Having your period? Then go to the back of the class and sit by yourself

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you're quite happy with 'Muslims' who compromise their religious observance to meet your approval.

I'm not asking anyone to compromise anything. All I'm asking for is that the principal, students and parents respect the fact that a public school is a public school.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd like to touch on something that nobody arguing for the prayer service has really addressed: as I've said repeatedly, this whole issue came to light because Hindu parents started making demands for equal treatment and similar religious accommodation to the Muslims.

Should the Hindu students get special religious accommodation as well? If it's wrong for the school to put limitations on the Muslim students, then how would one go about deciding what accommodation is appropriate for the Hindu students? Is is just a matter of whatever the parents ask for, they get?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you're quite happy with 'Muslims' who compromise their religious observance to meet your approval.

There is no compromise of religious observance involved in performing one's prayers in a mosque instead of a public school.

No, he simply enables and reinforces them.

What do you enable with your hypocritical stance on this issue?

IMO, all students are entitled to equal treatment. Muslim students are not "more equal" than Hindu students.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not asking anyone to compromise anything. All I'm asking for is that the principal, students and parents respect the fact that a public school is a public school.

So am I. The difference is that I applaud their recognition of the fact that a significant part of that public at that school is Muslim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So am I. The difference is that I applaud their recognition of the fact that a significant part of that public at that school is Muslim.

Do you also applaud the fact that they have so far refused to similarly recognize that a significant part of that same public at that same school is Hindu?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you enable with your hypocritical stance on this issue?

What I enable is increased integration and dialogue in an atmosphere of respect -- until, of course, you and the Islamophobes show up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you also applaud the fact that they have so far refused to similarly recognize that a significant part of that same public at that same school is Hindu?

Have youever heard the term 'non sequitur'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have youever heard the term 'non sequitur'?

It's not a non sequitir; it speaks to the root of the issue here.

The majority of the protests (and yes, this has sparked actual protests) have been from other religious groups asking for equal treatment for their religions, not from secularists demanding that religion be removed from the school altogether. A local Hindu group has been the most vocal, but Christian and Jewish groups have joined in as well.

Edit: the issue isn't just that the school is allowing Muslim prayer services during class time; it's also that they're only allowing Muslim prayer services.

 

[Willamena]

The school has responsibility for the students during school hours and has oversight over their activities during this time. When these prayer services occur, the students involved are officially under the supervision of the school.

Also, the school administration is the one granting the group space within the school and excusing the students from class.

But is it gender discrimination on behalf of the school board/schools, who are not dictating to the Muslim children how they should to pray? The act of the children participating in their prayers the way they do constitutes the school body condoning gender discrimination? That's a tremendous leap.

It's not a matter of "altering the way Muslims pray". The school board simply lays out the policy that applies to everyone and then it's up to the individual group to decide whether their activity can be made to fit within that framework.

I mean, if a school's cafeteria fails to abide by the rules of kashrut, it isn't "altering the way Jews eat"; the students can choose not to use the cafeteria and bring their lunch with them. By the same token, forbidding gender segregation wouldn't be "altering the way Muslims pray", because nobody is making the Muslims pray on school grounds. If they feel that the requirement is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then they can pray elsewhere on their own time.

Well, the policy "applies" to the school board, not everyone, and not the private citizens who attend school. As with the writing of the Charter, school boards have the responsibility of a governing body, and lay out their policies accordingly. Their conduct will conform to gender discrimination laws --they have no authority to enforce gender non-discrimination on private citizens. Gender non-discrimination is not a requirement of private citizens in Canada. Personal, and especially religious, freedom is held dear in Canada (at least, the Canada I grew up in).*

The Muslim students did bring "the way they pray" with them into the school classroom, the same way Jewish kids might bring their special diet food with them into the cafeteria. Neither reflect on the school board or its policies.


* To put it another way, I disagree with the red-neck's opinion, but I will defend to the death his right to have it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But is it gender discrimination on behalf of the school board/schools, who are not dictating to the Muslim children how they should to pray? The act of the children participating in their prayers the way they do constitutes the school body condoning gender discrimination? That's a tremendous leap.

