Native Ceremony takes place at a public school

[BC_chick]

18 minutes ago, Boges said:

You conveniently left out this portion or the story in the OP. 

and

Not enough lead time was given for parents to decide if it's something they wanted their children to participate in and the teachers led students to believe participating was compulsory, which it wasn't. 

There is nothing indicated about the time lapse between the letter and when they went to the school to find out.  Do you know?  Was it a week, a day, what do you think is an acceptable amount of time for a parent to inquire about a questionable activity before being complicit by their own inaction?

I know that every time I've ever emailed my kid's teachers or school's general email address I get a response within a day.  Why didn't they just email as soon as they saw the letter?

And spare me with the compulsory participation, absolutely NOTHING in the school system beyond the academic curriculum is mandatory.  Their argument is the equivalent of "well the warning on the label didn't say don't cut your hand off with the saw".

The whole thing stinks to high heaven for me as a parent of a school-aged child.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by BC_chick

[Boges]

Just now, BC_chick said:

There is nothing indicated about the time lapse between the letter and when they went to the school to find out.  Do you know?  Was it a week, a day, what do you think is an acceptable amount of time for a parent to inquire about a questionable activity before being complicit by their own inaction?

I know that every time I've ever emailed my kid's teachers or school's general email address I get a response within a day.  Why didn't they just email as soon as they saw the letter?

And spare me with the compulsory participation, absolutely NOTHING in the school system beyond the academic curriculum is mandatory.  Their argument is the equivalent of well the warning on the label didn't say "don't cut your hand off with the saw".

The whole thing stinks to high heaven for me as a parent of a school-aged child.

Yeah because all impressionable kids know that as a matter of course.

For all they knew they could have been failed if they didn't partake in the ritual. 

When the parent inquired she was told that all students had to participate. So someone is lying, I suppose the court will decide. 

[BC_chick]

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

When the parent inquired she was told that all students had to participate. So someone is lying, I suppose the court will decide. 

Oh well, now doesn't that contradict what they said earlier that when they inquired it had already happened?

What a couple of deplorables, seriously.  First, they get their panties in a bunch over something so innocent and then they can't even keep their story straight.

ETA - re 'someone is lying' - that's yet another reason why they should've emailed.  Not only would they get a prompt response, but they'd have their answer in writing if there are any disputes later.  Dummies. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by BC_chick

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Oh well, now doesn't that contradict what they said earlier that when they inquired it had already happened?

What a couple of deplorables, seriously.  First, they get their panties in a bunch over something so innocent and then they can't even keep their story straight.

Did you not read the quote?

Quote

Servatius went to the school to learn more, but discovered that the ceremony had already taken place, and that all students were required to participate, said John Carpay, president of the JCCF.

Would you call a parent that didn't want their child to participate in a Christian ritual a deplorable as well? 

The school even admitted that they didn't make the fact that the ritual was 100% voluntary clear to the students, even if they didn't admit that they probably shouldn't have done it. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Boges

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, BC_chick said:

As someone who has signed many a consent forms for field trips, I have to say these uptight idiots need to zip it.  Keep your kids at home if you don't want them participating in something that God forbid, might expand their horizons.

 

The problem is that it violates secularism. It uses public money to fund religion, which violates separation of religion and state.

[msj]

The timing will be an issue, I'm sure, as one would hope that a parent would be allowed a certain amount of time to be informed and make a decision about this type of thing. 

But then, it should not have happened at all - there is no room for children participating in any religious ceremony in a school setting PERIOD. (unless it is a religious school for which the parents presumably send their kid to for that very purpose). 

Edited November 17, 2016 by msj

[msj]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

Would you call a parent that didn't want their child to participate in a Christian ritual a deplorable as well? 

Excellent question and lets see if you get an answer. 

[drummindiver]

No mention of a consent  letter. That's because it was mandatory. And telling people with dissenting views to " zip it" on a debate forum is counterproductive  to say the least.

"Servatius went to the school to learn more, but discovered that the ceremony had already taken place, and that all students were required to participate, said John Carpay, president of the JCCF.

"This is contrary to the School Actwhich expressly prohibits religion in the classroom, religious practices, and it is also contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Carpay said."

[msj]

Having re-read the link in the OP I will point out that the school district has even admitted that there was "confusion" as to it being mandatory or optional to participate in. 

