Lesbian teacher told to work from home

[Argus]

Five pages and no one seems to have grasped the obvious here. This has NOTHING to do with her being a lesbian. NOTHING. You do not work as a teacher in a Catholic school and then become publicly sexually involved with someone of either gender out of wedlock. Catholic teachers are expected to behave in what the Church considers a properly moral way in and out of school. A straight man who asked for time off work to help out his pregnant girlfriend could easily face dismissal. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Certainly it should not have been a surprise to anyone who wanted to work as a teacher in a Catholic school.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

one is malicious in it's exclusion the other is not, hiring models or actors based on colour is using their skills, their appearance is their livelihood...

Your skin colour is a "skill" ? That's a new one.

Exclusion in religious education is a necessity - who would want the Osmond Brothers teaching Woody Allen's children, or Jackie Mason teaching gym at a Mormon school ? The potential for terrible sitcoms is too frightening for society.

[g_bambino]

I don't think it's a "choice" for the vast majority of people, that is true.

The homosexual feelings within everyone are not chosen, no. But how anyone wishes to deal with them is.

[wyly]

Your skin colour is a "skill" ? That's a new one.

absolutely, as is height, weight and age, casting is done to relect the part and the society, movies can be general and the requirements are age, sex and acting ability or they can be specific requiring orientals to portray orientals...are you going to cast a 50yr old as a teenager? cast black man as an oriental?...

Exclusion in religious education is a necessity - who would want the Osmond Brothers teaching Woody Allen's children, or Jackie Mason teaching gym at a Mormon school ? The potential for terrible sitcoms is too frightening for society.

you're moving the goalposts, this woman wasn't removed because she wasn't catholic she removed for being a lesbian...

[Michael Hardner]

absolutely, as is height, weight and age, casting is done to relect the part and the society, movies can be general and the requirements are age, sex and acting ability or they can be specific requiring orientals to portray orientals...are you going to cast a 50yr old as a teenager? cast black man as an oriental?...

Umm... no... I don't think so.... but I wouldn't call a tall guy "skilled at height".

you're moving the goalposts, this woman wasn't removed because she wasn't catholic she removed for being a lesbian...

I was responding to your point about discriminating.

[Machjo]

Any private religious school would also have these privileges.

Including 100% government funding?

[wyly]

Umm... no... I don't think so.... but I wouldn't call a tall guy "skilled at height".

if you're making a basketball movie are going to cast a asian dwarf for the part of Magic Johnson?...fashion designers cast tall women because the clothes look better on them and design clothes for tall models, it's also cheaper to make clothes and more convenient in one size and have the model fit the clothes...in tv, movies and fashion appearance is part of your skill set and in sports size comes into play even more, different sports have different criteria sometimes shorter people are a better fit than tall, or a 300lb lineman vs a 200lb lineman all other skills being equal the bigger player will get the job...

I was responding to your point about discriminating.

firing someone on criteria that have no play in their job is descrimination...firing her for being a lesbian is no different than firing her if she were oriental, being a lesbian or oriental would not effect her being a catholic teaching in a catholic school...

[Machjo]

I agree, it's an odd contradiction. I once had a discussion with a local bishop about funding for Catholic schools, just a few years after Bill Davis had made that change. He gave me the standard line about how it was guaranteed in the British North America Act.

So I went and read the BNA Act for myself! I saw clearly that the Catholics were granted freedom to practice their religion and have their own schools but I saw nothing about any guarantees to pay for them! In fact, in those days I'm not certain if the government paid much if anything for PUBLIC schools! That was so long ago that funding could have been a community thing.

I spoke again with that Bishop and told him how I could only find guarantees of freedom to have schools, not to have them funded. He seemed a bit rattled that someone would actually have read the Act for themselves and then told me that freedom meant the SAME THING as funding!

Sounded rather revisionist to me but I admit I'm no constitutional scholar. Perhaps someone else could confirm if the good Bishop was right. Myself, I can only go by my own reading comprehension.

I don't know for sure. But even if the Bishop was right, to defend injustice by hiding behind the law is pretty repulsive to say the least. When a politician says we can't do this or that because it's against the Constitution, I interpret that to mean 'I'm a gutless coward who wouldn't dare try to revise the Constitution; I just need a good-paying job.'

A politician of principle defends or opposes something based on justice, not the law. His job is to conform the law and the Constitution to justice, not the other way around. After all, the Constitution was created to serve us, not to be served by us. Any citizen who can't understand that is a gutless coward or, worse yet, an unscrupulous manipulator of the law for his own gain.

