All in favour of changing charter of rights...

[Machjo]

It doesn't

Section 3 of the BNA Act 1867 and Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly refer to the Roman Catholic and Protestant school systems. In Waldman vs. Canada (1996), the UN High Commission for Human Rights ruled Canads in violation of Section 26 (prohibition of discrimination) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. so if the Separate School System is not discriminatory, why did the HRC conclude that it was?

 

[gerryh]

Section 3 of the BNA Act 1867 and Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly refer to the Roman Catholic and Protestant school systems. In Waldman vs. Canada (1996), the UN High Commission for Human Rights ruled Canads in violation of Section 26 (prohibition of discrimination) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. so if the Separate School System is not discriminatory, why did the HRC conclude that it was?

Tell me how it is discriminatory?

 

[Machjo]

Tell me how it is discriminatory?

To take an example which should be obvious to an eight year old:

If a Catholic father residing in Ontario wants to send his child to a Catholic school, he has the option of sending him to a fully taxpayer funded one
The Jewish father does not have that constitutionally guaranteed right. So either we apply it to all religions or none. The entire Waldman vs. Canada is available online in PDF form. As one would would expect, the HRC did its homework before coming to that conclusion. Waldman himself was a Jewish father who had paid to send his children to a private Jewish school because there was no taxpayer funded one.

 

[gerryh]

To take an example which should be obvious to an eight year old:

If a Catholic father residing in Ontario wants to send his child to a Catholic school, he has the option of sending him to a fully taxpayer funded one
The Jewish father does not have that constitutionally guaranteed right. So either we apply it to all religions or none. The entire Waldman vs. Canada is available online in PDF form. As one would would expect, the HRC did its homework before coming to that conclusion. Waldman himself was a Jewish father who had paid to send his children to a private Jewish school because there was no taxpayer funded one.

Anybody can send their kid to the Catholic School. No discrimination.

 

[Machjo]

Anybody can send their kid to the Catholic School. No discrimination.

Really?

Is that really your argument?

 

[gerryh]

Really?

Is that really your argument?

The Catholic Schools do not discriminate. No different than the public schools when it comes to non Catholics. The big difference...... you get a better education in the Catholic Schools than you do in the public. How do I know? My older kids went to public and my younger kids went to Catholic.

 

[petros]

Anybody can send their kid to the Catholic School. No discrimination.

And a choice of whether you want taxes to go to public or Catholic system. Now there are integrated public/catholic neighbourhood schools.

Catholics apparently with really good credit ratings are immigrating to Canada in droves. Mass is now like going to Superstore or a mall for ethnic diversity.

Fresh new Jesuits to take the helm of Canada.

Boo!

 

[Walter]

I can't think of any time that religion has interfered with my enjoyment of life or freedoms here in Canada. I understand that in the US is can be quite different.

You're misguided about the US.

Oh I know. Someone always knows what is best for us. Scary ain't it.

It's a lefty thing.

 

[whitedog]

Well thanks for all your feed back folks. I guess it's pretty much evident that you don't want the change. But I suspected as much, I was just interested in the whys.

As for atheists trying to change "believers'" beliefs, that's just nuts. For one thing, it would be a waste of time, my experience is that if someone believes something to be true, then for them, it's true. And besides, how does one prove something doesn't exist when the belief is simply based upon having faith that it does exist?

But to be clear ,religion and the belief in god are not the same. If they were, how do account for Jews and Christians?Last I heard, both believe in the same god. Just the club rules are different.

Atheists don't believe in gods, simply because they see no evidence to support their existence. But atheists most certainly acknowledge the existence of religion. And while it can be said that many atheists don't care for religion, the same can be said about various religious groups not caring for other religious groups.

Freedom from religion would prevent the state from imposing laws that are rooted in a particular religion. It would not prevent you from practicing your religion, unless of course, such practice infringed on other people. I would not have believed that in a scientifically advanced society as the US, if not the most advanced, that many state boards of education would remove evolution in favour of creationism from science books. If it happened there, it will happen here.

