Canada: Ontario democracy fails faith-based test of maturity

[SOO MAAL]

Ontario democracy fails faith-based test of maturity

Haroon Siddiqui

 

TheStar.com - columnists

October 07, 2007

 

 

Dalton McGuinty was stumped by "sharia" and John Tory by his promise to fund all faith-based schools. Both were undone by public unease with Muslims and Islam, blatant in the first instance, implicit yet not all that hidden in the second.

 

The losers aren't really Muslims.

 

It is the Christians and Jews, who had been doing religious arbitration since 1991, who lost that right when McGuinty, faced with a furor over extending the same right to Muslims, cancelled it for all.

 

Now Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and other faith schools may pay the price for fear of Muslim schools being funded.

 

I oppose both religious-based arbitration and funding for faith-based schools. But regardless of your position, think about this: When a mature democracy like ours cannot debate issues in a rational manner, we all have a problem.

 

Not all opposition to funding religious schools is driven by bigotry. But much of it is, as candidates from the election trenches attest.

 

Tory's frustration at not being heard out is thus understandable.

 

The issue, while not complicated, offers no "right" answers, as the following arguments show.

 

* Let's not "segregate" our kids.

 

But we already do, by religion (Catholic), language (French or English), gender (all-boys, all-girls schools, albeit private), subjects (alternative schools for arts, sports, etc. within the public system).

 

* Public schools, the common cathedral for children of diverse backgrounds, make them Canadian.

 

Are students emerging from Catholic schools less Canadian?

 

* Public schools help integrate immigrant kids, thereby contributing to our multicultural success.

 

But Catholic immigrants (more a third of the new arrivals) send their kids to Catholic schools. Are those children less integrated?

 

* Spending $400 million on faith-based schools would weaken/destroy the public school system.

 

But in the six provinces that do fund faith-based schools, public schools have not crumbled. In fact, Alberta, which has the most privatized schools and offers the most competition, is touted as having the nation's best system.

 

Plus, it is strange to argue that funding 675,000 students in Ontario Catholic schools has not destroyed the public system but funding another 53,000 would.

 

Implicit in that argument is the notion that Catholics, whom we didn't trust at one time, are now acceptable but Jews, Hindus and Sikhs are not. Or that they all are but Muslims are not. Opposition to abortion, gay marriage and women priests from Catholics can be tolerated, but not from orthodox Jews, Muslims and others.

 

This is not a sustainable proposition in a democracy.

 

* Muslim schools can't be trusted to teach Canadian values and may even turn out terrorists.

 

The 18 people charged in the Toronto area for terrorism-related charges (now down to 15) are products of public schools. So were the 2005 British subway bombers. So are the 100 or so awaiting terrorism trials in Britain and Germany.

 

Also, some of the best academic results are found in Islamic schools, both in Britain and Canada.

 

Are there some bad Islamic schools, with poor standards and antediluvian attitudes? Sure. But they aren't the only ones. Even if they are, it'd be better to bring them under state supervision by extending funding with strings attached: qualified teachers, standardized tests and provincial inspections.

 

That's what Britain is doing and that's what Tory is suggesting.

 

* Funding only Catholic schools is not right but it's a historical anomaly we have to live with.

 

No, we don't. We could fund all or none. The latter would need Parliamentary approval, as Newfoundland and Quebec obtained.

 

This leaves us with the "Not Now" argument. That's a position of principle or a not-so-clever dodge. "Not Now" because we will deal with it in the calmer post-election period. Or "Not Now" because we'd rather procrastinate and hope it would go away.

 

It won't. Muslim bashing will take us only so far, and not far enough.

 

MMP: I'm for it. It promises to make the system more democratic and the Legislature more representative. It can increase citizen engagement, especially among the young. The danger of minority governments is surely overstated: The Trudeau minority (1972-74) and the David Peterson one (1985-87) produced great legislation.