[Machjo]

LESBIANS and gays are just plain dumb and lazy...do your duty..be a human and stop listening to the social engineers that want to weaken you ...hedonistic homo behaviour is a choice...I don't want to hear about " I just can't help it."

I'm morally opposed to homosexual behaviour too, honestly. However, a distinction needs to be made between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. That's the first point.

Secondly, the law needs to be consistent. As long as homosexual behaviour is legal, then a school receiving public funding ought to respect that. If the school is not receiving public funding, that's another matter entirely. Yes, I'd like to see homosexual behavour (though not necessarily homosexuality per se) legally banned. But until then, any school receiving public funding ought to abide by the government's principles.

[Michael Hardner]

Including 100% government funding?

The word "private" was in my statement.

[Michael Hardner]

if you're making a basketball movie are going to cast a asian dwarf for the part of Magic Johnson?...

Yes, I will - because I'm casting a comedy about illogical thinking. Would you like to be in it ?

I don't think skills include things like your height and weight and so on, and I don't think we have anything else to discuss on that, i.e. you can't convince me.

firing someone on criteria that have no play in their job is descrimination...firing her for being a lesbian is no different than firing her if she were oriental, being a lesbian or oriental would not effect her being a catholic teaching in a catholic school...

I feel like I'm restating things at this point. As I've said discrimination happens, and is sometimes legitimate. If you have a new argument to add, please do so.

[wyly]

Yes, I will - because I'm casting a comedy about illogical thinking. Would you like to be in it ?

I don't think skills include things like your height and weight and so on, and I don't think we have anything else to discuss on that, i.e. you can't convince me.

you're being silly and playing dumb, phyiscal reguirements play a part in many jobs a skill that some are born with some are not, no different that being born with a mental ability to be a MD or rocket scientist...

I feel like I'm restating things at this point. As I've said discrimination happens, and is sometimes legitimate. If you have a new argument to add, please do so.

I'm still waiting for your argument defending that statement...hiring or firing based on criteria that have no relevance to the job is never legitimate...

[M.Dancer]

I'm still waiting for your argument defending that statement...hiring or firing based on criteria that have no relevance to the job is never legitimate...

Sounds like you agree that suspending the lesbian is justified.

[ToadBrother]

Freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate in hiring, period.

This has been going on for years, and changing it will have a lot of negative ramifications for freedom in Canada.

It is indeed a competition of rights. Apparently the BC Civil Liberties Association has explained it like this. Basically, the Charter guarantees the freedom of association, which, by extensions means the freedom not to associate. The school and its parents are exercising their constitutional right to choose who they will associate with and let their children associate with. Basically, it trumps, even in the case of a school receiving public money, this particular teacher's right. She too has the freedom to associate by finding another job in a more suitable environment. It's not nice, but then again when you have competing liberties, there's always going to be someone who comes out unhappy.

[Machjo]

The word "private" was in my statement.

Some private schools still receive government funding.

[Guest American Woman]

Some private schools still receive government funding.

And in the end, that's the issue/problem.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still waiting for your argument defending that statement...hiring or firing based on criteria that have no relevance to the job is never legitimate...

Ok, well. Let's say I have teachers of a different faith, or teachers who do not believe in the principles of our religion teaching in our schools. If my child bonds with that teacher, or develops a special relationship or respect for them, then what happens if my child has questions about our faith or wishes to discuss a spiritual matter ?

The long and short of it is that religious schools support the indoctrination of young people into old ways. If you want that to stop, then change the constitution.

[Michael Hardner]

Basically, the Charter guarantees the freedom of association, which, by extensions means the freedom not to associate. The school and its parents are exercising their constitutional right to choose who they will associate with and let their children associate with. Basically, it trumps, even in the case of a school receiving public money, this particular teacher's right.

That's succinct and clear. You're right, it's not nice. I'm not religious but I don't see a good alternative to guaranteeing their freedoms, as there are too many thought police still out there.

[Wild Bill]

I don't know for sure. But even if the Bishop was right, to defend injustice by hiding behind the law is pretty repulsive to say the least. When a politician says we can't do this or that because it's against the Constitution, I interpret that to mean 'I'm a gutless coward who wouldn't dare try to revise the Constitution; I just need a good-paying job.'

A politician of principle defends or opposes something based on justice, not the law. His job is to conform the law and the Constitution to justice, not the other way around. After all, the Constitution was created to serve us, not to be served by us. Any citizen who can't understand that is a gutless coward or, worse yet, an unscrupulous manipulator of the law for his own gain.

Well, in this case the Constitution was used as an excuse to change the existing laws, with never having put the issue before the people.

