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

[Willamena]

The school board's mandate is spelled out by the Education Act, which says in part:

(3) A board may permit a person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes indoctrination in a particular religion or religious belief in a school if,
(a) the exercises are not conducted or the instruction is not provided by or under the auspices of the board;
(b) the exercises are conducted or the instruction is provided on a school day at a time that is before or after the school’s instructional program, or on a day that is not a school day;
(c) no person is required by the board to attend the exercises or instruction; and
(d) the board provides space for the exercises or instruction on the same basis as it provides space for other community activities. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 29 (3).
(4) A board that permits religious exercises or instruction under subsection (3) shall consider on an equitable basis all requests to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction under subsection (3). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 29 (4).

The section above prohibits the prayer service as it is done today. This means that unless the prayer service is needed to meet the requirement of some higher law, then it is illegal.

If it were, someone could press charges. Why hasn't that happened?

While your bizarre interpretation of the Charter is rather hard to follow, from what I gather, you do agree that the school and the board are not required by the Charter to hold the prayer service (I think... you keep saying this, but then you also say things that imply the opposite). Therefore, I hope you can also recognize that the prayer service breaks the law, and that's the bottom line: government is not allowed to break the law.

I believe that's Government 101 stuff as well.

It's not bizarre, it's government. I work in government.

...Okay, touche, government is bizarre.

Not only is school board not required to hold the prayer service, they are prohibited. But they're not doing so.

Really.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks.

FYI: Ed Morgan.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it were, someone could press charges. Why hasn't that happened?

Exactly what mechanism do you think there is in the Education Act for someone to "press charges"?

And as I touched on earlier, to launch a suit in civil court, you need standing. While I'm not a lawyer, I would think that it would be difficult for anyone but the parent of a child at this school to get standing.

BTW - you're using American terminology that doesn't strictly apply in Canada. On criminal matters, victims and aggrieved parties don't "press charges" (and on civil matters, there are no "charges" to "press", even in the US)... charges are laid by the Crown Attorney at his or her own discretion, and while a victim's refusal to cooperate will most likely factor into the CA's decision to press charges or not, the decision lies entirely with the CA.

It's not bizarre, it's government. I work in government.

...Okay, touche, government is bizarre.

As do I. I've worked directly for the Federal and Provincial governments, as well as single-tier and lower-tier municipalities (the only hole in my CV is that I've never worked for a single tier municipality). I've also spent most of my career working as an engineering consultant for municipalities and provincial ministries.

Edit: I know from experience that it's usually a straightforward (albeit sometimes tedious) matter to read the relevant legislation and regulations on a subject and extract from them a workable approach to the subject: "you must do this, you may do that, you must not do the other." I do this for a living. In fact, legislation is normally written with this process in mind. It's not the vague weirdness that you're suggesting it is.

Not only is school board not required to hold the prayer service, they are prohibited. But they're not doing so.

Really.

They're not only prohibited from holding the prayer service themselves, they're prohibited from accommodating it at all unless it meets the requirements of the Education Act.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly what mechanism do you think there is in the Education Act for someone to "press charges"?

I expect the same mechanism that are in place to draw any legal action. What difference does it make?

And as I touched on earlier, to launch a suit in civil court, you need standing. While I'm not a lawyer, I would think that it would be difficult for anyone but the parent of a child at this school to get standing.

BTW - you're using American terminology that doesn't strictly apply in Canada. On criminal matters, victims and aggrieved parties don't "press charges" (and on civil matters, there are no "charges" to "press", even in the US)... charges are laid by the Crown Attorney at his or her own discretion, and while a victim's refusal to cooperate will most likely factor into the CA's decision to press charges or not, the decision lies entirely with the CA.

Well, excuse me.

As do I. I've worked directly for the Federal and Provincial governments, as well as single-tier and lower-tier municipalities (the only hole in my CV is that I've never worked for a single tier municipality). I've also spent most of my career working as an engineering consultant for municipalities and provincial ministries.