 

Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday in World & Comment and Sunday in the A section. hsiddiq@thestar.ca

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

MMP: I'm for it. It promises to make the system more democratic and the Legislature more representative. It can increase citizen engagement, especially among the young. The danger of minority governments is surely overstated: The Trudeau minority (1972-74) and the David Peterson one (1985-87) produced great legislation.

Waan ku raacsanay with Haaruun on this. Mixed-member proportional. I will vote for it on the next week's plebiscite.

[SOO MAAL]

Decades of injustice corrected with funding

 

(Oct 5, 2007)

 

I am happy and relieved to see a major political party once again raising the issue of fairness in educational funding.

 

This can only be a good thing for all of education. First, it rectifies decades of injustice, as confirmed by the United Nations, to a number of Ontario citizens and their children. Dalton McGuinty's constant fear mongering aside, the practice of funding faith-based schools will not, in fact, take any money away from the public and Catholic school systems. These schools are funded on a per student basis and if each one of the 50,000 students currently enrolled in faith-based schools were to enroll in the public school system the public school system would find a way to accommodate them. Clearly the money exists. This is because parents of students attending faith-based schools pay education taxes. Thus the funds already exist, and have for many, many years, to properly fund each student in Ontario. In addition, at least six other provinces already practice some form of funding for faith-based schools and their social fabric seems to be in good repair.

 

Making the public education umbrella a larger one will ensure that all students in Ontario are taught by qualified teachers and that all students in Ontario get an education that meets or exceeds the same standards as the current public and Catholic systems. Accountability is a good thing, even necessary. So why all the fuss?

 

Joanne Greidanus

 

Ancaster

[SOO MAAL]

Support faith schools

 

PETER AND CATHY VAN DEN BERG

 

 

We would like to address the issue of funding independent faith-based schools.

 

We are parents who have our children attend Christian schools.

 

Under the current system, Ontario collects taxes from all of us and uses some of this money to fund our public and Catholic schools. There are, however, many independent faith-based schools that do not receive any of this money, even though all of the families that send their children to these schools are taxpayers. Putting it simply, Ontario supports educational choice for some parents of one faith, but leaves no choice for other faith communities.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged this as discrimination. The United Nations has twice cited Canada to be in violation of civil liberty agreements it signed because of Ontario's practice of funding only one type of faith based education.

 

Six other Canadian provinces have recognized this inequality and injustice and are supporting educational choice for the parents.

 

Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence showing that expanded public education that includes more faith-based choices is more effective and efficient for all students including in our public schools.

 

Peter and Cathy van den Berg

 

Gorrie, Ont.

[SOO MAAL]

With religious schools debate, secularism hits a war footing - Faith leaders fear anti-Semitism, Islamophobia might eventually cost Catholics their schools

 

 

 

October 06, 2007

 

Stuart Laidlaw

Faith and Ethics reporter

Tonronto Star

 

An ugly underbelly of discrimination has been exposed by the debate over religious school funding in the current provincial election, entrenching both sides in their positions.

 

And it may end up costing Catholics their schools – at least that's what faith leaders fear.

 

"The underlying prejudices came to the fore," says B'nai Brith executive vice-president Frank Dimant.

 

Conservative Leader John Tory wants to extend funding to faith-based schools in the province if they join the public system. The plan has been attacked by all parties and proven unpopular with most voters, forcing Tory to back off by saying he will allow a free vote in the Legislature if elected.

 

Meanwhile, those who favour such funding now see a greater need for separate schools, while those opposed seem to have hardened their attitudes toward the role of faith in society.

 

Currently, only Catholic schools receive public funding. Schools based on other faiths get no government money, so rely on what are often very high tuition fees, making them inaccessible to many families. Advocates of funding for such schools say it would only be fair, since Catholic schools get public money.

 

All this has led some to question why Catholic boards get any money at all, Dimant says.

 

Oliver Carroll, chair of the Toronto Catholic board, shares Dimant's worries. "This is, if nothing else, a shot across the bow for Catholic education."

