msj

I did not invade anywhere. I was born on Vancouver Island long before many first nation's people were born here and I am not going anywhere. You do realize that people like me just can't do DNA tests and then carve ourselves up: ok, I'll cut off this chunk that can stay here in Canada since it is First Nation, oh, this leg I'll send to Italy, that arm I'll send to England, my other arm to Scotland, this part to Africa, that part to central Europe etc etc... [I'm quite the brown eyed mutt, no?] No, seriously, in the real world us invaders are not going anywhere hence the need for treaty settlements (which, btw, I happen to audit in my profession).

As an employer I hate stats as it means my staff get time off with pay. I'm paying them to sit on their asses while I am often working (Good Friday anyway - I no longer work at Xmas anymore since I usually am on vacation in a foreign country which often proves interesting as even in communist Laos they have Xmas decorations, for example). But, whatever, the extra 11 days or so that my staff get off with pay each year hopefully makes them more productive overall.

I agree with Boges: singing a watered down carol or even various folk songs from Jewish/Hindu/Sikh/etc doesn't bother me. The context is different than partaking in a religious ceremony. But have a priest show up to get little Johnny to sing "Onward Christian Soldier" after forcing Johnny to sit through a religious ceremony because his parents had less than 2 days notice to be notified? Well, that's worth suing over regardless of how much notice is given.

No, didn't miss it but it is such an obvious case what is there to say about it? Good for the woman for challenging it. I support her on this. Would be nice for Saskatchewan to update themselves to modern secular times as BC has been trying to do with section 76 of its School Act. Well, until the Nuu-Chah-Nulth came along to try and undermine it with their "cultural" argument in Port Alberni as linked in the OP.

It's very easy to learn about many religious practices now days. Google and youtube are both effective tools for this. One does not need to feel forced to participate in a religious rite by their teacher to learn about it. If you had actually read the legal correspondence then you would know that this is the larger issue.

I do not know if John Howitt elementary has a Xmas concert or a holiday concert so no idea. I'm fine with holiday concerts and ok with trees which I find to be more of a pagan thing ripped off by Christians, anyway. So long as there are no nativity scenes I doubt it is much of a big deal: de minimus in legal jargon which I have already mentioned quite a few posts ago. Even if Candice is being hypocritical it does not mean that she is incorrect to challenge the foisting of FN religious practices on her kids. It is up to other parents to seek legal remedies if they think other religious practices are being foisted on their kids and to the extent that these specific cases come forward with specific facts that I can actually read about and understand then I am sure I will support such actions. I am a consistent secularist and I don't know about Candice. Since she is not here to argue the point I don't see much value in such speculations that you and ?Impact feel compelled to provide on her behalf. I can only comment on the facts at hand which were provided in the OP and which took much prompting for you guys to finally get around to read before you started to head off into this line of speculation so you can change the goal posts.

Sure, and for those of us who are born in Canada, about 82% of us, I think, we not only do what we want, we also write it into law so we continue to get it. If only those FN's could have been so clever. At least they seem to be learning though. So quickly that they are trying to push their religious beliefs in our secular schools and getting around our laws by convincing foolish people that talk of cleansing spirits is cultural rather than religious.

If it was my kid I would write a letter. Change only happens when people step up.

Nice story, bro. Hmmm, I was in K to 12 during the late '70's through to early '90's and do not recall ever reciting any prayer at any time in my K to 7 elementary school and then 8 - 12 high school. My sister also did not have to recite any and she went to two different schools than me. We must have lucked out to go to 4 different public schools when you say it was compulsory to recite a prayer and yet we never had to recite a prayer. Which is to say that yes, our school system has definitley evolved and has been forced to change over the past few decades. But that is the point: to keep all religious participation out. Your justification in trying to pooh pooh the first nation religious participation looks the same to me as your unfounded allegation that Candice would pooh pooh Christian religious participation back then. Even if true, it would still be wrong. So, again, nice story, bro.

Agreed, although it is section 2(a) that is problematic. In my post under the gender topic I go into the problems with respecting religious freedom when considering orthodox Jews and women on airplanes. There is no doubt a real conflict and the Charter provides too much respect to religions which we must respect to some degree if we are to respect our own laws.

Again, it is clear from the letters that had the second incident not happened this matter would have been dropped. The parent seems to understand de minimus non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) but having 2 incidents within months of each other is a line being crossed. Stating a prayer at an assembly and having children participating in a religious ceremony is beyond trivial especially since we know priests would not be allowed in to perform sacraments nor to speak prayers (and as it should be -- keep them all out).