On top of that, if you follow the link within the link to the legal documents you see the letter to the parents is dated September 14, 2015 and the religious ceremony took place on September, 16.  The letter did not even indicate when the ceremony was going to take place. 

Completely incompetent and the principal deserves a reprimand for this. 

As to whether participation was coerced or not - even if it was optional, how many children have the guts to opt out of something in front of their teacher and their peers?

That's why religious indoctrination is so successful in the first place.  

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by msj

[BC_chick]

31 minutes ago, Boges said:

Did you not read the quote?

Would you call a parent that didn't want their child to participate in a Christian ritual a deplorable as well? 

The school even admitted that they didn't make the fact that the ritual was 100% voluntary clear to the students, even if they didn't admit that they probably shouldn't have done it. 

As I said earlier, the argument that it wasn't clear that it's voluntary is the equivalent of 'the label didn't say don't cut your hand off with a saw'.  This is just ignorance on the part of the parents.

I also think the comparison to Christianity off-base.  This ceremony was cultural which happened to include a ceremony which the parents deemed religious.  The equivalent would be going on a student exchange program to Rome and getting uptight why the Vicar at the Vatican blessed their child.  

[BC_chick]

20 minutes ago, msj said:

On top of that, if you follow the link within the link to the legal documents you see the letter to the parents is dated September 14, 2015 and the religious ceremony took place on September, 16.  The letter did not even indicate when the ceremony was going to take place. 

Good find,  that's the missing part of the story I could not find in the article.  

That does legitimize the parents' complaint somewhat even though I still think 2 days is enough time if they are really that uncomfortable.  Like I said, I've always had an email response within a day when asking about anything to do with my child's school.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by BC_chick

[drummindiver]

2 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

As I said earlier, the argument that it wasn't clear that it's voluntary is the equivalent of 'the label didn't say don't cut your hand off with a saw'.  This is just ignorance on the part of the parents.

I also think the comparison to Christianity off-base.  This ceremony was cultural which happened to include a ceremony which the parents deemed religious.  The equivalent would be going on a student exchange program to Rome and getting uptight why the Vicar at the Vatican blessed their child.  

This is clearly a religious event that is prohibited by law in our schools.  The fact it is First Nations is the only reason you are tryin to twist this. Your analogy also doesn't fit. The Vicar would be in church or a religious school where it would be acceptable.

[BC_chick]

Thanks, msj, I found the letter.  

Utter nonsense as I thought.  It's clear as day what is going to take place and anyone with questions about the event is free to call or email the school to find out more information.  

Deplorable.  Nobody to blame but themselves.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by BC_chick

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

This is clearly a religious event that is prohibited by law in our schools.

So you agree, no Christmas trees, no menorahs, no St. Valentines day cards, no Halloween costumes, no Thanksgiving, etc. These all have some religious origin, yet they seem to squeak by ok. 

[cybercoma]

7 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

This is clearly a religious event that is prohibited by law in our schools.

Which law? Because our constitution does not explicitly prohibit it like the US constitution. And even the US constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," neither of which happened here.

[msj]

21 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

As I said earlier, the argument that it wasn't clear that it's voluntary is the equivalent of 'the label didn't say don't cut your hand off with a saw'.  This is just ignorance on the part of the parents.

 

Sure, other than the fact that one can find the letter and see that it wasn't all that clear.  Just go to the OP and click on the linky button and scroll down and click on the other linky button.  Or perhaps I  can do it for you:  https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Servatius-v-SD70-EXHIBITS.pdf

The bigger problem remains - it is the children who need to be spoken for by the parents and it is the teacher/principal who must safeguard the parents wishes by having a proper letter go out with a reasonable amount of time. 

Clearly not the case here once the facts are known. 

Quote

I also think the comparison to Christianity off-base.  This ceremony was cultural which happened to include a ceremony which the parents deemed religious.  The equivalent would be going on a student exchange program to Rome and getting uptight why the Vicar at the Vatican blessed their child.  

No this is not equivalent.

Clearly when a parent consents for their child to leave the school to go to a religious place then it is implicitly obvious as to what may occur. Presumably the communication is explicitly better informed/timed than the case presented in the OP. 

A better example would be where an Evangelical organization came into the school, with little warning, and baptized each child. 

Similar nature as the smudge ceremony - it is a cleansing ritual. 