I apologize if my off-hand comment came off as an appeal to authority. I didn't mean to prompt a similar appeal to greater authority.

They're not only prohibited from holding the prayer service themselves, they're prohibited from accommodating it at all unless it meets the requirements of the Education Act.

This is what agreements are for. The Muslims, by tradition, can only pray at a particular time of day. The Education Act is meant to accommodate Canadians, not stomp on them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I expect the same mechanism that are in place to draw any legal action. What difference does it make?

It makes a difference because it seems like you're suggesting that any private citizen can compel the school to follow the law. I think this shows a misunderstanding of how the law works.

The Education Act allows for the Ministry of Education to ensure that boards adhere to the law. Civil law allows for parties who suffered damages because of the prayer service to sue. My displeasure that the government would flaut the law does not constitute "damages" for the purposes of a lawsuit, so I have no standing to sue. I also have no power to issue binding directives to a school board.

I apologize if my off-hand comment came off as an appeal to authority. I didn't mean to prompt a similar appeal to greater authority.

I wasn't making an appeal to authority; I was pointing out that your own appeal to authority, in addition to be fallacious to begin with, was based on the false premise that you're more familiar with government and the law than I am.

This is what agreements are for. The Muslims, by tradition, can only pray at a particular time of day. The Education Act is meant to accommodate Canadians, not stomp on them.

Whatever your opinion of the Education Act, it's the law. The school and the board are obligated to follow it unless they are released from that obligation by a law that supercedes it.

And whatever your opinion of the intent of the Education Act, it's not reasonable (or legally valid) to interpret it in a way that violates what it explicitly says. If someone feels disadvantaged by the law as written, they're welcome to challenge it in court to have these requirements struck down, or to petition the government to change the law.

As the Charter says in its preamble, Canada is a society based on the rule of law. Government entities don't get to ignore the law when they feel like it. When the need arises to change the law, there are mechanisms in place to do it.

Edit: and what do you mean by "this is what agreements are for"? As was covered early on in my intro to law class, an ageement for an illegal purpose is automatically void.

 

[Willamena]

Whatever your opinion of the Education Act, it's the law. The school and the board are obligated to follow it unless they are released from that obligation by a law that supercedes it.

And whatever your opinion of the intent of the Education Act, it's not reasonable (or legally valid) to interpret it in a way that violates what it explicitly says. If someone feels disadvantaged by the law as written, they're welcome to challenge it in court to have these requirements struck down, or to petition the government to change the law.

As the Charter says in its preamble, Canada is a society based on the rule of law. Government entities don't get to ignore the law when they feel like it. When the need arises to change the law, there are mechanisms in place to do it.

Edit: and what do you mean by "this is what agreements are for"? As was covered early on in my intro to law class, an ageement for an illegal purpose is automatically void.

This an extremely narrow view. We do not live in such an authoritarian environment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This an extremely narrow view. We do not live in such an authoritarian environment.

Being restrictive toward government is the very opposite of authoritarianism. A government that can ignore the law when it comes to prayer services in schools can ignore the law on more critical issues. The legal restrictions we have on government are an important element of the safeguards we have for the rights of the people.

If a school decided to actually provide religious services itself rather than simply accommodating an outside member of the clergy, what would stop this from happening? Not your opinion of what's proper and improper - it carries no legal weight. The mechanism that we have to stop brazenly offensive and harmful instances of religion in public schools is the section of the Education Act that you would have us throw away.

 

[Willamena]

Being restrictive toward government is the very opposite of authoritarianism.

That's not what I meant. I mean that you propose an authoritarian government that is restricted*. I count myself lucky that we don't have such a government.



More importantly, restrictive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what I meant. I mean that you propose an authoritarian government that is restricted*. I count myself lucky that we don't have such a government.

And I count myself lucky that we have a government that has a responsibility to abide by the law.

BTW - would you care to answer my question?