Ok, that's better. Again, read what the SD stated in its own letter to the parents: ...cleanse our own spirits to allow GREAT new experiences ... and so on. That's not much different than sprinkling water on ones head or immersing a person in water as a symbol of purifying or regenerating a person into the "great" (I'm sure ) Christian Church (insert denomination here ________).

Nice ad hominem about the parent.... none of which is relevant to the case, I notice. Maybe when you have something of substance to add then we can discuss further.

For those interested in supporting this fight, you can donate here: https://www.jccf.ca/donate-to-jccf/

The reason secularists fight about things like this is to keep all religious indoctrination out of secular schools.

Cleansing with water vs cleansing with smoke/fire. My gawd, I'm an accountant and even I can appreciate the metaphor in that. I mean, really, holy shit, literally.

Lets also add to the list as reasons why this should be a federal case: https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Servatius-v-SD70-EXHIBITS.pdf I suggest you read pages 23 through 29 to get a better sense of the issues. This is not merely a case of one cleansing ritual. In January of this year it appears that there has been another incident involving a prayer. That is a repeat offence after already being warned by the parent that the initial incident was unacceptable. It appears likely that had the school not violated section 76 twice we would have never known of the first incident as the parent was not going to pursue it. I also ask people to read the remaining pages thereafter as it lays out the various rulings from other cases and reasons for the Charter challenge. I particularly enjoy the email from Greg Smyth (Superintendent for SD70) who responds in an email that they need more time. [see page 37] Oh, the irony is so laughable. Then keep reading noting the dates and lack of professionalism on the School Districts' part. Timeliness is a one way street it seems. What a clown show our bureaucrats offer us.

No, my scenario is exactly equivalent: One religious group comes in and performs their little cleansing ritual with burning sage versus another religious group coming in to perform their little cleansing ritual with water. That's why it is wrong for either group to come in.

So, you are saying that if Evangelical Christians went to the school on less than 2 days warning and baptized grade 3 students then you are cool with it?

I have never been one to follow the herd which is probably part of it. I also will guess that some thought they were being polite to make the motions and partake in it. In my view they are rude, insincere, mockers. Again, if you do not sincerely believe then you should not participate. That is only "sensitive" in that I actually am more respectful than the people who participate think they are being. Yes my wife and I had a little discussion about it. The anthropologist in her wanted to partake in it and she was not impressed when I told her that this is exactly why anthropology is considered a social science. There was no love that night.

It's a case because someone is willing to step up and take it to court. The practice ought to be considered the same as if Evangelical's came to the school and started dunking kids in water to cleanse them. Clearly that would be contra the School Act and as The Squid nicely states above: if this practice is deemed to be against the Charter then the practice must stop anyway. Only way to know for sure is to take it to court. If you want to pursue Xmas trees and Halloween decorations in the courts then be my guest.

Let me put it to you this way: if this was a story of an Evangelical Protestant group coming into a school on less than 2 days warning and having the kids "learn" about baptisms by dunking them in water and stating a few Biblical words then not only would I be supporting the lawsuit against the school for promotion of a religion but I would be wondering how complicit the staff were in this event. Up till now I've given the administration a pass in this regard but, to be fair, I have to wonder to what extent they are just incompetent and to what extent they wanted the kids to "accidently" particpate in this "voluntary" event even though the letter was awful and the timing suspect. That is, am I giving them a pass because this event was related to First Nations religious practices so I assume that these people are not as underhanded as I think/know Christians to be?

Oh isn't that a nice little crap to thing to say. There are lots of reasons to not participate: 1) I'm not a practicing Buddhist. 2) if I was I would find it a mockery to have others insincerely mimick my rituals which I would presumably take seriously and sincerely as a practicing member. 3) #2 is a big one for me because while I'm an atheist, I do respect others rights to sincerely believe what they want to believe. I may think it's pure crap but they have a right to hold their beliefs sincerely and so long as they don't bug me then I won't mock them. 4) why participate in something that you are not? I have not been baptized nor smudged because I am not a Christian nor of First Nations heritage (well, not quite enough anyway, its complicated).

And commented no less.

As I stated earlier in this thread: when in Thailand I was the only one in my tour group who did not partake in a Buddhist ceremony. I did so because although I do practice and share some Buddhist beliefs (although more Tao te Ching type stuff) I do not fall for the ceremony crap. I also thought it important to stand up to the peer pressure of participation. Yes, you do stand out, even as an adult, for not doing what the herd is doing. Watching the event was not all that inspiring as it was just the usual religious crap - they are all more same, same, but slightly different. Of course, one can learn about things in many different ways. When one is a child and the event is religious I do not think a child, in a secular school setting, should feel compelled in any way to participate in any religious ritual. Then can learn about it in other ways including observation (whether in person or by watching a video) and reading about it.