August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 A Quebec couple who fought for the right to have their child pulled from a multi-denominational ethics and religion class say they’re disappointed the Supreme Court ruled against them.The mother of two said Friday that it’s a blow for parents who want to raise their children according to their own faith. Toronto StarSince I post on an anglo forum, I offer an English link. Surely federal Canada is more. At least, the federal Supreme Court could have deferred this educational question to the provincial government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 They didn't prove their case. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Awesome, more activist judges. I'll admit right off the bat that I'm generally somewhat hostile when it comes to catholicism, but this decision really disturbs me. There is no way this case should ever have gone to court. If someone doesn't want to take a course about religion, they should be politely excused from it. The Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to make such a ruling in this country. The very fact that they even heard the case is a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. If a court can tell you that you have to take a course about religion, then we do not have freedom of religion. That it come out of Quebec does not surprise me though. Just like their language laws, this country has two distinct ways to read the constitution depending on what province you're from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 This part is even more bizarre: Quebec introduced the ethics and religious culture curriculum to replace the former Protestant and Catholic religious courses for all students except those in Grade 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Awesome, more activist judges. The course doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because it doesn't advocate for any religion. It's part of the curriculum, and parents shouldn't have the right to steal part of an education because they believe in the sky friend of their choosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Awesome, more activist judges.Imagine a State ruled by Islamists.It too could decide as this Court, and impose the majority decision - claiming to be a democratic society. ---- The true civilized measure of a society is how the majority treats the minority. IMV, this Federal Supreme Court decision is not civilized. Families and local communities - a province - should decide how to teach children. Ultimately, the question of how to teach children is not for the federal State - or a federal court - to decide. Edited February 18, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 . Ultimately, this is not for the federal State to decide. Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 That it come out of Quebec does not surprise me though. Just like their language laws, this country has two distinct ways to read the constitution depending on what province you're from. That you're spouting ignorance doesn't surprise me. The above is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 The course doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because it doesn't advocate for any religion. It's part of the curriculum, and parents shouldn't have the right to steal part of an education because they believe in the sky friend of their choosing. It absolutely does violate their rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom from it. The school has no right to make such a topic part of a mandatory curriculum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 It absolutely does violate their rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom from it. The school has no right to make such a topic part of a mandatory curriculum. This isn't a religious course, but rather a course about various religions. Freedom off religion isn't a ticket for parents to spread ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say.Since when did a federal court defend minority rights?Pierre Trudeau may have added the Charter of Rights to our constitution but individuals are still not protected against the power of the State, the tyranny of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 This isn't a religious course, but rather a course about various religions. Freedom off religion isn't a ticket for parents to spread ignorance. The only ignorance in this thread is yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say.I disagree. The federal court should have deferred this decision to the Quebec court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Since when did a federal court defend minority rights? Pierre Trudeau may have added the Charter of Rights to our constitution but individuals are still not protected against the power of the State, the tyranny of the majority. Yes, in fact they are. This case isn't what you're trying to make seem. The only ignorance in this thread is yours. there is only one Constitution. The example you cited of language laws is not what you think it is. I disagree. The federal court should have deferred this decision to the Quebec court. Because? The SCOC is the court of final opinion. They thought this was worth hearing, which means they thought it had national significance. Quebec is part of this country, and this was about this country's constitutuion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Yes, in fact they are. This case isn't what you're trying to make seem.Huh?So, when Canada has an Islamist/Harper majority in the Supreme Court, will the Charter/Constitution protect you - a minority of one? ---- As I always argue, in English and French, fanboys argue ideology. But federal politics are about regionalism. Canada. Go figure. Edited February 18, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 So, when Canada has an Islamist/Harper majority in the Supreme Court, will the Charter/Constitution protect you - a minority of one? Again, the above just proves that you're trying to make this into something that it isn't. This decision doesn't force religion on anyone. It isn't even about religion. It seems to be more about ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 I strongly disagree with this court ruling, just saying we should not be teaching religions in any school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Again, the above just proves that you're trying to make this into something that it