To my mind, a politician is NOT supposed to make his own laws or Constitutions! He's not supposed to interpret them to his own ends, either. That's why we have elections and judges. Sure, he's expected to show leadership but at the same time it's expected that the people supported him with their vote to make such a major change and that they would have the opportunity to express any dissatisfaction at the next election.

Bill Davis pulled separate school funding out of his butt, made it the law of Ontario and then promptly retired before he had to face any repercussions! It was not part of his previous campaign agenda. In no way or form was it a move driven by the people. Afterwards, it forever changed Ontario politics, ending 42 YEARS of the Tory Party having a lock on ruling Ontario! His successor, Frank Miller, wore the decision round his neck like an albatross to a sinning sailor and barely kept hold of power. Afterwards we had Liberal governments for the first time in nearly half a century.

I've never understood why he committed his party to political suicide. Especially when he could have likely gotten by if he had included ALL religious schools in public funding! The extra monies would have been trivial compared to what was given to the separate school board and at least it would have looked truly non-discriminatory.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Wild Bill

[CANADIEN]

Well, considering funding a right or privilege still seems more of a personal opinion than a dictionary definition to me. That would make most of your quotations just another political choice rather than a legal obligation, IMHO.

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.

However, one line is quite clear:

"- Separate schools were entitled to a portion of the Common School funds set up by the Province."

That line is plain as day and I cannot argue with it. It does not say "rights" or "privileges", which I would interpret as allowing the Catholic church to practice its faith and run its own schools in total freedom. It says "FUNDS", which indeed means money!

Still, it says "a portion", not equal, as compared to the public system. Maybe to a lawyer a portion is the same as equal but I'm a techie. Equal means equal and a portion is an undefined fraction. So the Ontario decision to give EQUAL funding is still more a political than a constitutional one, at least as I understand it.

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):

Every Separate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the support of Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public grants, investments and allotments for Common School purposes now made or hereafter to be made by the Province or the Municipal authorities, according to the average number of pupils attending such school during the twelve next preceding months, or during the number of months which may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the same City, Town, Village or Township.

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.

Edited May 1, 2010 by CANADIEN

[sharkman]

Here's an update to the story in which Lisa Riemer, the lesbian teacher in question, admits she did not tell the Catholic school that she was gay, and was living with a gay partner.

In a late report, the CBC said that Reimer will not be launching a human rights complaint against Little Flower Academy.

"I'm going to let this unfold," Reimer said Thursday evening, adding that when she signed the Catholicity clause in her contract with Little Flower Academy, she didn't disclose that she was in a homosexual relationship.

Like, no duh. As I suspected earlier, she lied about herself and signed a code of conduct she knew she wouldn't be keeping. Then she runs to the media and accuses the school of not acting honorably, something you'd think she'd be quite familiar as she demonstrated it so well in this case.

And the moral of the story is if you lie during a job interview and then are hired under false pretenses, you may get found out and fired. The school decided to pay out her contract and not fire her, something they didn't have to do. I still don't understand why she applied to work in an institution that disagreed with her principles and lifestyle choices.

Edited May 1, 2010 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

Here's an update to the story in which Lisa Riemer, the lesbian teacher in question, admits she did not tell the Catholic school that she was gay, and was living with a gay partner.

She wasn't required to tell them that. I'm sure there are single teachers who didn't tell the Catholic school that they are having extramarital sex, either, nor did married teachers having an affair disclose that information. And on it goes.

As I suspected earlier, she lied about herself

She didn't lie about herself. If she would have said, "I'm not gay," then she would have lied about herself. But she didn't say that and she didn't lie about herself.

....and signed a code of conduct she knew she wouldn't be keeping.

The Code of Conduct says nothing about having to be a heterosexual. It doesn't say 'I will not live with a same sex partner.'

If, in fact, she breeched the contract she signed, she could have been fired. Which she was not.

Then she runs to the media and accuses the school of not acting honorably, something you'd think she'd be quite familiar as she demonstrated it so well in this case.

There was nothing wrong with the way she acted prior to this. I do disagree with her going to the media about it, as that, as far as I'm concerned, is not "respecting the Catholic faith" which she agreed to do. Whether one agrees with the Catholic faith or not, and for the record I don't, the school, being a Catholic school, has the right to run it according to their beliefs.

However, why they receive public funds is something I can't understand. Seems to me that's the issue she should be addressing, criticizing, and trying to change, not the school's policies. As a non-Catholic, that's not her concern. Public money funding such a school is her concern.

And the moral of the story is if you lie during a job interview and then are hired under false pretenses, you may get found out and fired.

Wrong. Try to grasp the facts. She didn't lie and she wasn't hired under false pretenses.

