Tsk, tsk, Canada. I know you caught this disease from your southern neighbor, but still…
this is a sorry state of affairs.
The Alberta government has been quietly increasing funding to faith schools -- to 100 per cent in the case of "alternative" programs -- and allowing creationism to be taught alongside the Alberta curriculum.
Currently, this movement is most visible in the Ontario election campaign where Conservative Leader John Tory has promised a free vote on funding for all faith schools, pointing to Alberta as an example.In response to a question, Tory said, "You know it's still called the theory of evolution. But they teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs." His comments show a dismal lack of scientific literacy.
It sounds like many people are working to correct this deplorable backsliding, but they haven't gone quite as far as Sweden.
The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools. The new rules will include a ban on biology teachers teaching creationism or 'intelligent design' alongside evolution.
"Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism," said Education Minister Jan Björklund to Dagens Nyheter.
Now that is clear, unambiguous, and forceful. Maybe Ben Stein should pay a visit to Sweden sometime.
- Log in to post comments
I am embarrassed to be Canadian, right now!
OK, you godless atheists: what do you have to say to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_a…
Seems that PJPII has returned to us, no?
Alberta is Texas North, we've been considering building a wall around it, but it's a rather long border....
Being as John Tory is no longer representing his party in Ontario as a Tory after losing his seat in last week's elections there:
Hey, ho, way to go Ontario!
You are a victim of the same media/Liberal (not!) spin that lost the election for Tory.
The point is, Ontario already funds Catholic schools from the public purse. It also funds a few Mennonite schools and a couple of weird Protestant schools but who's counting?
So, we already have this system in place due to our Constitution Act of 1867..yawn...
What we don't have is funding for the 2.5% of students who attend private religious schools (51,000 vs 650,000 Catholic kids). That means no requirement for accredited teachers (most have 'em), no requirement to teach the Ontario curriculum (some do) and no requirement to write the standardized tests.
To be fair and to give these kids some oversight, you have to fund them all or fund none.
I obviously prefer none, but to dismantle the Catholic, publicly-funded system would take a lot of guts, since 30% of people in Ontario are Catholic.
A UN Human Rights Commission ruling in 1999 found in favour of the parents who fully fund their religion-based schools, ie, that the system is unfair as it stands.
As for the 'creationism' quote from the media, he has a point and it wasn't about teaching it in science class. The Catholics are already teaching that claptrap in their religion classes.
Tory isn't some bible-thumping God freak. He's just a fair person who sees an injustice and is thinking of the best way to address it. He promised the Jewish and other groups that he would bring the issue forward. Big mistake, granted, cost him the election because xenophobia is rampant up here, contrary to advertising you may have seen about our 'inclusive' society.
He forgot that the Liberals will do anything to win and once they got hold of this bone he threw them, they and their handmaidens in the media wouldn't let go.
There's no place for honesty, principles or the keeping of promises in Ontario politics. The recent election results prove that.
Too bad. Tory is head-and-shoulders above anything we've had as a party leader in Ontario for quite awhile.
Oh and yes, I am an atheist of some generations standing.
Just to provide an update, the Ontario Conservatives were soundly defeated in the provincial election on October 10th, and the outcry over their leader John Tory's proposed funding of faith-based schools was essential the only issue in the election. Tory even failed to win his own seat, and will likely not continue as leader -- his mishandling of this issue is considered a political blunder of historic proportions. Whatever is going on in Alberta has not infected Ontario, far from it. I was very proud of Ontarians in this election (well, as proud as one can be in the re-election of the bland, do-nothing Liberals...).
Tory is head-and-shoulders above anything we've had as a party leader in Ontario for quite awhile.
He's another Mikey. We know how well *that* worked out.
John Tory was defeated on that issue alone. He remains a more popular leader than the Premier. But Ontarians were so put off by the faith-based school pledge his campaign couldn't recover, even after he recanted.
John Tory is no fundamentalist. This was a scaled down version of the original Progressive Conservative policy: tax credits for ALL parents with kids in private schools (secular or religious). He thought by taking the secular schools out of the idea, it would become more popular -- the main complaint was that rich people with kids in private school would get the main benefit of it.
It's an example of framing. Tory didn't realize that he was reframing the argument from an economic one to a religious one. While Ontarians are mixed on economic views, we are relatively united on how we feel about religious influence in state-funded institutions.
Kudos to the Green Party for being the only one to have the guts to make the right call on this -- stop funding the Catholic schools.
He's another Mikey. We know how well *that* worked out.
John Tory has about as much in common with Mike Harris as George W Bush has with Abraham Lincoln.
Mike Harris has never one any awards like this one.
Caveat, we have a very different view of things. From my perspective, Tory was simply pandering to various special interests in attempts to win votes, especially Jewish votes that usually go Liberal. There was nothing at all principled in the stand of taking money out of the public system to give to faith-based schools.
As for the injustice of having funding for Catholic schools, and the difficulty of eliminating it, I think you grossly underestimate public sentiment about that issue -- it seemed clear during the election that the Catholic school boards were very nervous about Tory raising this issue, since his solution was only one of two possible ways to go, and there was indeed talk in the media about doing away with public funding for Catholic schools.
