jacee

The majority of the Supreme Court however, dismissed the argument, noting section 93's importance as an agreement made between the foun ders of the nation to make Confederation possible. Since it was a political deal and not based upon the principle of freedom, section 2 of the Charter could not extend section 93 rights to other religions. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-nine_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms Like it or not, funding of Catholic education is here to stay, as it is a condition of Confederation. Politically, the only way to make funding 'fair' is to extend funding to all religious private schools. Some might choose to forego funding and remain private if, for example, they operate with smaller class sizes/more facilities and programs than provincial regulations will support. John Tory wasn't wrong: He was just naive in thinking he could get a majority of Ontarians on board with such a huge change in policy over the course of one election campaign, and especially without providing more money for education overall. That, in particular, was his downfall, naively suggesting it could be cost-neutral and leaving McGuinty the opening he needed: "I believe that taking half a billion dollars from public schools to finance private religious schools is a mistake," said McGuinty in various ads that aired yesterday. http://www.vigile.net/McGuinty-staking-future-on That focus could change with declining enrolments. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/enrolment.html

As I said, I don't want to see any ridiculous laws that would cause me to be arrested for putting my scarf over my face. And I doubt people want to see Hallowe'en masks made illegal. None of this 'concern' is justified. It's just blind bigotry with no consideration of the implications for broader society. We are NOT going to outlaw face coverings. End of story.

Point being ... I'd like to be able to put my scarf over my face for whatever reason, and not be arrested for THAT alone. I am opposed to laws or illegal police orders to arrest anyone with their face covered.

Ya ... that'll really help him.

Not quite ...We've fallen into the habit of referring to the party in power as 'the government' but it's not ... There are three branches of government: Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy, with a Sovereign as head of State and an Sovereign as head of State and an elected Prime Minister as head of Government. Canada has a federal system of parliamentary government: Government responsibilities and functions are shared between federal, provincial and territorial governments. Federal responsibilities are carried out by the Monarchy and the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government. The Legislative branch of "Government" includes all elected MP's of all parties. Just a nitpick. Obviously, POS as they are as Justin Trudeau accurately pointed out, the HarperCons aren't going to take opposition members anywhere. Fortunately their opposing views were there anyway, in the youth delegation.

Yup that's the issue.We can't remove funding from the Catholic system, we can only add it for other faiths.

Different leaders won't change the constitutional guarantees of Catholic education. So integration as a public school choice is the only solution I think. "Segregation" doesn't apply here as people choose which system to support and attend. Unless one speaks of people choosing to segregate themselves by religion, which is closer to the truth, since freedom of religion is a given. BTW, the Catholic school system doesn't mind attracting non-Catholics (and their tax dollars) who sometimes choose it because it's in their neighbourhood, or they like the "structure" or "discipline", and don't mind the Christian education because they're not doing it at home. I guess my ideal would be that religious practices would be accommodated in all schools, and religious instruction too, as an option provided and paid for by parents. And students would otherwise all be mixed for regular curriculum in non-religious classes, sports, clubs, playgrounds, lunchrooms, etc. There are issues ... school personnel would not enforce students' religious attendance, for example, and that could be a big issue ... but I think integrated is the way to go in the future. It's a big thing for the public schools to take on, so maybe gradually is best. I'm glad McGuinty is taking on the bullying and gay-straight alliance issue, on behalf of the students themselves and against the wishes of his own church and the school system his kids attend and his wife teaches in, I believe.

Zz You know what? I don't really give a damn about any man's opinion of women's choice of apparel, including all the men on here who think it's their business: It's not. I'll go along with the vision impairment when driving though - eg, the fully covered burka with the lacy eye holes only - as long as it isn't just an excuse, but I think you are sincere. The 'excuse' by AW that some men wear burqas in robbing banks, however, is not sincere: If it was, then Hallowe'en masks would have been made illegal long ago. And wearing or holding your scarf over your face (or balaclava) in winter in Canada is sometimes an absolute necessity ... or a snowmobile helmet ... That's why I think this topic is so ridiculous. There is NO WAY I want my apparel options limited. In fact, on days of bad hair, bad face and bad body, I'd like nothing more than to throw on a burqa to zip to the store.