 

[Willamena]

BTW - would you care to answer my question?

The question about what agreements are for? In this case, they would spell out a scope of terms and cover extenuating circumstances.

Seriously, there's no point to this discussion any more. If you're going to insist that your right to life is my obligation not to kill you, then that means an anonymous kid's right to practice religion is your obligation not to interfere. End of story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question about what agreements are for?

No, the last question I asked you:

If a school decided to actually provide religious services itself rather than simply accommodating an outside member of the clergy, what would stop this from happening?

In this case, they would spell out a scope of terms and cover extenuating circumstances.

But to what end? As I pointed out before, an agreement for an illegal purpose is void. Neither party would be able to hold the other to it.

Seriously, there's no point to this discussion any more. If you're going to insist that your right to life is my obligation not to kill you, then that means an anonymous kid's right to practice religion is your obligation not to interfere. End of story.

Bingo! If you are not obliged not to kill me, then I have no right to life.

The question is what that "kid's right to practice religion" actually entails. Every right has limits, and I'm arguing that the right to practice religion stops somewhere short of obliging his school to accommodate him with an imam-led service in a cafeteria-cum-mosque.

 

[Willamena]

No, the last question I asked you:

If a school decided to actually provide religious services itself rather than simply accommodating an outside member of the clergy, what would stop this from happening?

The duty of the officials involved. They know their jobs, they know government and the extent of the law, and they know their obligations.

But to what end? As I pointed out before, an agreement for an illegal purpose is void. Neither party would be able to hold the other to it.

Except, of course, that upholding Charter rights is not an "illegal purpose."

Bingo! If you are not obliged not to kill me, then I have no right to life.

My desire not to kill you doesn't stem from any obligation on my part to you, or even to humanity. I'm obligated by law, nothing more; you have the right to live whether or not I want to kill you, whether or not I'm obliged not to kill you, and whether or not I do kill you!

The rights belong to humanity. They stem from and help shape what it means to be human (technically "a person").

The question is what that "kid's right to practice religion" actually entails. Every right has limits, and I'm arguing that the right to practice religion stops somewhere short of obliging his school to accommodate him with an imam-led service in a cafeteria-cum-mosque.

That kid's right to practice religion, when his religion is practiced at lunch hour, entails being able to practice his religion at lunch hour. The parents also have a significant right, the right to have their children educated. This compromise allows the students to pray while minimizing the amount of education they'd otherwise miss by cutting classes (I say "minimize" because all kids cut classes). (Except me.)

Time, and the progress of events, will tell which of us has the more reasonable case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The duty of the officials involved. They know their jobs, they know government and the extent of the law, and they know their obligations.

What obligations? You've already argued that the provisions of the Education Act don't actually apply, so where are these obligations coming from?

Except, of course, that upholding Charter rights is not an "illegal purpose."

Except that you already conceded that the Charter did not require the school to accommodate the prayer service.

My desire not to kill you doesn't stem from any obligation on my part to you, or even to humanity. I'm obligated by law, nothing more; you have the right to live whether or not I want to kill you, whether or not I'm obliged not to kill you, and whether or not I do kill you!

It's not a matter of desire. If you kill me, the law provides a punishment for you because you have broken your obligation not to kill me. Rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin.

The rights belong to humanity. They stem from and help shape what it means to be human (technically "a person").

That kid's right to practice religion, when his religion is practiced at lunch hour, entails being able to practice his religion at lunch hour.

The prayer service doesn't happen at lunch hour. It happens mid-afternoon during class time.

The parents also have a significant right, the right to have their children educated. This compromise allows the students to pray while minimizing the amount of education they'd otherwise miss by cutting classes (I say "minimize" because all kids cut classes). (Except me.)

The fact that kids weren't coming back to school after going to the mosque can be dealt with through normal discipline. By itself, it doesn't create any sort of requirement on the part of the school to host prayer services.