As for Tory's leadership qualities, I'll remind you that he was essentially a backroom boy, completely untested in electoral politics of any variety until he ran and lost soundly the Toronto mayor's race. He then somehow built on that defeat and had the Conservatives elect him leader, and took them into an election against an idealess, promise-breaking Liberal party that excited no one. With that huge advantage, he then said hugely stupid things about creationism, and then proposed faith-based funding. When that blew up in his face, he completely mismanaged the crisis, lamely backtracking weeks later to the position of a free vote on the matter, far too little far too late, driving his party from what could have been at least a minority government back into opposition, actually losing ground on the Liberals.
So, to recap: John Tory's "leadership" involves no actual elected office, just two campaigns that he lost, one that was especially disastrously mishandled by him. So why again do you think he is such a fine leader?
(My apologies to all others here for the narrowness of this discussion, although I suppose it is no more narrow than talking about Larry Craig is to us Canadians.)
Actually, the turnout was the lowest in Ontario's history at 51+% and just 42% of that turnout voted for McGuinty, the most incompetent leader of the most inept government in the province's history. To put it another way, 58% of the lazy asses who actually voted, voted against McGuinty. Unfortunately, a lot of people threw their votes away on fringe parties like FCP and the Greens, although the Dippers picked up a bigger vote share. We have more parties than the US and there is no requirement to get 50%+1 to win. It's based on the British system, first past the post.
The 'Liberals' (ha!) got 70 seats with 42% of the vote. The PCs got 26 seats with 32% of the vote. The NDP got 9 seats, so they're up two. The fringe parties got no seats, which is why those votes are wasted.
Tory was Bill Davis's principal secretary. He was not a Harrisite. More media spin and pandering to the 94% of people who don't follow the issues and really don't have a clue what they're voting for.
The reason this funding thing became the major issue, and I fully agree it was a major blunder to include it as a platform plank, was because it was all McGuinty had.
He couldn't exactly run on his record.
It's actually the media (big-L Liberal owned with the exception of the Sun chain) who is running things, in case you hadn't noticed. By predicting a McGuinty win two weeks out (our writ period is four weeks) and running straw polls with huge confidence intervals right up until the day before the election, they actually created the low voter turnout McGuinty needed.
When you tell someone like me that McGuinty is going to win, I don't care if I have to be wheeled in on a gurney - I'm voting. But then, I always do.
However, it has the opposite effect with most people who don't follow politics or issues - they think there's no point in voting because their team won't win.
It's manipulative and it works.
Oh well. When reality hits, as is already happening, people will wonder what the hell happened.
As for Harris, he got in twice. He made promises, outlined his plans in advance, and kept those promises. Voters have short memories - he inherited a $40 billion deficit from Bob Rae, the second-worst premier we've ever had and had to take some strong steps to put the province back on track.
Thanks to McGuinty, Ontario is now tenth out of ten provinces in terms of economic strength. Four more years and we'll be borrowing money from Mexico. If we even have a credit rating by then.
Egads! JPII has come back to earth as some sort of fire demon! Surely this is a clear sign that he was Chaotic Evil in life. Right?
Tulse,
Tory wasn't pandering to get votes. We're talking about 20,000 votes or so, provincewide. (Electorate 8.38 million). That wouldn't win you one large riding. My riding, for example, has 90,000 voters.
He did it because - wait for it - he promised the parents of the kids who go to the religious schools that he would bring the issue forward and try to address an injustice. Wild concept in Ontario politics, keeping promises. Fighting injustice. It always blows people's minds.
As for leadership, he was the CEO of Rogers. He was Chair of the United Way. He was the guy they called in when the CFL was so far in the red it was ready to declare bankruptcy. He put it in the black. He erased the Ontario PC Party's $12 million debt since taking over as leader in 2005 - and did it quietly and competently.
He's got a lot of strengths but I imagine he is stubborn and overrode his advisors on the faith-based school thing.
Too bad, it's Ontario's loss.
@Tulse:
"There was nothing at all principled in the stand of taking money out of the public system to give to faith-based schools."
As I mentioned above, it was a sop to the right wing of the party. He watered down an older policy, without fully understanding the implications.
He thought it was sound because he was proposing to end the religious discrimination in the current system. There's a standing UN resolution condemning Ontario's education system, and his proposal was the only way to address it without amending the Canadian constitution.
We would rather have the discrimination, of course.
The Catholic school boards weren't really nervous. There is no practical way of removing funding.
"John Tory's "leadership" involves no actual elected office, just two campaigns that he lost, one that was especially disastrously mishandled by him."
As a volunteer, he has been the chair of the United Way of Greater Toronto and Commissioner of the Canadian Football League.
He was CEO of Rogers Media for a few years as well.
....losing Don Valley West to Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal Education Minister.
Hey, ho, way to go Ontario!
Not just Ontario, but Don Mills specifically -- that riding includes the neighbourhood I grew up in. Obviously, it produces smart people ;-).
