Lesbian teacher told to work from home

[Argus]

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.

No, they didn't, but if the school finds out you're having an affair you can, and probably will be fired. And if you keep your extramarital sex discrete you'll probably be okay. But rub their face in the fact and you're in trouble. As I said, this has NOTHING to do with her being lesbian. It has to do with sex outside marriage.

[Guest American Woman]

As I said, this has NOTHING to do with her being lesbian. It has to do with sex outside marriage.

Riiiight.

A teacher at a Catholic high school for girls in Vancouver was told to work from home after parents complained about having a lesbian teach their kids.

link

[Guest American Woman]

Direct quote, if true: They're pretty clear on their stances of homosexuality.

....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;

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.

Actually, since it specifies "as determined by the local bishop," it's not clear since we don't know what the local bishop's "determination" is in her area; and is that stance made clear at time of employment? If not, it should be.

As it stands, it's pretty vague, and sounds as if it could change along with "the local bishop's determination," which may make it difficult to enforce, at least legally. Also, if she didn't know what the local bishop's determination was, and since it's not clearly stated in the contract, there's nothing to prove that she lied and/or signed a contract that she had no intention of keeping.

[Machjo]

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.

Of course a politician is supposed to respect the law. My point though is that if the Constitution is unjust, he should show a willingness not to break the law of course, but to try to change the Constitution. A politician who instead of trying to change the Constitution decides to defend it even when it's unjust with no intent on changing it and even using the law to promote unjust objectives of his has no scruples.

[CANADIEN]

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.

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:

Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.

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.

[Handsome Rob]

Actually, since it specifies "as determined by the local bishop," it's not clear since we don't know what the local bishop's "determination" is in her area; and is that stance made clear at time of employment? If not, it should be.

As it stands, it's pretty vague, and sounds as if it could change along with "the local bishop's determination," which may make it difficult to enforce, at least legally. Also, if she didn't know what the local bishop's determination was, and since it's not clearly stated in the contract, there's nothing to prove that she lied and/or signed a contract that she had no intention of keeping.

I would have thought the statement that states she's not going to go to the BCHRT and collect her cheque provides all the clarity necessary.

[Sabre Rider]

Hey, they've gotten away with receiving government money while discriminating against hiring non-Catholic teachers for generations!

Why shouldn't they get away with this one?

It will all boil down to politics. If the governments involved are afraid of pushing the issue against the Catholic Church then it will just fade away...

That maybe so in Quebec and possibly Ontario and the Maritimes, but here in BC, the Catholic Church doesn't have all that much political pull.

[Sabre Rider]

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."

this will probably get me banned or at least a warning.....but could you be anymore of an ignorant asshole? sheesh......

[Sabre Rider]

What are you talking about? There are plenty of gay and lesbian catholics. Where the hell did it say she hated the organization.

From what AW posted.

"[Reimer] said she met with school principal Marcelle DeFreitas and vice-principal Diane Little in January and was told the school doesn't give parental leave but that she could take up to 15 days sick leave to be with her partner. At the time, they were excited for her future child, she said, but they also warned her that if word got out and parents complained, they "might have to dismiss me."

Doesn't look like her being a lesbian was an issue to the principle. Also last time I checked sexual orientation had nothing to do with your qualification for a job, and is not something regulary asked in an interview.

Actually, I think you will find that asking a potential employee about the sexual orientation is illegal in Canada.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually, I think you will find that asking a potential employee about the sexual orientation is illegal in Canada.

Even better.

[WIP]

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.

Here's the rub: that 1996 decision that you cited reeks...plain and simple. It is not going to hold, because the unfairness of allowing one religion to run a fully funded school system, and no other religions, cannot pass the smell test under proper scrutiny. From what I understand, the Adler decision concluded that the deal in the BNA Act was a political compromise, and based on religious freedoms. Whatever, they denied Jewish schools the opportunity to have a deal like the Catholics get. A UN human rights panel declared the decision to be discriminatory, and was ignored by our government. But, this leaves Canada in no position to condemn other countries for religious discrimination.

I still don't see how that 1867 decision makes it cast in stone that Catholics get a fully funded school system till the end of time. There are lots of other things in the BNA Act that became obsolete. And rather than a balkanized system with a bunch of religious schools, one public school system would be the ideal....if it can survive another round of pandering politicians looking for votes.

I checked a timeline of events on the Catholic school funding issue since I'm old enough to remember a time when Catholic high schools were private and only available for wealthier Catholics. Most Catholic students had to be streamed into public high schools. It seems that religious education credits were extended to grade 10 in 1978, followed by full funding through grade 13 in 1985, thanks to a sweetheart deal by Bill Davis, attempting to buy Catholic votes and forestall a collapse of the Tory dynasty....which didn't work. Nevertheless, eventually a system that favours one religion above all others is going to fall in spite of political expediency.

[sharkman]

For those of you who support ending public funding for Catholic schools, then what? Islam schools, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and other Christian schools all get some public funding.

Canada is a nation that has championed a multi-cultural approach to nation building. Indeed we have peoples from cultures all over the world. And supporting their cultures with funding is Canadian, plain and simple. The Catholic church is a part of our own culture whether you agree with them or not. Should we now end the multi-cultural approach and adopt the US style melting pot approach?

Our constitution also supports the right to associate in groups, and these groups can define their membership. So this Catholic school is doing what is protected under the constitution. There are single sex schools around to that do not admit the opposite sex and should we then call this sexual discrimination and cut their funding?

