CANADIEN

The only reason I was yawning is that the "you were responding to a posting of mine therefore you must have been talking about me" bit is, quite frankly,boring. So is your attempt at turning what TrueMetis and others have said and clearly meant into something else. Poor substitute of lack of argument.

Army of God

Yawn. True <eti's intent was clear from the start, and it was to use the case of one Catholic school to oppose funding for any religious school. Your copying and pasting parts of postings that you can usesupport your attempt at making it otherwise, removing them from their context, will not change what was ACTUALLY said and meant.

Last time I checked, the police was still looking for suspects, and was saying they did not have any proof pointing to any individual or group of individuals.There is indeed is a possibility that the responsibles are Muslim extremists wanting to pay the makers of South Park back. But saying there is no proof is not the same as denying that's what happen. Unless some have actual proof, in which case they should contact the authorities and divulge their proof to them.

The issue is not freedom of association, it is the funding of schools other than those in the public system (and I would say not only the religious school, but any school).

Copying posts out of context is easy. Doesn't prove your claim of hypocrisy. Did you get the impression I was targetting you? Because if I had, I would have mentioned you by name. Was merely pointing out that the true hypocrisy is that of those who scream "freedom or religion" but change their tone whrn they hear the word Muslim. Good for you that you're not one of those.

It says we have to pay for Cathloci schools in Ontario.

We must be reading different threads here, because all those who have argued for no funding for religious schools have argued for no nfunding for ANY Ctholic schools. Fact is, the Catholic schools in Ontario are the only one with an iron clad constitutional protection. Feel free to twist what people have said whatever way you want, it will not work because the fact of what have been said here speaks for it self. Speaking of hypocrisy, I am sure that the stance in favour of religious schools will extend to muslim schools, right? The reality of the situation is that only Catholic schools in Ontario have their funding mandated by the Constitution. And that most Ontarians do not want government funding for any religious school, prefereing one publicly funded system. And that the Constitution can, and should, be changed. And where is that written? Is that official policy? Or is it rather the knee-jerk reaction of someone who is scared of gays and lesbians? BTW, you realize of course that if homosexuality is a defect, then it is not a matter of choice

The Gay Parade is not a school and schools are not parades. Try to compare apples with apples, will you?

It's not going to hold you say? It does hold, no matter how smelly it is. News to you. The job of the courts is not to decide what is popular or not. It is not to decide what is discriminatory or not. It is not to decide what is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, acceptable or not. It is to interpret the law. There is NOTHING the Courts can do about funding of Catholic schools in Ontario, to the extent that it is mandated by the Constitution. That's for the politicians to do, by doing what those in Quebec and Newfoundland did and change the Constitution.

Curious. I don't see it either. Nor did I say or implied anything of the kind. What I said is that the only wya to legally dispose with this anachronism is by changing the Constitution, because there is nothing the courts can do to change it. Unless of course you want the Court to ignore the law when interpreting it.

Wrong. Any court challenge of the funding of Catholic schools in Ontario has and will fail. Section 93 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 guaranteed the rights of Catholic schools as they existed at the time, including their right to government funding proportional to their enrolment. Section 29 of the Charter reads: In Adler vs Ontario (1996), a group of Jewish parents and Christian parents and schools argued that funding of Ontario Catholic schools in Ontario while not funding other denominational schools was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to freedom of religion (section 2 of the Charter) as well as the equality guarantees in section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court rejected the argument using sections 93 of the 1867 Act and section 29 of the Charter. The only legal way to terminate funding of the Catholic school system in Ontario is through an amendment to the Constitution. Newfoundland did it, Quebec did it, Ontario should do it.

I don't like the word priviledges personally, but to me if something in law (in this case the Education Act of 1863) said Catholic Schools were entitled to government funding, then they had the right to receive that funding, and if the Constitution (art. 93) said that nothing in provincial educational laws "shall prejudicially affect" the existing rights of denominational schools, than it means that the funding guaranted in the Educational Law of 1863 has to be maintained until the constitution is changed. I spologize to you. I should have just quoted the section in question, instead of just summarizing it. The exact wording of section 20 of the Education Act of 1863(quote from a 1987 judgement of the Supreme Court- I'll come back to that one below): To me, it means that if public schools in Toronto received 1000 dollars per student in funding from the Government, a separate Catholic school in Toronto with 156 students was entitled to 156000 dollars. So, the Ontario Government had (and still have a Constitutional obligation to provide the same level of funding to Catholic schools as to the public schools. But (I knw you'll love that twist), what schools are we talking about? The 1863 Education Act did not guarantee any government funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools for one very simple reason: technicallt speaking there were no public secondary school in Ontario in 1863, or in 1867, actually until 1871. So, no funding for public-sector secondary school in 1867 means no constitutional obligation for the provincial government to fund Catholic secondary schools. In a court case in 1927, the Ontario courts, three judges at the Supreme Court, and the (British)Privy Council he;d that view, and I tend to agree. Davis had no legal obligation to do what he did in 1984. Or one could view it the way three judges of the Supreme Court did in 1927, as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court did in 1987 when the davis bill was contested in court. They pointed out that both public and separate schools in 1863 (and 1867) were obligated by law to provide an approrpiate education to all pupils to age 21. The view is that it effectively meant both school systems were providing what would be considered today to be secondary education). Problem is - that was not the case. (the 1987 judgement is at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii65/1987canlii65.html; typical Supreme Court judgement, takes 10 pages to say what takes 10 lines) BTW: (excuse me for the uppercase here): I AM STILL OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE IN 1867 IS OBSOLETE AND NOT NEEDED IN 2010, AND NOW IS IN FACT DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST NON-CATHLOICS. THE PROVINCIAL LGISLATURE CAN, AND SHOULD, REQUEST THAT THIS PROTECTION BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT SHOULD COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST.