As someone living north of the border, I was actually very pleased to read that piece. I've never see an article like that in the mainstream US press -- "This is a common ploy by creationists and is unacceptable for a political leader in a secular society that depends on science and technology." It's straight and to the point. Makes me very proud of my adopted home.
Caveat:
And to put that in context, the last time a single party won the majority of the popular vote was 1934, and many Ontario majority governments have won with a far lower popular vote than received by the Liberals in this election. (And thanks to the defeat of the MMP referrendum, it is likely to stay that way for a while.)
And given that you brought up your hero Mike Harris, his Conservative governments won majorities with only 44.8% and 45.1% of the vote, hardly an overwhelming mandate, and certainly not a vote of confidence for the massive cuts to social programs that he instituted.
Tory ran a hugely inept campaign, and voters seemed to prefer someone who they knew was ineffectual to someone who seemed incompetent (and a religious panderer to boot). It's as simple as that.
Swedes are sweet.
I'll just repeat the comment you didn't actually address: "John Tory's "leadership" involves no actual elected office, just two campaigns that he lost, one that was especially disastrously mishandled by him."
As for Catholic school funding, it is only guaranteed in the BNA Act up to Grade 9 -- it was as recent as 1984 that was extended all the way to high school (by a Conservative government, naturally). As for eliminating funding, both Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador eliminated their separate Catholic systems, and surveys have suggested that close to 80% of Ontarians want a single, public system, so to say that defunding the Catholic system is politically impractical is grossly overstating the matter.
Thanks to those Canadians posting here for enlightening us Yanks about your domestic politics a bit. Much the same, yet different as they say... ;-)
I think it's very considerate of a man called Tory to attach himself to the Conservatives, thus saving the voters a lot of "who's on first?" confusion.
Considering that this is Alberta, home to the world famous Dinosaur Provincial Park and Royal Tyrell Museum, this is an insult.
I am considering packing up my children and moving to Sweden. How does their school system rank internationally?
Yay Sweden!
There are actually not very many independent faith schools here in Sweden and most of them are quite small and have limited private funds (mostly they get subsidies from the government). Only about 4% of the total students attend independent schools. I grew up in the Swedish bible-belt and I've only heard about a couple or so in our province. But still, it's the principle that counts and I'm glad this center-right government can see that, even though they're in coalition with the christian democrats (our minister for social affairs is a christian democrat) and they promote the creation of private schools.
I wouldn't say fundamentalism is rampant here in Sweden (and by taking these kinds of measures we'll make it stay that way) but there have been some "scares" in the past few years. There was a highly publicized murder a few years back connected to a small closed-in independent christian church where the pastor had an affair with a woman and convinced her to kill the family she was working for as a nanny through "text messages from Jesus" on her cell phone (I'm not making this up). So that gave the media and the government a reason to check in on all these independent churches, several of which have faith-schools. Of course after 9/11 and the islam paranoia the muslim faith schools were also scrutinized and many were closed actually... not because of terrorist activities or anything but because they weren't following the mandatory school-plan that all schools in Sweden must follow. (And also because some of them were using corporal punishment.)
Even though there are faith schools in Sweden they must follow the government-set curriculum of what they must teach in every subject at every grade. If they fail to do this they will be closed. So I'm pretty sure that even though they don't like it, they have to teach evolution or else... which is not a guarantee that they do it right and I'm sure they get all of their crap in there as well, but still - there are examples of schools that have been forced to close.
Here's a good summary of the Swedish school system: http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/354 There's a paragraph in the end about private independent schools. Swedish public schools are among the best in the world but of course we deal with many of the same problems as schools everywhere else: many students fail to meet the requirement to enter secondary school (grades 10-12) after 9th grade (especially maths) and there are too many students per class, at least by Swedish standards.
Re: the 'Pope John Paul II' photo.
Wow.
Given that the Daily Hate Mail is notorious for not letting through website comments which don't promote its own barmy worldview, I doubt they'll get many acceptable comments on that article.
Sorry, Caveat, I love your writing & commentary but I gotta side with Tulse and Mango on this one. Tory just threw the faith-based school out there hoping to pick up traditionally left-wing minority groups, and all McGuinty had to do was play it safe until election day.
The Greens got my vote, I'm in Frank de Jong's riding. They were the only ones brave enough to say we should absorb the Catholic system into the secular. All my nieces and nephews are in Catholic schools, and I'm surprised by the amount of prayer in the classrooms. Time better spent reading, writing and thinking.
"Considering that this is Alberta, home to the world famous Dinosaur Provincial Park and Royal Tyrell Museum, this is an insult."
Hai Ren (#22) - I don't know how long you have lived in Alberta, but when then Premier Peter Lougheed spoke at the opening of the Tyrell, he gave himself a pat on the back on for making the museum possible by defeating the fundy Social Credit government. When I was in in junior high school (late 60s) they were still putting anti evolution inserts in the high school biology texts. The Klein government was gradually dragging us back to those days.
