Rob Ford's Toronto

[TheTigerMaster]

That's just it. My limited understanding is that Ontario's education law basically forbids this requirement, but nonetheless many (but not all) catholic school boards will still force you to take it.

I'm not surprised. My experience with the TCDSB (can't speak for other boards) is that they (or at least the principals) have little regard for the law. My cousin was told that if he wanted to enroll in his local school (run by TCDSB, won't name names), he'd have to be confirmed in a Church. Obviously that was illegal and it wasn't until his parents started pressuring the school that they allowed him to be admitted. And many of the schools continue to covertly practice homophobia, according to what I've been told by family/friends who work in the TCDSB.

 

[PinkLucy]

I would be in favor of that too. But, it's not going to happen. Besides, I would think kids that are sent to catholic school get far more indoctrination at home than they do at school.

Not always. When my kids went to Catholic school, the teachers were annoyed that there was virtually no "indoctrination" at most homes. We attended church regularly with our kids, and we were definitely the exception. Most teachers didn't attend either. In our case, a lot of families sent their kids for the language (it was a French school), and just put up with the religion requirements.

 

[ahm]

ok, but Ontario is like 50% catholic, ain't it? never mind the fact that, from what i understand, this would take opening up the constitution? (swearsies, i have read that somewhere...)

i'd love non-religious publicly funded k-12 schools. not gonna happen anytime soon though.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

ok, but Ontario is like 50% catholic, ain't it? never mind the fact that, from what i understand, this would take opening up the constitution? (swearsies, i have read that somewhere...)

i'd love non-religious publicly funded k-12 schools. not gonna happen anytime soon though.

Catholics make up only 31%. The next largest is 'no religion', at 25%.

And yes, funding for Catholic schools are constitutionally protected. But there are two ways to go about eliminating it:

1) Cut funding to $0.01. The Constitution doesn't spell out how much funding. I suppose a school or two could be run on that.

2) Do what other provinces have done and strip the requirement from the Constitution. I believe Manitoba did this.

 

[JWBF]

ok, but Ontario is like 50% catholic, ain't it? never mind the fact that, from what i understand, this would take opening up the constitution? (swearsies, i have read that somewhere...)

i'd love non-religious publicly funded k-12 schools. not gonna happen anytime soon though.

According to Wikipedia:

Religion

As of 2011, the largest religious denominations in Ontario are the Roman Catholic Church (with 31.4% of the population), the United Church of Canada (7.5%), and the Anglican Church (6.1%). 23.1% of Ontarians have no religion, making it the second largest religious grouping in the province after Roman Catholics.

 

[blahblahblah]

These rights were given as part of confederation and are "constitutionally protected" and are going to be quite sticky. Bothers me too. Especially fact below grade 9 a non-catholic cannot attend a catholic school. 9 and above one can. That is wrong. Good article here: http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/09/25/jan-wong-the-elephant-in-the-classroom/ (link didn't take, must be doing something wrong. Those interested should be able to find it).

That's the point. These things shouldn't be funded. Transfer the schools to the TDSB, cut TCDSB funding to $0.01 and call it a day. It's against our (the governments) own interests to find them.

 

[Eug]

Back onto John Tory, I remember some TV interviews of non-Christian religious leaders at the time, who were first generation immigrants. I just remember them politely saying this faith-based school funding was stupid. I can't remember why they said that, but I suspect it's because they felt it would be too complex and costly. Certainly, that's what my Jewish friends and colleagues were saying too. I don't know if those specific religious leaders were truly representative of the prevailing opinion of their religious communities, but I suspect they in large part were, given the results of the election.

Just who was John Tory pandering to anyways? And why did he feel the need to pander to whomever he thought he was pandering to? Or does he truly believe this would be a good thing? Either way, that really makes me suspicious of him, even though he presents himself as a moderate righty.

 

[tdotdaver]

Another one bites the dust:


Jamie Strashin ‏@StrashinCBC 2m
Amidst all the news about David Price CBC has learned long time staffer Chris Fickel has left Mayor Ford's office.#sl

 

[TheTigerMaster]

These rights were given as part of confederation and are "constitutionally protected" and are going to be quite sticky. Bothers me too. Especially fact below grade 9 a non-catholic cannot attend a catholic school. 9 and above one can. That is wrong. Good article here: http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/09/25/jan-wong-the-elephant-in-the-classroom/ (link didn't take, must be doing something wrong. Those interested should be able to find it).

What are the procedures to have a constitutional amendment in Ontario anyways?

But as I said before, the Constitution is not much of an issue if we were to cut funding to one penny. That's still technically funding.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Back onto John Tory, I remember some TV interviews of non-Christian religious leaders at the time, who were first generation immigrants. I just remember them politely saying this faith-based school funding was stupid. I can't remember why they said that, but I suspect it's because they felt it would be too complex and costly. Certainly, that's what my Jewish friends and colleagues were saying too. I don't know if those specific religious leaders were truly representative of the prevailing opinion of their religious communities, but I suspect they in large part were, given the results of the election.

Just who was John Tory pandering to anyways? And why did he feel the need to pander to whomever he thought he was pandering to? Or does he truly believe this would be a good thing? Either way, that really makes me suspicious of him, even though he presents himself as a moderate righty.

You'd think that a Progressive Conservative would want to cut funding. I mean, it saves at least a few hundred million dollars. That should make the C in PC happy. And religious equality is progressive.

None of this makes any sense.

 

[JWBF]

You'd think that a Progressive Conservative would want to cut funding. I mean, it saves at least a few hundred million dollars. That should make the C in PC happy. And religious equality is progressive.

None of this makes any sense.

Most Catholics are Conservative supporters, I suppose, so why purposely destroy your voter base.

 

[flonicky]

It doesn't make sense because you're taking it at face value. The faith-based funding directs more students out of public schools and creates a more fractured system and makes it easier to reduce public school funding. It fits in with their policy moves during the Harris/Eves era to give more benefits to private schools. That government also floated the idea of US-style vouchers, which would give public education a real kick in the balls.

Divide & conquer.

 

[PinkLucy]

Most Catholics are Conservative supporters, I suppose, so why purposely destroy your voter base.

Strangely enough, this is not the case in my experience

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Just who was John Tory pandering to anyways? And why did he feel the need to pander to whomever he thought he was pandering to? Or does he truly believe this would be a good thing? Either way, that really makes me suspicious of him, even though he presents himself as a moderate righty.

You have to remember that the religious demographics were very different 10 years ago. Catholicism likely made up 40%+ of the population, and the no religion demographic was a blip on the radar. Now thing's have changed dramatically. Less than 1/3 of Ontarians are Catholic, and the 'no religion' group has surged to about 25%. By time the next election rolls around, no religion will be the largest religious group in the province, and Catholicism will have shifted town to 2nd place.

So his pandering made sense 10 years ago. He was trying to attract the 40% of people who were Catholics while also catering to the remaining 45% - 50% of people who were part of a religion. If the campaign were today, I'd expect that Tory wouldn't bring up the religion issue in fear of rejection from the 25% of people who are of no religion. The Liberals, on the other hand, would campaign on cutting religious funding to secure votes from the 25% of people who are of no religion.

 

[inyyz]

CityNews just announcing about Chris Fickel leaving City Hall to "pursue other opportunities". Wow, there are a LOT of opportunities out there....

Back to Videogate?