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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, who are the prayer organizers? If there were any, prove that they forced the students to basically attend the prayer and then stand in any place against their will and want. As for God, it's simple, He told us that we have a free will to obey or disobey Him.

Also, there can be Muslim students who are not interested in attending the prayer.

What I'm getting at is this: do Muslims approach their prayers with a mindset of "I have to do this"?

- if yes, then we have to be conscious of the fact that this can create an arrangement where people will feel compelled to participate against their better judgement (when we're talking about a public school, anyhow. What people do in their own mosque is their own business)

- if no, then the accommodation isn't necessary.

This is very ridiculous and has nothing to do with logical consistency. Obligatory is related to a religious conviction meaning that no-one can force anyone except his own conscience especially when it comes to the prayer. Being obligatory doesn't mean losing our choice to pray. There are many Muslims who don't pray and they are free but they violate God's orders. In other words, people have the freedom to violate God's orders.

Again, do you know if anyone forced them to pray apart from their own convictions?

I doubt that anyone did, but what I'm trying to get at is their own convictions. They're the central issue here. Hopefully we both agree that if anyone was being forced to pray with a gun to their head, this would be unacceptable. But my point is that if a person's personal convictions compel them to prayer so much that they'd go to a secular school administration and say "we have this need that must be accommodated", then they're in a position where the potential exists for that conviction to be taken advantage of.

IOW, the fact that a person is participating in the prayer doesn't necessarily imply that they think the arrangement of the prayer hall-cum-cafeteria is fair and equal, but it could also be because they feel that their duty to God trumps whatever misgivings they have.

This is just like saying the girls are forced to wear hijab when it's only because of their decisions. Hijab is an obligation but this doesn't mean the girl is forced to wear it. It's the girl's decision.

Do you think the female Muslim students who wear hijab are necessarily forced? Do you think the school shouldn't allow Muslim girls to wear headscarves?

I think that there's always going to be some coercion in any practice that's rooted in a command from God: "You can do what you want, but God really wants you to do _____"? That's not entirely a free choice.

What is your reply to this:
Discrimination and Harassment Definitions

What about it?

You didn't answer the questions.

I didn't answer because the answer is obvious. When half of the class leaves and then returns a short time later, this is going to be disruptive to the class.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I didn't make any claims without any proof. So how did you know if they cause disruption or not, did you visit the school and asked their class mates? Did the non Muslim students complain to you?

Bloody hell. This is a discussion of policy, not a mathematical proof. I haven't sat in the back of a class at Valley Park Middle School with a clipboard and a stopwatch to measure the exact magnitude of the disruption, but having attended a Toronto school from when I was 8 years old until I graduated from high school, and having had quite a bit of experience with school boards around here, I think I have a good idea of what typically goes on in a school in my community.

Remind me again what is that discriminatory policy that you're talking about?

The policy that says that Muslims - and only Muslims - can have special prayer services on school grounds during class time, and that these prayer services can be carried out in a way that violates the normal rules of the school.

The discrimination is on two levels:

- Muslims vs. non-Muslims. Only Muslims get special accommodation, despite the fact that Hindu, Christian and Jewish groups are also asking for accommodation of their beliefs.

- boys vs. girls. The prayer services are segregated by gender.

Even if you dismiss the problem of the gender discrimination, you're still left with the issue of religious discrimination: Muslims are being offered something that nobody else is. And no number of Muslim members here saying "well, I think the arrangement is okay" is going to settle that issue, because the Muslim students are the ones benefiting from this double standard.

I asked you to prove if any attend or to stand in any place by force.

Religious obligation ≠ Forcing

Are you unable to grasp this simple fact?

Well, if they have the option of not participating, then let them do that. No special prayer service for anyone.

No no, you're the one who is missing the point.

Who will think back to the prayer and remember? Their female sisters?

Potentially, anyone in the room would be able to make a mental note of whether someone's standing off to to the side or not. Maybe they wouldn't compile a complete list, but some of the boys might be able to notice which of the girls they know is there and which ones aren't and think "hey... Aisha must be on her period." What they do with this knowledge is up to them, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that 12- and 13-year-olds will exercise perfect restraint every time.

 

[Father Heathen]

Okay, let's say most muslim girls willfully and happily abide these practices, how would a muslim girl be treated by her family/culture if she decided she that didn't like it and wished to no longer comply? Probably not well, so it's probably good that they do like it because they wouldn't have much of a choice otherwise.

Or, in the case of the school, let's say a girl didn't wish to participate in the prayer, but her family insisted, would the school enforce the family's will or respect the students wishes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm "getting this" because that's how government works. That's how government cooperation with a community works. That's how it's done.

So you're saying you don't have any actual knowledge of a signed agreement between the school and some community representative, do you?

And no, that isn't always "how it's done". I've been tangentially involved in plenty of arrangements between schools and other groups that were based on informal understandings, not signed agreements.

Also, I think what you're saying doesn't fit with the rest of your argument. You've said that you believe that this arrangement was required to satisfy the Charter... so would this hypothetical agreement just say something like "we agree to abide by the law"? That would seem rather redundant to me, and not the sort of thing that a school would typically draft up... or that a community representative would feel a need to explicitly agree to.