Don't forget that former provincial treasurer Stockwell Day is a YEC. When Day was near the end of this time as head of the Alliance (now the Conservative) Party, I heard a caller to an open line show discussing whether he should resign utter the following unitentionaly ironic comment: "He believes the earth is only 10,000 years old for God's sake"
I think the only thing that is keeping the creationists in check is the importance of the upstream petroleum industry in the Province and the rusulting large population of geologists. The downside of that is it makes Alberta a hotbed of MMGW denialism.
Sweden forces the teaching of evolution?
That explains why there is so much crime, violence and war in Sweden... Oh hang on...
It should be added that Jan Björklund is a right wing nutjob. That says quite much about the attitudes about Creationism in Sweden. It's a standing joke, especially in the schools and among teachers.
With all due respect, I disagree. On the scale that most readers of this blog would be used to, he is somewhere between liberal (in the american sense) and communist. Also: he hasn't actually changed any of the rules around letting religious ideas affect what gets taught, just clarified that all lessons should be based on the curriculum, and then firmed up the process for what happens if a school breaks those rules.
With few exceptions, religious ideas don't get mixed into regular topics in swedish schools, even in the ones that are faith based, and the standard of education is good. I hope we can keep it that way, and therefore think it's a good thing that the government has been clear!
Well, I was jumping of joy over Sweden's actions yesterday. But as always the picture becomes more nuanced over time.
Today I can gather from the news that there are pros:
- There hasn't been a clear statement on this from the government before.
- They intend to change the current control system to immediate closure pending investigation instead of dragging the process out over years.
- They intend to put in more money for the controlling organ.
- They intend to control money contributors. (The school system is supposed to encourage market competition among educators.)
and cons:
- They don't intend to close religious independent schools, though many parties wants to go that far. The social democrat party secretary calls the "child prisons".
- They will keep the exceptions for profile or "educational approach". Waldorf schools, with their connections to the pseudoscientific and spiritual ideas of anthroposophy, are still allowed.
So I'm more moderately happy today. The realization is yet to be seen, hopefully next year.
And the system seems to have worked well enough anyway. It is claimed that one school has been closed for religious problems related to education (ie teaching creationism instead of evolution), and one school has gotten the extra funds that makes the government react now.
But again, the clear statement and the more definitive response can't hurt. Okay, I will put in a yay too.T
Agree with Tulse and disagree with Caveat. Tory had to be spanked on this one. I rarely vote, but this faith-based school funding got me out. Yeah, the Catholic school system in Ontario is anachronistic and should be defunded, but in the meantime, its religious curriculum has been diluted over time to the point that it provides an essentially secular education. As for Alberta, our Far Right homeland, I'm hoping that the recent influx of economic immigrants there will water down their social conservative leanings.
Canada seems to score better than Sweden (scroll down to the bottom). There must be a lag...
I agree that calling the Moderate party in Sweden "right-wing nutjobs" is a bit out of reference. I think the more internatinonally correct point of reference would be "center-right". But it's a bit of a jumble really because the current government is a coalition between the moderates, liberals (economic liberalism, not quite what you refer to as liberals in the US), center and christian democrats.
In my opinion private schools shouldn't even be an option, especially none that want to put religion into the curriculum... Extra especially not like the one that's figured in the media recently here in Sweden, I think it's called the Plymouth brotherhood school. *shiver* Those poor kids weren't allowed to eat anything that had been cooked by someone outside the congregation... among other nutty things.
Still, I take the fact that this privatization friendly government is making this stand as something extremely positive. So, yay!
Thinker: I agree, it's rare, but it's not as rare as a lot of people think. Where I grew up the christians formed the largest student organization, even larger than the student council, and they organized many different activities that the whole school participated in. Among these a conference where the invited speakers were some of Sweden's "leading" creationists. This was in secondary school. Before that there were students in my high school that wouldn't learn about evolution but requested to write papers about creationism instead. So they get it at home. On a positive note though, my mother is a secondary school teacher and she recently asked, as part of a language exercise, how many in her class didn't believe in god and was pleased to see that the majority put up their hands without even thinking about it.
ROTFL! I mean, I could make that up, but I really wouldn't. :-D
John Tory's plan to allow public funding to faith-based schools is not as bad the "never will get a seat" Family Coalition. Their candidates constantly call themselves pro-life and all they about is abortion and "traditional" family values.
Some of the candidiates did not show up for debates or sent a representative. In one case, when asked about FC's environment plan, a candidate said the party did have one and went on to talk being pro-life.
In another riding, the candidate had someome protest outside the debate at an elementary school with posters of fetuses. That candidate get chastised by the media and the Family Coalition came in last place.
@Tulse: I thought you were talking about general leadership credentials, since I don't see the point of faulting a politician for not being an incumbent.
But you are technically wrong, he has held elected office. In March 2005 he won a by-election in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and became the MPP for that riding. This makes him only marginally less experienced in office as Pierre Trudeau was when he became Prime Minister -- who was first elected to parliament in 1965, and become PM in 1968. Since Tory was a political aide to Premier Bill Davis in the early 1980s you could say he has more overall experience in government.