[Handsome Rob]

If, in fact, she breeched the contract she signed, she could have been fired. Which she was not.

Direct quote, if true:

"When it came to light that she wanted parental leave because her lesbian partner was having a baby, that's when we had concerns," Boscariol told the Vancouver Sun.

Though Reimer could have been fired for breach of the Catholicity clause in the contract she signed, Boscariol said the school did not want to fire her and chose instead to continue paying her until her contract ran out.

The Catholicity Clause

"1. As part of the teaching ministry to the students and children of the faith community in each school of the District, the Teacher:

IF CATHOLIC:

(a) attests that she/he is a practicing Catholic;

(b') represents that she/he is capable and willing to teach a fully permeated Catholic faith both in and outside of formal religion classes, celebrations and exercises;

(c') undertakes to follow, both in and out of school, a lifestyle and deportment in harmony with Catholic teaching and principles which the Teacher understands to include, among other things, participation in the Sacraments of the Church and living in keeping with the principles of the Gospel and teachings of the Catholic Church, as determined by the local bishop;

(d) has or shall provide the District with a testimonial from a priest or member of the pastoral team attesting to her/his faith commitment;

(e) understands and is committed to the responsibility to undertake periodic professional development related to Catholicity and to fully support the spiritual development of students.

IF NOT CATHOLIC:

(a) recognizes that she/he will be teaching in a fully permeated Catholic School setting and is comfortable with and respectful of the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church;

(b') undertakes not to knowingly speak against or act in a manner to disparage the practices and beliefs of the Catholic Church and agrees to participate as appropriate in religious celebrations and exercises;

(c') undertakes to follow both in and out of school a lifestyle and deportment in harmony with the principles of the Gospel and teachings of the Catholic Church, as determined by the local bishop;

(d) has or shall provide the District with a testimonial from a religious leader of her/his faith attesting to her/his faith commitment; and

(e) understands and is committed to the responsibility to undertake periodic professional development related to Catholicity and to fully support the spiritual development of students.

2. For the purpose of this provision 'Catholic' shall mean 'a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the Eastern Catholic Churches'.

3. The parties further acknowledge and agree that a failure of the Teacher to meet the requirements of Section 1, may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of the Teacher's contract of employment."

They're pretty clear on their stances of homosexuality.

The issue isn't what happened to the teacher, the issue is the fact that the school receives public monies, safe bet this is going to ignite a firestorm debate over it.

[WIP]

When I first heard this story I wondered why they would be so bent out of shape over having a gay teacher, when so many men entering the priesthood are gay and allowed into the seminaries as long as they try to be discreet about their sexual orientation.

The time has come to treat discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation in the same way that racial, ethnic, religious or other types of discrimination would be treated. If your religion still teaches that blacks are the cursed descendents of Noah's third son - Ham, that's your problem! Your "articles of faith" would not justify racist policies; and it should be likewise in this case.

And as for funding Catholic schools; I don't know the deal out in B.C., but here in Ontario the wheels are going to fall off this wagon pretty soon. We had a close call in the last provincial election when John Tory thought he could win over the religious right by promising funding for all of the other private religious schools in Ontario....and his campaign went down, soon followed by his leadership of the Ontario PC Party.

Most Ontarians want ONE public school system not two. This system is holdover from the days when education was in the hands of Protestant and Catholic school boards. The Protestant school system transformed into a secular public school system, and funding for Catholic schools would have stopped years ago if it wasn't a political third rail. But since more recent immigrants have come in with strange, foreign religions that scare the locals, a successful court challenge of the status quo will likely lead to one public school rather than a whole bunch of publicly funded religious schools.

[Wild Bill]

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.

By now you've surely read WIP's post #99. He makes a good point that the majority view in Ontario has always seemed to be that we should provide one public school system and anyone else is on their own.

I could live with that, although it would bother my Libertarian bone to have citizens taxed for services they don't receive. Then again, childless people contribute to education through their taxes as well. The rationale seems to be that they receive the benefit of a better working society if the educational system is working well. That's a moot point, if you ask me but I can see why some people would champion it.

As a compromise, we could fund ALL other schools to the degree of the taxes it's members contribute! This would be another version of the old Reformer idea of "vouchers", where parents would receive vouchers equivalent to their portion of the educational budget, based on the number of children they have attending. They could then give these vouchers to whatever schools they want. To me, this seems eminently fair but there was a huge wail from the teachers' unions when this was first proposed. Apparently, they were livid at the idea that a parent could pull not just his child but the funding out of a school that was felt to have problems with its teacher(s). Right now unless there's evidence of child molestation teachers are pretty well impervious to any parental concerns.