. But by remaining a signatory to the Convention, we make ourselves vulnerable to Canadian residents, such as the man mentioned in the OP, taking the Ontario government to task, and so risk official rulings against us. To choose to ignore these rulings, and neither withdraw our membership from the convention nor abide by its rules makes us hypocrites. Ironicaly enough, neither the ontario nor Federal governments have spoken out against the Convention, suggesting that they do support it; yet they then ignore it. To give it lip service but not practice it is the epitome of hypocricy, unacceptable while our troops are dying for the same thing in Afghanista.

If the government opposes the UNHCR ruling, then it should withdraw membership from it and problem solved. It could then keep the separate school system all it wants. But to pretend to support the Convention and agree with the ruling in principle but still choose to ignore it is pure hypocricy unworthy of leadership.

 

[Machjo]

Ontario offers the options Machjo..

And no, Ontario does not offer the options. As the UNHCR document clearly indicates, owing to his Faith, the man (I forget his name, but you can look it up in the OP link) had to pay for his child's Jewish education (Ontario does not offer to pay for that), yet had he been Catholic, he would not have had to pay. That is legislated discrimination in clear violation of UNHCR Article 26 to which Canada is a co-signatory.

 

[Machjo]

Other interesting links to the subject:

Separate school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Home - www.OneSchoolSystem.org

 

[Machjo]

I don't fully agree with the opinion of the last link above (i.e. have but one system), but I would still prefer it to what we have now. A voucher system would work too. Or, like I said, the other honest alternative would be for the Ontario government to ask the Federalgovernemnt to withdraw its signature from the Convention.

 

[captain morgan]

According it, in order to comply with the rules, all religions must be treated equally, which gives the province a few options to remedy the situation. Among them:

To start, I am not familiar with Ontario legislation, but I am with Alberta laws. I'll assume that they are not diametrically opposed and answer accordingly:

1. All religious communities get the same legal status as Catholics in getting government funding for religious education.

They are equally recognized and also are able to receive money according to the funding formula... That last part is important in that $$ is allocated on a per student basis. If your neighborhood has a high Jewish population, the cash available from the educational system may be enough to justify building a school.. However, the school system can not afford to build individual schools fro small populations in that it will exceed the per-student allocations. The irony is that if they did build schools for individual religions/culture that had small populations, teh seperate and public systems would be discriminated against via not receiving the same $$ per student... Charter schools have bridged this gap, but the kicker is that the families of those students must make up the difference and no one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

2. No religious school gets funding. This I believe is the Green Party platform, though it's been wiling to allow elective courses in world religions for interested pupils.

Why not? If that is the tack you want to take, then the only fair solution is that there is only one school system without any exceptions for charter or private schools... So, what have you really accomplished?

3. Leave it up to parents to decide, through a voucher system for example. I know the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has proposed this idea.

Essentially, that is what exists today in that the homeowner can allocate the portion of their property taxes to the system they want.

The case was brought before the UNHCR by a Jewish Ontario resident who'd complained that while he had to pay for his child's religious education, that had he been Catholic, he would not have since his taxes would then have paid for it. Anyways, you can read the official report at the link in the OP.

See the above example that details the funding formula and minimum populations to justify the capital outlay and operating costs.... In the end, that example you offered represents many groups including those households that have no kids. In fact, if youreally want to get particular about it, an argument could be made that suggests that families with lots of kids relative to families with one child get an disproportionate benefit compared to teh one child family.

Like I said, I am going on AB law and experience and am assuming that the system in Ontario is similar. In the end, this issue could easily morph into a very complicated issue based on teh overwhelming number of variables that must be considered.