Yes, you are right that they could probably remove Catholic school funding for grades 10 through 12, but it would have a significant political cost for very little benefit. Kindergarten through grade 9 would still have to be funded. In the meantime, the party pressing for it would jeopardize much of the vote from the 35% of Ontarians who are Catholic, while to the majority of non-Catholics it doesn't register as a really big issue. It's a guaranteed vote loser. That's why neither the Liberals nor the NDP had the guts to say a word against full funding of Catholic school boards, even while paying lip service to the virtues of a single public system.
Anyway, read section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then tell me how you think Catholic school funding could be removed without a change to the constitution.
mango @ #37 said:
That section deals with minority language rights. I think you meant Section 93 of the Constitution Act.
Thank you bPer. I did indeed.
@Caveat
Which is why the proportional representation initiative (sorry for the California terminology) should have been supported better. It was sad - but not surprising, I suppose - to see it fail again! after failing in PEI and first (and therefore most shamefully?) here in BC.
Is that why proportional representation failed, too, d'y'think? It's certainly in the interest of the big parties to suppress proportional rep. as much as possible.
@Ex-drone
What?! I hope you rarely bitch about the government, then, too!
I hope you voted for proportional representation while you were at it. (As flawed as the proposed system might have been, it's better than what we have now.) That way you may have some reason for voting again. "I rarely vote," indeed.
Alright, sorry - I know that was three comments about the same issue. I'll stop now.
Yeah ... and those Swedes are our conservatives eat your heart out people ....
The proportional system suggested by a hand-picked Liberal group of citzens was an open invitation to corruption and patronage, the 'Liberal' (ha!) way of doing business.
Had it been a straight prop rep system, I would have supported it. However, it wasn't.
We currently have 107 MPPs (Members of the Provincial Parliament) (up from 103 in 2003). Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) would have reduced the number of elected MPPs to 90, making ridings (electoral districts to you guys, I think) much larger. Some of our ridings are already bigger than a lot of European countries, so making them larger would be a bad idea.
Then, there would be a pool of 39 candidates from each party who would be appointed by the Party leaders.
After the vote, the 90 fully elected MPPs would gain their seats using first past the post.
Then, a tally would be made of the popular vote and the pool of appointed MPPs would be divided proportionally to reflect the popular vote.
Sound like a good idea?
It isn't.
These 'pool' members are not attached to any riding. They are appointed and are on lists, so cannot be unelected or held accountable.
Adding more MPPs to the House is not the way to provide better representation.
In theory, since we know that the Party insiders would make sure their names were at the top of the list, someone who lost their seat in an election could be appointed and still sit in the House with all the benefits that accrue without being accountable..
In my opinion, an invitation to corruption and patronage.
No thanks, there's enough of that up here now.
Another thing I didn't like was the double vote aspect. So, you like your PC candidate and vote for her. Then, you choose your party. The spin was that you might vote differently but I doubt that most people would. They would tend to vote for a candidate and that candidate's party.
While it would give the right-wing Greens and the left-wing NDPs more seats, it would also open the door to whackjob religious parties such as FCP and who knows what else? It almost guarantees a minority government when you have too many parties sitting in the House and while I'm a bit of a fan of minorities, ultimately it can lead to either chaos or stasis. Stasis I can live with because I think we've had enough laws for at least a century. Chaos, not so much.
OK, flame me!
Mango, I do indeed stand corrected regarding Tory's electoral history. That said, I think his handling both of the Toronto mayoral campaign, and especially this provincial campaign, casts serious doubts on his alleged special political leadership skills. Your mileage may vary, of course.
As for the political possibility of changing the current funding arrangement, I disagree that there would be huge fallout from defunding Catholic high school -- the fairness argument cuts both ways, and as I cited earlier, surveys in the past have shown that almost 80% of Ontarians want a single system. With regards to doing away with the Catholic system altogether, I'll remind you that that is precisely what Quebec, which is subject to the same Constitution Act (formerly BNA Act) as Ontario, did in 2000. Granted, it replaced it with a language-based system, and Quebec is always hard to generalize from in Canadian politics, but it has been done before.
In any case, my point was if one really wants to push the issue of fairness, there are actually two options, and it is by no means clear to me that complete defunding would be politically more difficult than complete funding of any and all religious schools (including, I suppose, Jedi schools, and FSM schools, and Scientology schools, and...).
Caveat:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't practically always the case that proportional representation systems use candidate pools? I'm not clear on how this aspect of MMP is somehow worse than a "straight prop rep system". If anything, MMP at least preserves some of the accountability you want, with some members directly attached to ridings.
Also, I'd be very curious as to how you figure the Greens to be "right-wing"...
What is most ironic about Alberta--a province that now officially has more money than brains--is that we are making money hand over fist from oil revenues (though it should be said, less than we should since we refuse to inconvenience the oil companies by raising the oil royalties beyond a symbolic pittance.) Geologists are required to locate and identify oil deposits, and they sure as hell don't do that using any YEC understanding of geology.
We hate science, but we sure love the perks it provides, don't we?
Granted, funding this type of nonsense into the schools is bad, but the problem is spreading into other areas as well.