Depends on what the team is. The Capitals thought they had it pocketted after leading 3-1 games. Heck, most people thought it too. The Pens will not make the same error. And betting against the Habs is NOT like betting for the Leafs. When betting against the Habs, there is a chance thatyou'll win your bet. Totally impossible if you bet for the Leafs .

What a dumb and lazy comment.

This is not the case. Your argument ignores the reason why the "rights and prviledges" (to quote the Constitution) were granted: to protect a dispised minority )Roman Catholic in Ontario) against an hostile minority bent on using the "public" schools (in essence, Protestant schools) to marginalize them or assimilate them. Not exactly what I would call establishing a state religion (found an old Star column about the origin of the separate school system (http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/259225); good reading. This not to say, of course, that Roman Catholics need this kind of protection in 2010.

Actually, section 93 of the Constitutioal Act 0f 1867 DID grant funding to Catholic schools in Ontario to some extent. When looking for the word funding (which indeed does not appear in the text), you appear to have forgotten a fundamental rule of contitutional law... read between the lines. The preamble to the section, and the first paragraph read: The school rights enjoyed by the Roman Catholics in Canada West/Ontario in 1867 included the following ones, under the Education Act of 1863: - for the Separate (Roman Catholic) School Trustees had the same rights (section 6) and obligations (section 7) - Catholic taxpayers could be exempted from having their taxes going to the public schools (section 14), but the separate school board could them impose a tax on them (section 7) - Separate schools were entitled to a portion of the Common School funds set up by the Province. So, in 1867, Roman Catholic schhols in Ontario were entitled to funding, and that funding was, and is still, constitutionally protected.

My opinion is tainted by my huge dislike of that team (GO NORDIQUES GO ) but this year's Habs team does not have the talent to match their hearts. They will end up like the Flames in 2004 and the Oilers in 2010... fightinh gloriously bu losing in the end. And because they play the Penguins in the next round instead of later, their run will end in the seventh game of the Conference semi-final.

A judge is not a party to a trial, either civil or criminal. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties.

BTW... how manyformer European colonies that have become independant in the past 60 years have switched from having their former colonizer's language as an official lnaguage to having the language of another former colonial power? Biesides Rwanda, the number is... ZERO

In fact Quebec schools do not even compare with schools in Rwanda, where government wants all academic lessons to be taught in ENGLISH. Stop the hypocrisy, will you? Everyone knows your pipe dream is to see French disappear from Canada. Fortunately, it will not happen. On how to trample on people's rights to use the language(s) of their country? No need to go there; we have you as a... ahem... shining example. And how many of those do you think have abandoned their mother tongue in the process, or have switch to English as their first language? Most likely few. The way it should be. And everybody who has a clue (that would exclude you) will easily notice that there are plenty of French-Canadian businessmen who can speak English or other languages, while keep French as their first language. The way it should be. http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/china.htm

Typical leafless. Posting an inaccurate statement, then posting a link that contradict it. Get your facts straight, will you?

It does not. In Quebec's French schools, English is taught as a second language. In Rwanda's schools, French (before) and English (now) is the language of isntruction, at the expense o0f local languages. Not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Nice try. You are not just "providing an example". Nobody but the willingly blind can ignore the tone of your postings. BTW. Nice trying to pretend I did not say clearly that no, schools that teach that some human beings are monkeys and dofs are not OK. Now, your turn... Are schools that teach that democracy is wrong and Jes are the children of the Devil OK? Shouldn't it be of concern to you that someone who have taught in such a school was at one point the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and is now a Minister in the federal government? And if not, why?

Correction. The further the right of Canadians to present their case to the Supreme Court in either English or French. While the tool chosen is not necessary in this case, the objective remains valid.