Canada in violation of international law
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
So there is no contradiction in the Constitution? We have religious equality but privilege for Catholics? I'd think that in the case of contradiction, the most recent amendments and laws would override the older ones.
Now if this violates the older parts of the consitution, then we should recind the equality of religion parts and reword them to clarify that we have equality of religion except for Catholics who have special privilege?
Are you saying that history excuses religious favouritism?
I'd rather be an idiot than defend injustice.
I love the country. I hate the inequality. But if that is the part of Canada that makes you proudest, go figure.
So are you saying Catholics would rather hod us to an unjust law rather than willingly bow out of their privileged status?
So I take it that you would rather live in a country with inequality than one with equality. Suit yourself. What a nice principel to defend and stand up for!:roll:
it's not unjust..... this was the deal made at the time...this is the deal we stick with. When I lived in BC I had to pay the big bucks to put my kid in Catholic School...... now in Alberta, Catholic School is right along side public school. 2 different provinces, 2 different ways of doing things, 2 different deals to eneter confederation. Was I pissed I had to pay in BC....nope... that's the way it was. It's not like the Catholic School Districts, at least here in Alberta, restrict who may attend the schools.
In BC everyone is on an equal footing. That's what I call just. Any province that had agreed to join Confederation on the promise of Catholic Education should of course be free to leave Confederation if we remove this priviledge so we can honour the agreement.
Imagine if the agreement to enter confedration was that we had to drown a maiden once a year. Would you be defending that in spite of the injustice, just because it was part of an agreement?
Why could we not simply offer optional religious courses in mainstream schools instead of promoting such apartheid?
So you're defending a special privilege for your religion, and that's OK and just because it's your religion. When I point it out, it's suggested that I'm a Catholicophobe (I suppose the UN is too then?), and that I whine and complain too much about injustice.
OK, I get it. We should all turn a blind eye to injustice.
are you for real?????????? drown a maiden.....aparthied.......... I was right the first time......you're a frickin moron.:roll:
but I'll give ya one more chance...... what apartheid.
Well, then I could see a quasi-solution, which would be to establish public Muslim schools, Jewish schools, Protestant schools, Orthodox schools, etc.
It would be expensive, still not totally just in that it's forcing people to pay taxes to fund education in a religion they ae not a part of, but at least it woud put all the religions on an equal footing.
As for the young maiden, it's unjust obviously. I took an extreme example to point out that you're defending an injustice. The only difference is the degree of injustice.
As for apartheid, seeing that few Cathlics would attend a secular school in provinces that have Catholic schools, isn't it a form of apartheid, albeit on a much lower scale? By definition, apartheid means separation. Are they not being separated?
IU have nothing against parents paying for their own child's education at a private religious school, possibly with tax-deductions for it. Since that way the parents are paying for their own child's education. But when PUBLIC funds support one religion but not another, that by definition is a double standard. How can you defend that with a straight face?
It would be expensive, still not totally just in that it's forcing people to pay taxes to fund education in a religion they ae not a part of, but at least it woud put all the religions on an equal footing.
As for the young maiden, it's unjust obviously. I took an extreme example to point out that you're defending an injustice. The only difference is the degree of injustice.
As for apartheid, seeing that few Cathlics would attend a secular school in provinces that have Catholic schools, isn't it a form of apartheid, albeit on a much lower scale? By definition, apartheid means separation. Are they not being separated?
IU have nothing against parents paying for their own child's education at a private religious school, possibly with tax-deductions for it. Since that way the parents are paying for their own child's education. But when PUBLIC funds support one religion but not another, that by definition is a double standard. How can you defend that with a straight face?
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 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 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)
So if you're anything other than Catholic or Protestant, your Constitution is telling you to screw yourself. Even Indigenous Spirituality is ignored. Heck, not European enough, I suppose. Who cares about justice. Our Constitution is ther to protect status, not justice.
(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 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 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)
So if you're anything other than Catholic or Protestant, your Constitution is telling you to screw yourself. Even Indigenous Spirituality is ignored. Heck, not European enough, I suppose. Who cares about justice. Our Constitution is ther to protect status, not justice.
Nope, not at all...
Except it could have a couple clauses about limiting the amount of gun restrictions...and establishing Free Speech for all, not just the left...and of course, they could have made it a little clearer, so as to avoid having used against Canada by immigrants and asshats.
But all in all, I like living under it.
Canada
Old Scona High School in Edmonton, Alberta.
Per the Canadian constitution, public-school education in Canada is a provincial responsibility and, as such, there are many variations between the provinces. Junior Kindergarten (or equivalent) exists as an official program in some, but not most, places. Kindergarten (or equivalent) is available in every province, but provincial funding and the level of hours provided varies widely. Starting at grade one, at about age five there is universal Crown-funded access up to grade twelve (or equivalent). Schools are generally divided into elementary or primary schools (Kindergarten to Grade 7), and secondary, or high school (Grades 8 to 12); in some schools, particularly in rural areas, the elementary and middle levels can be combined into one school. Commencing in 2003, Grade 13, or OAC, was eliminated in Ontario; it had previously been required only for students who intended to go on to university. Children are required to attend school until the age of sixteen.
Some Canadian provinces offer segregated-by-religious-choice, but nonetheless Crown-funded and Crown-regulated, religiously-based education. In Ontario, for example, Roman Catholic schools are known as "Catholic school", not "public school", although these are, by definition, no less "public" than their secular counterparts.
The act of parliament that brought Alberta into Confederation stipulates that each school district in the province must have both a public school and a separate school system; despite their names, both school systems are considered "public" in the greater scope of the term, as both are funded by the Crown-in-Right-of-Alberta. In districts where the majority of taxpayers are Roman Catholics, the public school system is run by the Roman Catholic school board, while in all other districts, the separate school system is run by the Roman Catholic school board. A certain proportion of property taxes are allocated to schools; each taxpayer chooses which school system he or she wishes to support, and is allowed to vote for school trustees based on their choice. As of 2006 only one school district, St. Albert, has a majority of Roman Catholic taxpayers, but many districts (including St. Paul and Bonnyville) have been majority Roman Catholic at one time or another. In Calgary, Jewish, Sikh, and Hindu public schools are also supported by the separate school system
Well....... just a lil info I found while "researching"( something I know machjo isn't too good at).
It doesn't change the principle that one is protected in the Constitution, the others aren't.
Are you suggesting that we revise the Constitution to reflect modern views of equality, or preserve it as a traditionalist relic?