I have a friend - Afghani but grew up in Canada - who wears traditional dress including face covering on occasion, family and cultural events, etc. For some it's an option, not a necessity. My understanding is that it is not a religious necessity, but a cultural convention and a choice. I suspect that the number of women who would object to removing their face covering for official identification would be very small, and the number 'forced' to wear a face covering by men even smaller. I personally think this issue is a tempest in a teapot, blown up into a huge 'issue' by extreme right wingers whose prejudices are focused on Muslims these days, but likely extend to all non-white peoples. Let me be even clearer: The outcry against wearing of face coverings by Muslims arises from RACISM looking for any available target. It's an obsession ... I mean why are there so many lengthy threads on mlw focused on vilifying Muslims for any possible reason? It's ridiculous, and it's disgusting to me personally that a few people ... mostly MEN ... jump so angrily on any antiMuslim topic to vent their hatred, while trying to couch it in some vague 'legal' context. It's just stupid. I would support a Supreme Court challenge on this issue simply as a matter of personal belief, comfort and choice, but I think this issue is so overblown it's become totally boring. As I asked earlier ... where is this huge crime wave by burka-wearing women in Canada that justifies the hatred evident here, and the time and expense of government intervention? You know, at the G20, orders were given by the Toronto police Chief that all people wearing bandanas were to be arrested, and they were, a gross violation of civil liberties of Canadians. There are important issues of freedom from tyranny here. Can we focus on something of some importance instead of an issue that only reflects thinly veiled racism?

He told the truth in the House - it was a piece of shit move by Kent. Trudeau apologized. I don't hear Kent apologizing.

Taking into account the constitutional guarantee? I guess it's the doing that is the problem.

I don't have much problem with Blatchford's writing ... well ok her sentences are often meandering and embedded and her "mawkish" emoting is tacky ... but it's her opinions that I abhor! I posted it for a laugh, and I've had a few reading the comments. Yes, I'm sure that Toronto men seem 'light' after listening to the "manly-men" of the Shafia (trial) family. Blatchford doesn't have a light-hearted bone in her body, except for ridiculing others, and I don't find that light-hearted. Perhaps I likewise shouldn't laugh at her ... but I can only assume that if she didn't expect to be laughed at for her ridiculous opinions, she'd keep them in her diaries instead of a national paper. Men shouldn't hug ... boys shouldn't hug ... what crap! Discomfort with a man-hug is a sign of something distasteful imo. Not sure what, but it makes me uncomfortable to see it. Fortunately it's a declining phenomenon. Hugging without skin contact is safer (contagion-wise) than shaking hands. As for Ford being "too pink" ... I expect that's a rather disgusting racial reference but the irony of her calling him "too pink(o)" as I read it, is just too fun to pass up! I believe Blatchford's real heartthrob is Conrad Black ... you know, the sleazy ex-con manly-man ... poet.

Well you sure aren't a 'live and let live' libertarian! Ban this, ban that ... = control by the state over freedom of religion, freedom of choice, etc ... ! I might agree with you that the world would be better off without the Vatican-controlled Catholic religion, but people make their own choices. I hope that people who do leave the Catholic church make the effort to contact their parish and formally withdraw. Otherwise, the church still counts them when bragging about how many people they "represent".

I think we should redirect the oil sands corporate welfare to building a lid for Alberta. Maybe then the oil barons will actually try to reduce their emissions. OR we could pipe it into their houses! I think we could get much more creative with our corporate subsidies, to better effect than their current role of providing additional profit payouts to Harper's backers. Hey look ... perhaps it's 'not fair' that the world has woken up to greenhouse gas emissions just when Alberta hits paydirt. Ontario's manufacturing sector didn't have those constraints in its heyday, and nobody cared much what was being shipped out of BC ports til now. So, ya, I feel some sympathy for the oil boys having their moment stolen from them this way ... but that's reality. Now if the oil barons stepped up to the plate and put money into new emissions technologies ... at least the taxpayer funds they get for that purpose ... they could yet be the 'white knights'. The annual reports from my pension fund consistently reflect pressure from the membership to divest from oil sands stocks. The fund is reluctant and prefers to 'balance' those with more ethical investments, since oil is very profitable. Maybe we need to ask why oil is so much more profitable than other industries: Is it perhaps because ... - public subsidies pad their profits, - lack of environmental controls reduces their costs, - insufficient taxation - paying back to the country, - all of the above Yup ... all of the above. There is no good reason for extreme profitability of oil extraction except ripping off the taxpayers. -

You can't prove 'love', nor can you force people to marry only for love. People can marry for whatever reason they choose, except for fraudulent purposes.I find it quite odd that someone who claims to be a libertarian would want to implement such a subjective and unenforceable state law. The only way someone can truly be 'forced' is by forcible confinement and/or violence or threat of violence, all of which are already illegal. I think you are off base here, olp, perhaps well intentioned, but draconian nonetheless.