Cheers.

 

[bluebyrd35]

tell me how religions in Canada "interfere" in peoples lives.

My word, but it was very annoying when one religious sect person came Christmas morning, while I was still in my housecoat, starting the turkey. While I can hold my own chatting about religion and MY beliefs, doing it while preparing for 30 guests was out of the question. Happily, dad was there and took him off to discuss beliefs in another room. If dad r,an true to form that fellow was given plenty to think about.

Laws for that.

Trespass Act

Sure there are, but are you prepared to list the exceptions on the "No trespassing" signs??

You're misguided about the US.


It's a lefty thing.

Republican for sure!!

And a choice of whether you want taxes to go to public or Catholic system. Now there are integrated public/catholic neighbourhood schools.

Catholics apparently with really good credit ratings are immigrating to Canada in droves. Mass is now like going to Superstore or a mall for ethnic diversity.

Fresh new Jesuits to take the helm of Canada.

Boo!

Don't expect an English grade school education in Quebec, if your mother did not attend one. Even other English speaking Canadians fall into this slot.

 

[coldstream]

But the whole point of a Constitution is precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A country like Canada with over one hundred years of the residential school system, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Gradual Civilization Act, the abrogation of the right of Germans to send their children to school in German after WWI, and Japanese internment are all examples of the problem with the tyranny of the majority without proper checks and balances, unless of course we started to expect the Governor General, while still remaining non-partisan, to exercize more authority in deciding whether or not to sign any Bill into law. But considering the public outcry, you'd need a Governor General with balls of steele to do that.

Even today on-reserve schools continue to be underfunded relative to other schools. And the list of majority abuses of democracy go on today. So definitely we need some kind of Constitution that protects the minority from the majority. Absolutely essential.
One problem with the current Charter though is that it was written by the majority to protect the interests fo the majority, which defeats the whole point of a Bill of Rights.

Saying the petty ideologues and political hacks that now fill the Bench of SCOC and Courts of Appeal are any protection from tyranny is a joke. The US Supreme Court didn't protect the Japanese from their internment in WW2.. it supported slavery and deportation of escaped slaves back to their 'owners'... in decisions like the Dred Scott opinion.

Except in cases of war or rebellion Canada's Parliamentary system produced a fair and equitable democracy.. or at least as fair as us frail humans can allow it. It is the Charter of Rights that subjected Canada to rule by special interests and victims groups.. spurred on by the lamentable quality of its Justices.

That is without recourse for the people of Canada.. since our Parliament is too gutless to use the Not Withstanding Clause. It simply capitulates to the SCOC will.

 

[Twila]

You're misguided about the US.

How so?
Texas Governor, Rick Perry calls for legal discrimination against atheists
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/arc...discrimination-against-atheists&view=comments

Which states ban atheists from holding public office
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ates-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

Atheists aren't the problem, christian intolerance is the problem
http://time.com/3450525/atheists-arent-the-problem-christian-intolerance-is-the-problem/

 

[JLM]

Sure there are, but are you prepared to list the exceptions on the "No trespassing" signs??

You don't need exceptions............"No pedlars, agents or religious fanatics" works quite well!

 

[Twila]

You don't need exceptions............"No pedlars, agents or religious fanatics" works quite well!

You may want to leave the 'fanatics" off. They don't know they're fanatics. They think they're devout.

 

[darkbeaver]

I just thought I'd take a wee survey concerning this business of religious (albeit faulty) protection under the charter, section 2 (a) freedom of conscience and religion (for those unfamiliar with the wording).

Now how about we modify it to say (a) freedom of conscience and from religion. Its not a big change, doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, it just improves the level of freedom for all to enjoy. It simply prevents any religion from interfering in other peoples lives. Is it too much to ask?

Would it be that much of annoyance for you that you could no longer impose your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, on me and fellow Canadians? To be sure, it wouldn't affect holidays - oh maybe their titles, but a holiday is a holiday. and lets be honest, it isn't the charter that protects Christmas, otherwise, we'd have a lot more days of "celebration" - I'm sure the Jews and Muslims have few.