 

"This election has shown what people think and to some degree it's a mini-poll on what people would do if they were actually voting on Catholic education tomorrow," Carroll says.

 

"There's hard lessons in it for all of us."

 

M.D. Khalid, chair of the Islamic Schools Association of Canada and a supporter of the Catholic system, is more optimistic, saying the existing separate system is simply too entrenched to dismantle now.

 

"It would be a nightmare if they tried to touch it," he says.

 

Khalid has, however, detected anti-Islamic sentiments in some of election campaign discussions, saying there are still many ill-informed people who associate non-Christian religions with terrorism, violence and suppression of women's rights.

 

A recent poll by Ottawa-based SES Research uncovered growing resistance to accommodating minorities and faith groups in Canada.

 

Only 18 per cent of those polled felt cultural and religious groups should be totally accommodated, while 53 per cent said such groups should not be catered to. The rest fell somewhere in between.

 

That sentiment was strongest in Quebec, where an election earlier this year brought questions of "reasonable accommodation" into focus. SES president Nik Nanos says the debate over faith-based schools in Ontario has ignited the debate here, as well.

 

Most people are willing to make accommodations for others here and there, but are beginning to question just how much ought to be done.

 

"We're getting to a particular tipping point where people are beginning to wonder where all the incremental changes are taking us," Nanos says.

 

Khalid has played host to several public and Catholic high-school students on field trips and says that whatever misconceptions the students arrive with, they leave with a greater understanding of Islam and a higher level of tolerance.

 

That, Khalid says, bodes well for the pro-funding side of the argument as it attempts to keep the issue alive after the election, whoever wins on Wednesday.

 

The key to overcoming people's fears, he says, is to teach them that they have nothing to worry about in helping pay for religious schools.

 

"It's a lack of education that's feeding this phobia," he says.

 

Nanos, however, warns that Khalid may have his work cut out for him. Another recent SES poll found that 51 per cent of Ontario voters felt that funding for religious schools would lead to more segregation in the province. Only 13 per cent of those polled felt it would have no impact on the current school system.

 

This election has put the question of faith-based funding on the public agenda, Nanos says, where he expects it to stay for a long time yet.

 

"We will look back on this as the faith-based funding election."

[SOO MAAL]

MMA,

 

The Mixed-member proportional has major weaknesses, how ordinary people can can remove unpopular Member of Parliament?

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Originally posted by SOO MAAL:

MMA,

 

The Mixed-member proportional has major weaknesses, how ordinary people can can remove unpopular Member of Parliament?

Soomaali, I don't understand su'aasha saaxiib. Can you rephrase it, baliis.

[SOO MAAL]

Under the current system every constituency elects its representative in queens park, it’s a democratic every MPP is accountable to his voters. However under the proposed system it’s undemocratic, the party is appointing the members of the parliament not the people, and so people are electing the party not individuals, there will be unqualified members in the parliament, who are not accountable to the voters since the voters didn’t elect them

[Aaliyyah]

Support faith schools

 

PETER AND CATHY VAN DEN BERG

 

 

We would like to address the issue of funding independent faith-based schools.

 

We are parents who have our children attend Christian schools.

 

Under the current system, Ontario collects taxes from all of us and uses some of this money to fund our public and Catholic schools. There are, however, many independent faith-based schools that do not receive any of this money, even though all of the families that send their children to these schools are taxpayers. Putting it simply, Ontario supports educational choice for some parents of one faith, but leaves no choice for other faith communities.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged this as discrimination. The United Nations has twice cited Canada to be in violation of civil liberty agreements it signed because of Ontario's practice of funding only one type of faith based education.

 

Six other Canadian provinces have recognized this inequality and injustice and are supporting educational choice for the parents.

 

Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence showing that expanded public education that includes more faith-based choices is more effective and efficient for all students including in our public schools.

 

Peter and Cathy van den Berg

 

Gorrie, Ont.