Public funding of Catholic school systems was implemented to ensure adherence to provincial curriculum among other things. With 30% of students attending Catholic schools by parental choice, it's hard to even make an argument for defunding, and virtually impossible to do. Considerable effort has gone into coordinating and sharing services like bussing, ordering supplies in quantity, etc in the past decade or so. I suggest making inquiries where you think you see wasteful duplication, but I suspect the "half full buses" are going different places. Such arguments usually accompany discomfort with funding religious education, though public funding is specifically not to be applied to the religious component. I see the appropriate and equitable solution to be funding of all (currently private) religious schools for delivery of public curriculum and adherence to public standards, while private funding must support the religious component. Not a popular solution as yet ... but I believe the time will come. My thinking has evolved over time and I now have no objection to religious indoctrination education in public schools, by parental consent only and without public funding. I also think all students should learn about world religions (without indoctrination) as well as ancient and native spirituality, agnosticism and atheism, etc., to gain exposure and respect for diversity.

Exactly ... How do you decide and who decides? Some people choose arranged marriage. Others who don't want it already have protection in existing laws. Essentially it's up to the individual to decide, and to seek legal or other assistance as needed - eg going to a shelter for protection and calling police.

Good grief! Such a flap about violations of existing laws! Am I to assume that those who deal in dangerous commodities consider it their right to violate laws? They're sure in a flap about enforcement of the laws! What IS the problem in complying with the laws? Even more than before, I say ... Why would Canadians trust industries that flout the laws to pipe and ship oil safely? The ridiculous level of hostility in this thread simply confirms my concerns.

I disagree with interfering with people's personal choices. I mean how stupid would it be to interfere with someone's choice to have an arranged marriage?! I think we have enough laws on the books to provide necessary help to those who do not want an arranged marriage forced on them.

I don't see any personal attacks in my posts that warrant the personal attacks received. I've been called names before, but "little" and "princess"? ... never. How does one who worked hard to support herself and family for 35 years suddenly become a "little princess"? Only in my dreams! Thanks for the chuckle! I take it as a sign that people are all out of meaningful arguments, and that's quite obvious. The laws are not being enforced, and that's to the advantage of those doing business in dangerous commodities in a manner that violates the laws. Obviously they're not going to argue against the "rule of law", so they can only rail against the poster. I'm going to call this thread a win. (Thanks cybercoma. You are a gentleman and a scholar. )

Hunh?Never mind.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/10/christie-blatchford-toronto-city-of-sissies The bull terrier and I were on a long forced march on the toney part of Yonge Street, in Rosedale. There were a couple of boys, maybe 10 years old, maybe 12, walking ahead of me. Coming towards them was another small knot of boys about the same age. The two groups met, and immediately began hugging each another, one at a time. The trustees and ding-dongs at the Toronto District School Board would have been ecstatic; I was mortified and appalled. I think that part of the reason it’s a bad time to be Doug or Rob Ford or anyone like them is that they are too big, too pink, too football-y, and therefore too potentially violent and too-old school manly for a lot of city folk. ... I’m just plain sick of hugs, giving and getting, from just about anyone, but particularly man-to-man hugs. If she didn't take herself so seriously, she'd be hilarious!

Miss your wheaties again?Somebody p'd in them? Winter getting to you? Hate Christmas? Maybe a quick holiday in Mexico would help!

So where is this huge crime wave by women in burkas that justifies intrusion into the freedom to dress as you please? Waiting to hear because I must have missed that!

Kyoto itself was not a farce. Canada's 'committment' to Kyoto was the farce, an embarassment on an international stage. It's quite disturbing how much contempt Harper and his ministers display for the rest of the world. Obviously the only human beings who matter to them are the Alberta oil barons. What a pathetic excuse for human beings they all are.