The Calgary Regional Health folks have hired a spiritual consultant (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=a08cd80e-da…) instead of a medical doctor to address problems in the hospitals.
Last time I was in to the hospital everyone (doctors, nurses and cleaning staff) were run off their feet doing good and useful work. I didn't hear one patient or staff member moan that there was no one to discuss eternal matters with them.
Tulse, #44:
The Greens are perceived to be somewhat right wing because they hold some views that could be described as libertarian - they like privatization of utilities, are supportive of corporate 'greening', as in market driven ecologically sound imperatives, as opposed to legislation. Their social safety net views are muddy. The present leader, Elizabeth May, likely couldn't get elected dog-catcher in her home town in Cape Breton, which means something to me: YMMV.
#44
The Greens are the most right-wing credible party in Canada, the 'Liberals' (ha!) are right of centre, the PCs are centrist and the NDP are so left wing they'd be branded Commies in the States.
The Green platform is great if you are well off. As far as low income people go, or those on pensions and other forms of fixed incomes, they would be a disaster.
They believe in hyper-taxing utilities. They believe in decentralizing almost everything. They believe in rewarding those who can afford to convert systems and in penalizing those who can't. They want to change the way property is taxed. They have some seriously right-leaning fiscal policies.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that because the Greens are pro-sustainability (and hey, what took everybody so long, I've been waiting for decades) they are left wing.
Uh, no. Remember that the true meaning of Conservative is, well, to conserve things and be restrained in all ways.
For our friends in the US: Up here, the Conservatives are most like your Democrats. The 'Liberals' (ha!) are much more nannying, intrusive and dictatorial than you would likely tolerate. The NDP would probably be hunted down and exterminated, if they weren't just laughed down. We have nothing as right-wing as the Republicans and you have nothing as left-wing as the NDP, in other words.
Just to put things into context.
Oh Canada! But how can we forgive you for inflicting Denyse O'Leary upon us? We stand on guard against she.
Her writing "style" is a stunning indictment of the Canadien educational system, although to be fair, since she claims to be Catholic, perhaps she is from one of the non-regulated schools.
Please take her back, and do not let her leave.
Thank You
@Tulse:
"That said, I think his handling both of the Toronto mayoral campaign, and especially this provincial campaign, casts serious doubts on his alleged special political leadership skills."
I might be inclined to agree with you that might not be made for electoral politics.
Recently I watched a panel of commentators discussing this idea. One brought up the fact that his party was always uncomfortable with the fact that John Tory, as leader of the opposition, would occasionally stand in the legislature and tell the government they did a good job on a bill, and the PCs would be happy to support it. That is unorthodox -- usually compliments are back-handed like 'you should have done this a long time ago' or 'you stole the idea from us'.
Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella agreed with the notion that John Tory might be too honest a man to be a politician. He gave an anecdote that on a radio interview 2 years ago John Tory openly criticized his own party for mishandling finances and hiding a deficit when it was in government. A party leader simply isn't supposed to do that. Kinsella explained the folly: "Of course we kept the tape of that interview, though we didn't end up using it."
I have always held the view that in politics, being honest and being successful are mutually exclusive dispositions. Certainly anyone who wanted to accuse Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney of excessive honesty would be on extremely flimsy ground.
It's probably best that John Tory lost his seat, enabling him an easy exit back into private life.
"In any case, my point was if one really wants to push the issue of fairness, there are actually two options, and it is by no means clear to me that complete defunding would be politically more difficult than complete funding of any and all religious schools"
I don't think either of those options are politically realistic. Aside from the constitutional problem, which you really haven't addressed (and no, just because Quebec did it doesn't mean Ontario can do it), there is the not so small issue of 650,000 students currently in the separate system whose parents suddenly have to pay the full cost of their education.
This issue is going to die now. The status quo will continue, and it'll likely be a decade or two before a prominent politician brings it up again.
(I sure hope everyone else here is fascinated by the minutiae of Ontario politics...)
Bee:
I think it is arguable that at best only some of their views are libertarian, and even if that is the case, I would suggest that their perception among voters is far more left-wing than right, regardless of the reality of their positions.
Caveat:
That is a rather bizarre characterization to me, especially for an audience that is predominantly in the US. First off, by any reasonable measure the PCs are quite definitely more conservative than the Liberals on almost every issue. Second, both parties would be considered "leftist" in the US -- certainly both are left of the Republicans, and arguably both are left of the Democrats. As for the Greens, while I agree that some of their policies may seem "conservative" in the traditional political sense, I hardly think that "hyper-taxing utilities" is a conservative policy. Indeed, given their economic interventionism to promote the environment, I think it would be very hard to call them "conservative" (in the traditional political sense).
J-Dog, if you're going to hold Denyse against us, you have to credit us for Shatner.
Mango:
Perhaps, but I have also found that being honest and being competent are generally not correlated. I'd rather have a politician who can't keep promises because of changes in circumstance than have a politician that is consistent but can't manage the government to the benefit of the people.
As for the schools issue, I agree that neither extending funding nor defunding is politically likely at the moment -- I was just responding to the argument that the current system is unfair, and pointing out that extending funding was not the only, or even easiest, route to go. I think you're right that the issue will fade away for the time being.