When a student ditches class after a prayer service, it's the student thwarting the parent's right, not the school. Any dispute that the parent has about infringement of their rights would be with their own child.

If parents were concerned that children were going to the local mall on their lunch and ditching afternoon class, would the school have to accommodate vendors in the cafeteria?

Time, and the progress of events, will tell which of us has the more reasonable case.

Since I suspect that the progress of events may wind up having more to do with political expediency than actual application of the law, I don't hold out that much hope about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My wife and I are currently working on a planning committe for an upcoming interfaith event involving members of the Jewish and Muslim communities. It will be attended by highly observant Muslims and by both Reform and Orthodox Jews.

My wife and I are Reform Jews. We do not keep kosher. We sit together in the synagogue. We support organizations such as the IRAC and Women of the Wall.

And we will make damn sure that this event respects halal and kashrut and that it accomodates separate seating for those attendees who follow these traditions. There is a time and a context in which considerations of pluralism and respect trump countervailing secular considerations. The Islamophobia being fanned in Toronto is far more dangerous, far more inimical to society, and far more destructive of young Muslim girls in menses, than a bunch of kids engaged in sincere prayer will ever be.

 

[Willamena]

What obligations? You've already argued that the provisions of the Education Act don't actually apply, so where are these obligations coming from?

No, I didn't --that was your interpretation of things. I'm the one who said our governments shouldn't be, and in fact aren't, so inflexible.

This is getting us nowhere.

Except that you already conceded that the Charter did not require the school to accommodate the prayer service.

No, I conceded that the prayer service is not "a Charter requirement" on behalf of the school board. Upholding the Charter's guarantee of rights is, and accommodation is the result.

Government is, always has been, and always will be "public service."

It's not a matter of desire. If you kill me, the law provides a punishment for you because you have broken your obligation not to kill me. Rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin.

No, if I kill you the law provides a punishment for me because I have broken the law. I have no obligation other than obeying the law not to kill you (and now my desire is weakening, too).

The prayer service doesn't happen at lunch hour. It happens mid-afternoon during class time.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Islamophobia being fanned in Toronto is far more dangerous, far more inimical to society, and far more destructive of young Muslim girls in menses, than a bunch of kids engaged in sincere prayer will ever be.

I have to admit that I'm disturbed by quite a bit of the rhetoric that's come out against the prayer service. I do agree that there is a significant Islamophobic element that's protesting it. However, the mere fact that this side of the debate can be supported with bad and harmful reasons does not automatically mean that the other side is in the right.

I also recognize that this is not the biggest issue in Ontario when it comes to secularism in public schools. IMO, the fact that we have a province-wide, taxpayer-funded Catholic education system that in the name of doctrine is thwarting efforts to reduce violence and bullying against its vulnerable students is a much more serious problem.

Still, do I think that this prayer service should be happening the way it is? No, I don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have to admit that I'm disturbed by quite a bit of the rhetoric that's come out against the prayer service. I do agree that there is a significant Islamophobic element that's protesting it. However, the mere fact that this side of the debate can be supported with bad and harmful reasons does not automatically mean that the other side is in the right.

Sometimes it does, in fact, mean precisely that. The Islamophobes did not graft themselves on to some innocent expression of secular concern. It is an agenda-driven fight which they initiated and which you persistently endorse and promote. You are the complicit peanut gallery. Meanwhile, those who should be allowed to focus on the joy and meaning of their holy month of Ramadan must deal instead with your contempt and derision. It is shameful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sometimes it does, in fact, mean precisely that.

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

The Islamophobes did not graft themselves on to some innocent expression of secular concern. It is an agenda-driven fight which they initiated and which you persistently endorse and promote. You are the complicit peanut gallery.

Baloney. In other secularism-centric forums, I argue as strongly against the anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding this issue as I argue against the prayer service here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Baloney. In other secularism-centric forums, I argue as strongly against the anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding this issue as I argue against the prayer service here.

The bottom line is this: the bigots are stronger with you than without you.