You and cybercoma can then argue how important it is for kids to be forced to participate in it as a learning experience while people like me call it out as unacceptable infringement of these kids Charter rights. 

So, no, race does not have to play a role here - it is clearly wrong on logical grounds. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by msj

[msj]

8 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Which law? Because our constitution does not explicitly prohibit it like the US constitution. 

According to  section 76 of the School Act in BC.  

For crying out loud people, it is in the original f^cking link in the original f^cking post.  

Edited November 17, 2016 by msj

[BC_chick]

Just now, msj said:

Sure, other than the fact that one can find the letter and see that it wasn't all that clear.  Just go to the OP and click on the linky button and scroll down and click on the other linky button.  Or perhaps I  can do it for you:  https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Servatius-v-SD70-EXHIBITS.pdf

The bigger problem remains - it is the children who need to be spoken for by the parents and it is the teacher/principal who must safeguard the parents wishes by having a proper letter go out with a reasonable amount of time. 

Clearly not the case here once the facts are known (which, again, only required clicking on the linky in the OP for crying out loud). 

 

 

I found the letter, yes, I thanked you for telling the board where it is and I shared it on the thread.  

To me, it's makes the case against the parents even more clear.  It states in detail what will happen- including the fact that the children will participate.  This little piece of evidence makes it clear as pie that they're liars when they said they didn't know their kid was going to participate.  

It also provides the school's email address and telephone number, making the parents completely complicit for not taking action if they wanted to withdraw their kid from the ceremony.

[BC_chick]

1 minute ago, msj said:

According to the section 76 of the School Act in BC.  

For crying out loud people, it is in the original f^cking link in the original f^cking post.  

It's cultural.

[drummindiver]

10 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Which law? Because our constitution does not explicitly prohibit it like the US constitution. And even the US constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," neither of which happened here.

Stated in the link. School Act which expressly prohibits religious acts in the classroom.

[msj]

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

I found the letter, yes, I thanked you for telling the board where it is and I shared it on the thread.  

To me, it's makes the case against the parents even more clear.  It states in detail what will happen- including the fact that the children will participate.  This little piece of evidence makes it clear as pie that they're liars when they said they didn't know their kid was going to participate.  

It also provides the school's email address and telephone number, making the parents completely complicit for not taking action if they wanted to withdraw their kid from the ceremony.

The letter does not tell them when the religious ceremony is, or rather, was, going to take place. 

The parents had an unreasonable amount of time to decide, gather more information, and respond. 

The children were left with uninformed parents (due to time constraints imposed by the school) to then decide for themselves to participate in the ceremony, or not, while under duress (to make the decision as authority figures pressed them on to participate). 

This is clearly a case coercion and is deserving of a reprimand.  

[cybercoma]

2 minutes ago, msj said:

According to  section 76 of the School Act in BC.  

For crying out loud people, it is in the original f^cking link in the original f^cking post.  

That law has to do with the conduct of the schools, as the subtitle indicates. The school does not have an official religion that it's teaching and it doesn't operate in as a religious institution. Unless people are actually stupid enough to make the argument that they're trying to push this as the school's religion. A school conducting itself as a religious institution and teaching it to the students as the only religion or the "correct" religion is vastly different than a school teaching children about religions and cultures across Canada.

This entire situation still just sounds like people whining about kids learning about indigenous people. I've yet to see anyone articulate what harm could come of this. I do see the harm in the school indoctrinating kids with a particular religion, but that is quite obviously not the case here. 

[cybercoma]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Stated in the link. School Act which expressly prohibits religious acts in the classroom.

That's not what it says.

[msj]

3 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

It's cultural.

Nope, reference is made to spirits and we're not talking vodka. 

My atheist parent having me circumcised as a baby is "cultural."   Inspired by the stupidity of religion but still cultural. 

My mother feeling guilt when I tease her about my "mutilation" and "justifying" it by saying that I'm "cleaner" because of it [in an era of potable water and soap] is religious inspired indoctrinated justification.  

[drummindiver]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So you agree, no Christmas trees, no menorahs, no St. Valentines day cards, no Halloween costumes, no Thanksgiving, etc. These all have some religious origin, yet they seem to squeak by ok. 

You find a valenines card religious and Valentines, an event? K. Christmas trees,  Halloween, Valentines and I assume the menorah are already not allowed in public schools. I don't remember Thanksgiving parties, but they are clearly not religious anyways.