The school has responsibility for the students during school hours. This doesn't magically turn off just because they hand them over to someone who doesn't work for the school.

Well, the policy "applies" to the school board, not everyone, and not the private citizens who attend school.

Is this true for all policies? For instance, is the board's "no weapons" policy only binding on the school and not on the students?

As with the writing of the Charter, school boards have the responsibility of a governing body, and lay out their policies accordingly. Their conduct will conform to gender discrimination laws --they have no authority to enforce gender non-discrimination on private citizens.

When those private citizens are students of the school, and when the setting is on school grounds during school hours, they most certainly do have this authority.

There are two ways of looking at this; both are problematic:

- the imam and the students are under the authority of the school board. In this case, gender discrimination is a violation of policy.

- the imam and the students aren't under the authority of the school board. In this case, the school has failed to be responsible for the students while they are officially under their care, which would mean that the principal and teachers have violated a whole host of other policies and (most likely) laws.

If the imam and the students somehow magically step beyond the authority of the school and the board when they're in their prayer service (even though it takes place in the school during school hours), then the school's actions are effectively equivalent to simply leaving the students unsupervised for this time.

Gender non-discrimination is not a requirement of private citizens in Canada. Personal, and especially religious, freedom is held dear in Canada (at least, the Canada I grew up in).

Equality on the basis of religion and gender are held dear in the Canada I grew up in, but apparently that doesn't matter in this situation.

The Muslim students did bring "the way they pray" with them into the school classroom, the same way Jewish kids might bring their special diet food with them into the cafeteria. Neither reflect on the school board or its policies.

A Jewish kid bringing a special lunch doesn't require any special accommodation on the part of the school or the board. These prayer services are very different in many important respects.

 

[ChristineES]

I was going to say what Mr. Sprinkles said pages and pages back: if you are going to accommodate a religious practice, you have to deal with however they practice- even if you find it objectionable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was going to say what Mr. Sprinkles said pages and pages back: if you are going to accommodate a religious practice, you have to deal with however they practice- even if you find it objectionable.

And if you accommodate the practice of one religion, you have to accommodate all of them. What this ends up with is a situation where anything that someone calls "religious" is automatically allowed.

Under this mindset, the only practical position is to not have any religious accommodation at all.

Personally, I disagree with this approach. I think it's perfectly legitimate to allow reasonable accommodation. This includes the ability of whatever body is granting the accommodation to decide what "reasonable" is and to refuse to go beyond this limit.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, schools should stick to the business of schooling.

 

[Sahar]

You discriminate on the basis of gender.

I asked you, in such case you discriminate against who?

I suppose that might be the logical extension, but since the Ontario Himan Rights Code specifically exempts these sorts of things from its gender discrimination rules, these are not cases of illegal discrimination.

Does the human rights code say anything about the Muslim prayer? Does it say the Muslim prayer is discrimination?

My point in all this isn't so much that the girls are being disadvantaged...

Your point was:

- Regardless of whether the outcomes for boys and girls are equal in value, you can't segregate on the basis of gender without discriminating on the basis of gender. The school's policies address not only equitable treatment, but also discrimination itself.

Based on this, I am asking you now, is the segregation in the bathrooms and clothes changing rooms discrimination?
Again, why the segregated rows of the prayer are discrimination? And against who?

 

[Willamena]

The school has responsibility for the students during school hours. This doesn't magically turn off just because they hand them over to someone who doesn't work for the school.

What responsibilities are you talking about specifically? I cannot imagine those responsibilities include forcing gender non-discrimination on students.

Is this true for all policies? For instance, is the board's "no weapons" policy only binding on the school and not on the students?

Rules and policies are different things. I won't get into a semantical debate.

When those private citizens are students of the school, and when the setting is on school grounds during school hours, they most certainly do have this authority.

There are two ways of looking at this; both are problematic:

- the imam and the students are under the authority of the school board. In this case, gender discrimination is a violation of policy.

- the imam and the students aren't under the authority of the school board. In this case, the school has failed to be responsible for the students while they are officially under their care, which would mean that the principal and teachers have violated a whole host of other policies and (most likely) laws.