I thought I did indeed deal with the constitutional aspects of the school funding issue, by pointing out that such change had been accomplished by Quebec. That to me is an existence proof that it is possible. I think you are right that it is not probable, and that it would be difficult, but I think it is arguable that extending funding would also be difficult.
As for the 650,000 students you mention, there would be absolutely no need for their parent to pay the full cost of their education -- they would simply join the 2 millions students already in the free, taxpayer-supported public non-religious system. Now, if parents feel strongly enough about religious instruction, then no, the Ontario taxpayer should not have to fund that.
let's not forget that you are talking about Alberta here...
no offence, but the story goes around here that when the Americans were emigrating to Canada (ah, a looong time ago) they all ended up in Alberta...
btw, thanks for linking to the current edition of the Carnival of the Godless
OK, if this isn't right-wing, I don't know what is.
http://www.gpo.ca/platform
The Liberals are right-wing because they are fascist in outlook. They rely on propaganda, the isolation and depersonalization of minorities and an ignorance of the facts that is world-class. To me, and I admit my opinion might be somewhat personal, that makes them right-wing.
Caveat, you certainly have a, um, novel view of political orientation. When I look at the Green platform, I have a very hard time seeing how calls for new taxes and increased regulation and restriction could be called "right-wing". As for the Liberals being fascists, well, you've come darned close to Godwinning yourself.
In any case, I think the skies in our respective worlds are very different colours, which makes finding any common ground on these matters rather unlikely. If you choose to think that the Greens are neo-libertarians and the Liberals are neo-Nazis, so be it -- I doubt there is anything I could say that would change your mind.
@Tulse:
"I'd rather have a politician who can't keep promises because of changes in circumstance than have a politician that is consistent but can't manage the government to the benefit of the people."
Honesty isn't about keeping promises so much as speaking what one believes is true.
Dalton McGuinty knew very well in 2003 that his platform was entirely unrealistic. He declared upon taking office that he was shocked -- shocked! -- that there was a large hidden deficit. This is after accusing the Tories during the election campaign of hiding a large deficit (both the Fraser Institute and Liberal analysts published estimates of the deficit size during the 2003 campaign). He then used the deficit as carte blanche to back out of all three aspects of his campaign platform - balanced budget, no tax increases, and various spending increases.
It was predictable at the time. Many commentators suggested during the campaign that he would use that accountability-avoidance strategy, especially since Danny Williams had done precisely the same thing in Newfoundland a few months earlier. McGuinty was using the Harris-Eves deficit as an excuse even three years into his mandate.
It worked for him. Just like promising to repeal the GST worked for Jean Chretien even though not a single clear head in the country believed that was possible -- he couldn't restore the manufacturing tax to replace the lost revenue. Brian Mulroney laughably promised to eliminate patronage from federal politics. Stephen Harper dissembles about all sorts of things, such as right now he says he doesn't want an election.
We're used to it. When a politician is truthful, he gets buried. McGuinty and Hampton both avoided the question of the current education system being discriminatory -- they both paradoxically support funding the Catholic school system and believe in a single universal secular public system. It's obviously BS, but any other position would have cost them votes.
Well, you see, I'm a strong believer in democracy.
The founding principles of democracy are that every citizen is entitled to equal treatment before the law and that every citizen has an equal voice.
The 'Liberals' (ha!) have proved by their actions that they do not hold these principles in high regard and are, in fact, determined to undermine them.
I'm also a strong believer in the fundamental principles of justice - that every accused is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the individual must be protected from the power of the State.
The 'Liberals' (ha!) do not espouse these beliefs or practise them.
When you look at the dictionary, and stumble upon the words 'hypocrisy', 'manipulation' and 'pandering', I assure you that you are looking at the McGuinty cabal, defined.
Believe it or not.
Perhaps they, like me, genuinely desire a single universal secular public system, but realize, as you have pointed out, that getting that would be difficult, and so are willing to put up with an imperfect system, rather than make it even more imperfect by having taxpayers shoulder more taxes to pay for other religious schools.
Canadian politics is far more pragmatic than the US -- there are countless instances of differential treatment (see, e.g., Quebec) that arose due to historical constraints. If you want to fight for a principle of fairness, then it makes far more sense to me to recognize that the original differential treatment was due to an historical context that no longer applies, and so justice would be best served by eliminating any special treatment, rather than extending such treatment even further.
I guess that it goes without saying that I feel pretty proud to be a Swede right now. And that's pretty unusual; in Sweden patriotism is considered rather weird. ;)
Someone seemed to imply that Björklund is a Moderate, by the way, which he isn't - he's from the Liberal People's Party. As far as I understand they're supposedly rather less conservative than the Moderates (who are still FAR less conservative than their american counterparts).
"Perhaps they, like me, genuinely desire a single universal secular public system, but realize, as you have pointed out, that getting that would be difficult, and so are willing to put up with an imperfect system, rather than make it even more imperfect by having taxpayers shoulder more taxes to pay for other religious schools."