How about being plain old nice to your fellow man, as opposed to trying to dominate your neighbour, and support this change?

You can never be free of religion and remain human.

 

[Colpy]

If we threw the damned Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or the lack thereof) out, we might actually get BACK some of the rights we used to have, that have been so unceremoniously ripped away by this counter-productive, anti-liberty document.

We used to have freedom of speech. Remember? We don't anymore. Ask Whatcott. Oh, and truth doesn't count.

We used to have a right to keep arms. Remember? We don't anymore. At least according to Canadian jurisprudence.

We used to have the right to be treated as equals under the law. Remember? Not anymore. We now have "special " groups.

Kill the Charter??

I, for one, am all for it.

 

[darkbeaver]

You are one , calculate your chances

 

[Machjo]

And a choice of whether you want taxes to go to public or Catholic system.

False. Only a choice of which board to vote for. Taxes are pooled together. And even if you had been correct, this right would as apply only to Catholic and Protestant school boards (I think there is still one Protestant board left in Ontario).

Well thanks for all your feed back folks. I guess it's pretty much evident that you don't want the change. But I suspected as much, I was just interested in the whys.

As for atheists trying to change "believers'" beliefs, that's just nuts. For one thing, it would be a waste of time, my experience is that if someone believes something to be true, then for them, it's true. And besides, how does one prove something doesn't exist when the belief is simply based upon having faith that it does exist?

But to be clear ,religion and the belief in god are not the same. If they were, how do account for Jews and Christians?Last I heard, both believe in the same god. Just the club rules are different.

Atheists don't believe in gods, simply because they see no evidence to support their existence. But atheists most certainly acknowledge the existence of religion. And while it can be said that many atheists don't care for religion, the same can be said about various religious groups not caring for other religious groups.

Freedom from religion would prevent the state from imposing laws that are rooted in a particular religion. It would not prevent you from practicing your religion, unless of course, such practice infringed on other people. I would not have believed that in a scientifically advanced society as the US, if not the most advanced, that many state boards of education would remove evolution in favour of creationism from science books. If it happened there, it will happen here.

Cheers.

How far would we take freedom from religion? You saw how well that went down with the PQ's so called Charter of Quebec Values. I for one do not want the power to tell you to hide your religion from me.

Now as for making no distinction on the basis of religion as the UDHR words it, I could agree with that. This would mean what applies to one applies to all. Either all schools are funded or none. But no more separate schools. The UN has already officially criticized Canada for this.

The Catholic Schools do not discriminate. No different than the public schools when it comes to non Catholics. The big difference...... you get a better education in the Catholic Schools than you do in the public. How do I know? My older kids went to public and my younger kids went to Catholic.

A Fraser Institute study a few years ago explained the reason for this. It's called school choice. A Swedish study shoed the same for the Swedish voucher programme. Later other reforms were introduced that had caused the quality of education to decline, but that study had also shown the decline would have been more pronounced had it not been for the voucher schools.
This is also in line with Article 26(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 26(2) however clarifies that education must promote human rights among other things. Since the separate school system discriminates, it is therefore not the kind of school choice the UDHR had in mind. It is possible to raise the quality of education through school choice without violating international human rights covenants.

 

[bluebyrd35]

You don't need exceptions............"No pedlars, agents or religious fanatics" works quite well!

LOL where I live that sign would have to be bilingual and either side by side or with the French version above the English. Oh and the size of the printing must be equal for both versions, but the French can be larger.

As usual Quebec is different and the schools are now either English or French. Before this the Protestant school board had the best quality education, not just in Quebec but in Canada. I can still choose which school board for my taxes, but it is touchy. Instead of discrimination as to religion, it is now discrimination as to language.


It leaves much of the French speaking population very little chance to learn English. The English speaking families that stayed after Bill 101 was introduced are now perfectly bilingual with an advantage over both unilingual French and unilingual English not just in Quebec but in a fair bit of the world.