If the imam and the students somehow magically step beyond the authority of the school and the board when they're in their prayer service (even though it takes place in the school during school hours), then the school's actions are effectively equivalent to simply leaving the students unsupervised for this time.

The school has to supervise prayers? Again, you're ostensibly suggesting the school step in and modify the way in which they pray.

By the way, there is no way in which the Imam and private citizens ever fall under the authority of the school boards. Again, like "applies to" earlier, I think the term is being abused.

Equality on the basis of religion and gender are held dear in the Canada I grew up in, but apparently that doesn't matter in this situation.

I'd hold personal freedom above that any day. Above other conformity concepts like political correctness, too.

But then, I'm passe.

A Jewish kid bringing a special lunch doesn't require any special accommodation on the part of the school or the board. These prayer services are very different in many important respects.

Allocating a classroom during lunch hour doesn't require any special accommodations, either. The classroom's already there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked you, in such case you discriminate against who?

Discrimination doesn't require an "against".

Does the human rights code say anything about the Muslim prayer? Does it say the Muslim prayer is discrimination?

It doesn't explicitly refer to Muslim prayer, no. Why?

Your point was:
Based on this, I am asking you now, is the segregation in the bathrooms and clothes changing rooms discrimination?

Yes, it is. But it's a legally protected form of discrimination.

Again, why the segregated rows of the prayer are discrimination?

It's discrimination because the position in the room is determined based on gender.

And against who?

It doesn't require an "against". Here's what the law says:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm

Note that it says "equal", not "just as good". IOW, the school cannot use gender as the basis for the decision about where students should stand or sit in a room.

 

[Songbird]

And if you accommodate the practice of one religion, you have to accommodate all of them. What this ends up with is a situation where anything that someone calls "religious" is automatically allowed.

Under this mindset, the only practical position is to not have any religious accommodation at all.

Personally, I disagree with this approach. I think it's perfectly legitimate to allow reasonable accommodation. This includes the ability of whatever body is granting the accommodation to decide what "reasonable" is and to refuse to go beyond this limit.

Exactly. Again I refer to my highschool experience. The school stepped in to set boundaries on a group of Christian students' Bible study. So what? And in that instance, there was no perceived human rights issue. It was a remarkably silly issue, I think.

I don't get the all or nothing approach. As if real life has no nuance, no compromise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What responsibilities are you talking about specifically? I cannot imagine those responsibilities include forcing gender non-discrimination on students.

Really? I find that hard to believe, frankly. But IMO, it's more a matter of the board having a responsibility of not imposing gender discrimination on students. This responsibility would flow to anyone acting as an agent for the school... i.e. anyone given charge of the students during class time, such as the imam.

Rules and policies are different things. I won't get into a semantical debate.

The Toronto District School Board uses the term "policy" for many mandatory requirements for teachers and students... IOW, rules.

The school has to supervise prayers? Again, you're ostensibly suggesting the school step in and modify the way in which they pray.

The school has to supervise students, even praying students.

By the way, there is no way in which the Imam and private citizens ever fall under the authority of the school boards. Again, like "applies to" earlier, I think the term is being abused.

So in the middle of the teaching day, the teacher and principal just abdicate their duty to ensure that the students are properly supervised? Like I said before, if this is what you're suggesting, then it's still problematic.

I'd hold personal freedom above that any day. Above other conformity concepts like political correctness, too.

An important aspect of personal freedom is ensuring that common goods (e.g. public schools) meant for the benefit of all aren't improperly used for the benefit of only one group.

Allocating a classroom during lunch hour doesn't require any special accommodations, either. The classroom's already there.

Based on the number of students involved, one classroom probably wouldn't be sufficient, and at lunch, the cafeteria (which may be the only space in the school large enough) is being used by students eating lunch.

In any case, as it stands now, the students aren't praying during lunch; they're doing their prayers during what's supposed to be regular class time.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, schools should stick to the business of schooling.

what happened?
does religion have rights all of a sudden?

 

[Sahar]

Discrimination doesn't require an "against.

So what is your definition of discrimination?