Perhaps, though in Dalton McGuinty's case it seems unlikely since he put his kids through Catholic school and his wife teaches in that system. Also, he is on record as opposition leader as saying he supports funding of faith-based schools if they adhere to the same restrictions as Catholic schools (they have to teach mandated curriculum, and have to accept students of any faith or creed). Perhaps he had a change of heart...
Regardless, the entire point is if they believe that, they refuse to say they believe it, for reasons of political liability. They are practicing pragmatic politics, and also pragmatically lying about it.
To arrive back where this started from, good politicians by necessity are good liars. John Tory was deficient in that area, in that he had a nasty habit of saying what he believes to be true.
Mango, I think we can both agree that John Tory was not a good politician.
Mango is a very sensible person.
Hypocrisy and the 'Liberal' (ha!) parties go hand in hand. It's not about what is true, it's about what the hoi polloi believes to be true. Goebbels was the master.
If only Ontarians knew, as I and a contigent of informed citizens know but who are obviously not substantial enough to make waves, that this government is the greatest threat to democracy that we have ever seen in Canada, we'd be home free.
But we're not.
So. we'll keep being the kook squad who remembers why we came here and why it's important keep fighing this fascist government.
I'm rather attached to my civil rights so I'll keep trying to inform.
Check with me in four years, if I'm still alive. Let me know how it's working for you. Don't whine though, I tried to warn you and you just wouldn't listen.
Oh, one more thing.
'Ten thousand Swedes, run through the weeds, chased by One Norwegian'.
If only Ontarians knew, as I and a contigent of informed citizens know but who are obviously not substantial enough to make waves, that this government is the greatest threat to democracy that we have ever seen in Canada, we'd be home free.
Yeah, okay, exaggerate much? "Dalton McGuinty: Threat to Civilization as We Know It" would be laughed at by a good many people because it is really funny.
Some of us, believe it or not, are not only Canadians but Canadians who have lived under provincial Liberal governments that did not, in fact, result in the end of human freedom. My home province's former premier, in fact, provides a good example. Before he was elected he said he didn't think a premier should serve more than 10 years. Guess what he did nearly ten years to the day after he won the position, with a high approval rating, no internal competition from within the party, and a solid majority midway through his third term?
Mike Harris got elected twice on approximately 23% of the vote, before people start getting so smug about Dalton McGuinty not having anyone vote for him. Sheesh...
And speaking of "do-nothings," now who's taking the spin? I actually think the McGuinty government has done some good things, like raised Mike Harris' criminally low welfare and disability rates, and made the right decision on religious arbitration in the province. Considering that he's only had four years or so to straighten up Harris' mess, he's doing quite well. The civil servants of my acquaintance also no longer feel as though the province is breathing down their necks, which is also a good thing. They're also not getting nailed to the wall regular as clockwork by the Ontario Supreme Court and the Human Rights Commission, which is always a plus.
I'm not impressed with Tory's Davisite credentials, frankly. Davis was a conservative reactionary, particularly in the area of education. He pretty much broke Ontario's education system, and it more or less took until the early '90s to get it running well again -- by which time Harris came along and broke it again.
My feelings on Tory's religious views are, well -- if it talks like a creationist, it probably is one. (If you nail a creationist's rhetorical point down, does he circumlocute?) I personally think that the "separate" school boards should be secularised and amalgamated with the regular school boards, which would be about the only fair thing to do, but on the other hand, I'm also not in favour of funding more religious schools with taxpayer money. As far as I'm concerned, that just sets up a sort of "religious validity" test, with the province deciding whose religion is "real" enough to warrant getting funding.
Given the kerfuffle over what happened when an Islamic organisation said that they wanted to have religious arbitration like the Jews and the Catholics have had here since Hector was a pup, pass that school-funding programme, and precisely how long is it going to be before someone is screaming madrassas?! You don't fix a broken system by making it more broken.
Besides which, as everyone who lived through the tenures of both Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney knows, if it's running on the Conservative ticket, you can't trust it.
Well, I was jumping of joy over Sweden's actions yesterday. But as always the picture becomes more nuanced over time.
Today I can gather from the news that there are pros:
- There hasn't been a clear statement on this from the government before.
- They intend to change the current control system to immediate closure pending investigation instead of dragging the process out over years.
- They intend to put in more money for the controlling organ.
- They intend to control money contributors. (The school system is supposed to encourage market competition among educators.)
and cons:
- They don't intend to close religious independent schools, though many parties wants to go that far. The social democrat party secretary calls the "child prisons".
- They will keep the exceptions for profile or "educational approach". Waldorf schools, with their connections to the pseudoscientific and spiritual ideas of anthroposophy, are still allowed.
So I'm more moderately happy today. The realization is yet to be seen, hopefully next year.
And the system seems to have worked well enough anyway. It is claimed that one school has been closed for religious problems related to education (ie teaching creationism instead of evolution), and one school has gotten the extra funds that makes the government react now.
But again, the clear statement and the more definitive response can't hurt. Okay, I will put in a yay too.T
ROTFL! I mean, I could make that up, but I really wouldn't. :-D