isn't. This decision doesn't force religion on anyone. It isn't even about religion. It seems to be more about ignorance.Maybe you're right Smallc, but it just seems to me that a federal State should not force parents to send their children to a government provincial school.I know about the US federal 1964 civil rights law, Canada's federal system, France's First Republic Constitution and Trudeau's Charter of Rights. Nevertheless, IMHO, a federal State, a federal Supreme Court - the majority - should not dictate to parents how to teach their children. IMHO, Canada's federal Supreme Court should above all protect the minority. Edited February 18, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 They didn't prove their case. It's that simple. Yep. Intolerant/ignorant parents want to remove children from what is essentially a "everyone is different, and they have different beliefs" class of tolerance. Teaching children about all religions does not infringe upon the right of free religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 I strongly disagree with this court ruling, just saying we should not be teaching religions in any school You should agree. The more ways a child sees people beliefs, the less credible each one option becomes to students who do not have an indoctrinated faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 IMHO, Canada's federal Supreme Court should above all protect the minority. Well, maybe they were. What about the child? Should they not get to learn because of their parent's beliefs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Incredible, the amount of non-sense offered of this thread. The Supreme Court had no business issuing a judgment in this case - Excuse me? The parents went to court claiming that the curriculum violated their freedom of religion. A right protected in the Constitution. The role of the Court is to interpret the Constituion, that is in this case to determine if the mandatory nature of the curriculum violates the Constitution.. The Court had three options, to refuse to hear the case (which meant that the decision of Quebec's Superior Court and Court of Appeal that the parents' rights are not violated by the curriculum would stand), to decide that the curriculum violated the parents' rights, or to decide the curriculm does not violate parents' rights. To rule that they could not hear the case because education is a provincial matter would have been absurd; to rUle that the parents could obtain an exemption on he ground that they (the Court) cannot interfere in provincial matters would be the height of judicial stupidity - if it were true that this issue was not the perview of the SCC (it's not true), the only choice left for the Court would have been to refuse to hear the case and let the Court of Appeal decision stand. This judgement is the result of an activist court - Excuse me while I laugh. All the time, we hear the argument that the Court should not be "making laws" and should entirely defer to the lawmakers. Guess what? This is WHAT THEY DID. The role of the Supreme Court is to protect minorities - Actually, the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Law, including the Constitution. They do not get to ignore the Constitution or interpret it in ways contrary to facts and logic just because some people stand up and shout "We are a minority and our rights are violated". Freedom of religion is being violated - The argument has been presented, and rejected, in three different courthouses. Freedom of (or from) religion is not shield against hearing facts about the eistence of other fiaths and their tenets. As the Supreme Court (and other courts before it) stated, NOTHING in the program forces students to embrace or rejct one or any religion. Nothing prevents parents from teaching one religion or no religion at all, or that any or all religions are bad. The rights of the parent's to teach what they want to their children is being violated.- Interestingly enough, this was not part of the legal argument submitted by the parents. That being said, the argument that this curriculum negates parents' rights to teach their children what they want is non-sense. Once again, nothing prevents parents from teaching any or no religion. What next - should we exempt children of Holocaust deniers from history classes? If parents are so afraid that their child will convert to let,s say Islam or become atheist just because the word Islam is pronounced in class, they should consider home schooling. And last and not least, the Supreme Court decides "Do as we say" - The absurdity of this statement and its distortion of basic facts is borderline unbelievable. The decision that there would be a new curriculum and that it would be mandatory was made by the Quebec Government. The decision not to exempt the plaintiffs' children from the course was made by the school board. What the Courts, at all level, did was to hear the request to declare those decisions unconstitutional and to determine they were not. Edited February 20, 2012 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Smallc is absolutely right, the course presented as part of the standard Quebec curriculum is not a 'religious course', in that it presents a particular dogma. It is a comparative religion and ethics course, in which the beliefs, ethics and standards of several religions are presented without favour to any. Nothing wrong with that. The parents failed to prove damage. Quebec also presents science programs that flatly state evolution is factual. Lots of parents would dispute that, they have the option of private schools or home schooling. Everybody has choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 You should agree. The more ways a child sees people beliefs, the less credible each one option becomes to students who do not have an indoctrinated faith. Absolutely. The best way to limit religious influence is to simply teach people about religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 This isn't a religious course, but rather a course about various religions. This post has got to be in the running for the facepalm of the year award, so far. It's not a religious course, it's just a course about religion. You know, where you learn about their origins, their beliefs, their theology, their practices, etc. But it's not a religious course. Yikes. Anyways, the parents should have the right to pull their kids in this instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.