This road that some want to go down would change the definition of what Canada is. Because you can't just pick one group out that you don't like and cut their funding for defining their membership. They would all have to be cut, and as has been mentioned, the Catholic funding is ensconced in the Ontario legislation. So if you change the law and cut funding for Catholics, you are in effect picking out a single group among dozens for persecution, which is unconstitutional.

[Guest American Woman]

For those of you who support ending public funding for Catholic schools, then what? Islam schools, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and other Christian schools all get some public funding.

Absolutely. Public funding for public schools. I haven't seen any indication that people are singling out Catholic schools.

[CANADIEN]

I still don't see how that 1867 decision makes it cast in stone that Catholics get a fully funded school system till the end of time.

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.

[CANADIEN]

Here's the rub: that 1996 decision that you cited reeks...plain and simple. It is not going to hold, because the unfairness of allowing one religion to run a fully funded school system, and no other religions, cannot pass the smell test under proper scrutiny.

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.

[Guest TrueMetis]

For those of you who support ending public funding for Catholic schools, then what? Islam schools, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and other Christian schools all get some public funding.

They shouldn't if we end funding to Catholic schools. If the Catholic Church stops disciminating it can have it's funding back, It would also have to end it's anti-condom crusade in Africa.

Canada is a nation that has championed a multi-cultural approach to nation building. Indeed we have peoples from cultures all over the world. And supporting their cultures with funding is Canadian, plain and simple. The Catholic church is a part of our own culture whether you agree with them or not. Should we now end the multi-cultural approach and adopt the US style melting pot approach?

1) Catholic's aren't a culture they're a religion.

2) They are not part of my Culture, I don't think there even is a Catholic church in my town.

3) Not funding a group that discriminates does champion a mutli-cultural approach.

4) A culture should be able to stand on it's own merits they should not require funding to survive.

Our constitution also supports the right to associate in groups, and these groups can define their membership. So this Catholic school is doing what is protected under the constitution. There are single sex schools around to that do not admit the opposite sex and should we then call this sexual discrimination and cut their funding?

If they receive public funding yes.

This road that some want to go down would change the definition of what Canada is. Because you can't just pick one group out that you don't like and cut their funding for defining their membership. They would all have to be cut, and as has been mentioned, the Catholic funding is ensconced in the Ontario legislation. So if you change the law and cut funding for Catholics, you are in effect picking out a single group among dozens for persecution, which is unconstitutional.

I'm perfectly willing to cut funding for all religous schools.

[bloodyminded]

I'm perfectly willing to cut funding for all religous schools.

Me too. Why not?

[Machjo]

Here's the rub: that 1996 decision that you cited reeks...plain and simple.

You can't blame the courts for this;.Their job is to interpret and uphold the Constitution and the law, even if it's unjust. The courts are not above the law, and have no authority to make or alter laws. The're job is strictly to interpret and uphold the law, however unjust it may be.

It is not going to hold, because the unfairness of allowing one religion to run a fully funded school system, and no other religions, cannot pass the smell test under proper scrutiny. From what I understand, the Adler decision concluded that the deal in the BNA Act was a political compromise, and based on religious freedoms. Whatever, they denied Jewish schools the opportunity to have a deal like the Catholics get.

It will hold as long as unscrupulous voters and politicians hide behind the law. In Ontario, the defenders of the separate school system keep reminding us that it's in the Constitution, yet even the MPPs among them keep silent about the fact that if they have the power to at least try to amend the Constitution. But since they secretly support this discrimination knowing that it's discrimination and that it's morally repugnant, they try to wiggle out of it by pretending that they're somehow powerless to promote any amendments to the Constitution. Gutless cowards, really.

A UN human rights panel declared the decision to be discriminatory, and was ignored by our government. But, this leaves Canada in no position to condemn other countries for religious discrimination.

What? You mean Canada can't defend international law abroad while ignoring it at home without looking like a right hypocrite on the international stage? What a revelation!

[Machjo]

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.

Yes. But Ontario's politicians are spineless.

[bloodyminded]

I'm morally opposed to homosexual behaviour too, honestly.

Why, in Godzilla's name? And why is opposition to homosexual behaviour a "moral" stance?

[Argus]

Riiiight.

A teacher at a Catholic high school for girls in Vancouver was told to work from home after parents complained about having a lesbian teach their kids.

link

Irrelevent. If she'd outed herself as living with a man there still would have been complaints from parents. Extramarital sex is not acceptable for Catholic teachers. Clearly they do it anyway, but they have to keep it discrete. If you go publicly outing your "immoral" status then you should expect to be fired.

[Argus]

Here's the rub: that 1996 decision that you cited reeks...plain and simple.

Politically, no politician is going to go after Catholic schools. Even to lapsed Catholics, some of which haven't been to a church in years, the Catholic schools are very imprortant, and they will savage any political party which tries to remove that funding.

Because public schools suck so very, very badly. There's no discipline, and all manner of semi-humanoid cretins enrolled there that the schools can't get rid of.

It isn't the religious aspect of Catholic schools that parents are jealously guarding - it's the fact they are, compared to the public system, safer, they maintain far better discipline, and they educate kids better. And they do it for less money.

[Argus]

Me too. Why not?

Yeah, and between the two of you I bet you don't pay enough net taxes to buy a box of pencils.

[Argus]

Yes. But Ontario's politicians are spineless.

More like not suicidal.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yeah, and between the two of you I bet you don't pay enough net taxes to buy a box of pencils.

This is one of those don't throw rocks in a glass house moments Argus.