 

I support funding religious schools. The future of the Muslim children are at stake. Many Muslim parents send their kids to public school, even though they would prefer sending their kids to islamic school.

 

I am voting for John Tory, and any one who cares abt the future of Muslim kids will.

 

We wants our Muslim kids to preserve their religion while learning a curriculum that is up to standard.

 

wa salaamu alaikum

[Al-Muminah]

^^

 

Salaam, are you serious ukhti? C'mon, as bad as it sounds Islamic schools are not up to standard. The sad truth is that those who finish their secondary education at an Islamic school will not get accepted into post-secondary schools (or education) because it ISN'T up to standards. In my day, gabdho used to stay an extra year or however long it took for them to have the proper prerequisites to get into post-secondary schooling. Ruunti Islamic school ma ka roon public school.

[LayZie G.]

SOL ontarians, listen and listen carefully.

 

Don't even try to vote for so called leader of the PC party. By proposing that he would go ahead and back this faith based school education proposal, he shot himself in the foot, and at the same time handed the election to his opposition, our premier McGuinty. If Mr Tory wins on wednesday's election, it would be one big miracle in my book.

 

I mean, what kind of an idi*t makes a proposal as big as the faith based schools funding when he didn't even have the backing of his own party? What does that say about their so called leader aka JOHN TORY.

 

Ask yourself this ontarians, are you really that oblivious to these elections that you would waste your vote on a man such as John Tory? He is doomed, forget about him and his scheming proposal, which by the way would never have passed on.

 

I don't like his opponent aka our reigning Premier. Didn't vote for him in office then and won't vote for him now, but atleast he kept his mouth shut while his opponent shut himself in the foot.

 

John Tory waan ku qosley markuu families with children oo autism qabo oo u plead gareeye, thats when I knew he was doomed. I mean, he literally used the american headlines of today, that is "HOLLYWOOD meets autism" for anyone keeping up with the hype surrounding Jim carrey's girlfriend's son and other hollywood goers, toni braxton's child, holly robinson, all of a sudden are the poster women for autism. Here they are appearing on television shows, magazines, even tabloids talking about autism and what does JOHN TORY do? He pleads with the ontario mothers and children of autism qabaan, vows to pledge $75 million on waiting list, bla bla bla, old news.(sound familiar?)

 

When you know a politician uses today's headline as a strategy, thats when you know inuu san meelba aadeynin.

 

If you are reading this and you are an ontarian, you are asking, why should I vote at all?

 

You should vote because I am tired of going into the booth every election and afraid of picking my local policitian because he/she is in a weak party, so I pick the party close to defeating that other party I hate so much.(because thats just the type of system we have right now)

 

If we would vote down on that old system that allows us to vote for someone we don't even want in office, all because to avoid another party in winning the seats, not anymore.

 

If you go to the ballots on wednesday, I seriously encourage you SOLers to vote for the Mixed Member Proportional aka MMP after you are done voting for your local candidate.

 

You want a difference, ontarians? MMP is the way to vote for the future

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Well, well, well, the results are in. As expected the Liberals won a comfortable majority, though with merely 42 per cent of the votes. This is why we need the new mixed-member proportional for. Had the election used this formula, of course, the Liberals would not have won this easily.

 

 

Our Soomaali friend, Max'ed Muunye Qaasin, who was campaigning the xaafad most Soomaalis in Koronto reside, Etobicoke North, alas, couldn't make the cut. He should have realized the day he decided to a run for a party that nurtured and made its leader Mike Harris. Soomaalis still know what Harris did to this province and to recent immigrants, especially to then our new community, so I guess a few Soomaalis have voted for Md. Qaasin's party.

 

And to spoil it, few more votes from the Soomaali community was stolen by that young man's supporters, Jaamac Saciid Jaamac Qorsheel.

 

I hope there were strong numbers on the referendum, though the bar was set too high for the plebiscite to pass at 60 per cent.