It's obvious you have some issues with this school board and with this school. Fine. I wouldn't expect the Imam to go through a criminal background check in order to conduct a prayer service within his community, but then I don't live in Toronto. (mutter mutter)

It's not a matter of having issues with the school board, the school, or the imam. Why wouldn't you expect an adult who is given care of students in a school to go through the same screening process that everyone else goes through? Teachers have to get annual criminal background checks as a requirement of their employment; volunteers have to get them annually as well... including parents, if they're volunteering in the school.

And this isn't just in schools; this is par for the course at most organizations that involve children: Scout & Guide troops, sports leagues, etc.

If they are letting the imam be involved in activities in the school involving children and he hasn't had to submit his Vulnerable Sector Screening letter from the police to the school, then the school is operating at something less than its normal standard of diligence.

Do you think this is appropriate? Do you think that the imam, as a religious leader, is somehow more immune to criminal acts than everyone else? Because if you do, ask the Catholic Church how well that assumption worked out for them.

The argument for one needn't be valid for another unrelated situation.

But they're not unrelated, because the big problem with leaving a class unattended is the lack of responsible supervision. This is the same issue (or one of the issues, anyhow) that's present in the case of the prayer service.

Because that's how government works. That's how cooperating with a community works. The prayers are entirely run and paid for by the Valley Park community. An agreement would be necessary to formalize that arrangement.

That may be what your experience has been, but I don't think it's necessarily reflective of the situation here. My experience indicates that some sort of signed agreement probably wouldn't be put in place.

Also, I think it would be exceedingly odd and inconsistent for a school to get the Board's legal team involved in drafting up an agreement for something that the school maintains is "not a school activity".

However, I remain open to being shown wrong. Feel free to produce this agreement... or even a published article that actually refers to one.

It's explained in the letter you linked me to.

No, it's not. The letter makes an unsupported assertion; this is not the same thing as an explanation.

If you really think that this cafeteria prayer service is required by the Charter, then please provide an argument for how the Charter requires it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it interesting that even though we have female Muslims coming on this thread, and explaining why things are the way they are and that they do not feel discriminated against, that we still have those who are so adamant that they are.

And I find it interesting that we've had no Hindu members come in on this thread and say that they have no problem with this arrangement.

As if Muslim females don't know any better. As if they cannot speak for themselves or are too deluded to know that they are discriminated against, or are supposedly considered "lesser" than the men. To me it is that attitude and stance that is far more insulting to the Muslim ladies than any separation during prayer. The insistence that it is insulting and discriminatory towards Muslims females for them to sit behind, or otherwise separated from the men even though they have their own reasons for doing it the way they do, is the actual insult here. When you have female Muslims trying to explain something about their religious practices and you go on about how insulting it is towards them like they haven't a clue...THAT is insulting them. Not the separation. You are basically saying that all these girls and women are too dumb to know any better and they are all taken advantage of and whatnot. How rude.

Well, it comes with the territory when we mix the religious and the secular. If you don't want non-Muslims judging the propriety of how Muslim prayers are performed, then don't have them in a secular public school.

With public benefit comes public oversight. When someone places their religion in a position of special benefit or advantage from a (supposedly) secular, democratic government, then that religion and its beliefs and practices become everybody's business... and not everyone will agree with the tenets of that religion.

I've mentioned before that Ontario has a system of Catholic school boards, funded by taxpayers and run in parallel to the secular public system. Well, because they're publicly funded, strange things sometimes happen: a few years ago, a case came before the courts where a lesbian couple were suing to be able to go together to the prom at a Catholic school. The court ruled that permitting a lesbian couple to attend the prom wasn't forbidden by Catholic doctrine, so the school was wrong for forbidding the girls from attending.

Do I want secular courts ruling on matters of religious doctrine? No. But it's what happens when religion is brought into the sphere of secular government: it gets secular oversight.

Same with this issue. If Muslims don't want non-Muslims deciding on whether their prayer arrangement is discriminatory or not, then don't have prayer services in secular public schools, because in a democratic society, each person's voice is equal... and the voice of a non-Muslim gets just as much weight as the voice of a Muslim on this issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If Muslims don't want non-Muslims deciding on whether their prayer arrangement is discriminatory or not, then don't have prayer services in secular public schools, because in a democratic society, each person's voice is equal... and the voice of a non-Muslim gets just as much weight as the voice of a Muslim on this issue.

A rational society committed to pluralism blunts (secular) democracy to mitigate against the tyranny of the majority.

 

[beenie]

I find it interesting that even though we have female Muslims coming on this thread, and explaining why things are the way they are and that they do not feel discriminated against, that we still have those who are so adamant that they are. As if Muslim females don't know any better. As if they cannot speak for themselves or are too deluded to know that they are discriminated against, or are supposedly considered "lesser" than the men. To me it is that attitude and stance that is far more insulting to the Muslim ladies than any separation during prayer. The insistence that it is insulting and discriminatory towards Muslims females for them to sit behind, or otherwise separated from the men even though they have their own reasons for doing it the way they do, is the actual insult here. When you have female Muslims trying to explain something about their religious practices and you go on about how insulting it is towards them like they haven't a clue...THAT is insulting them. Not the separation. You are basically saying that all these girls and women are too dumb to know any better and they are all taken advantage of and whatnot. How rude.

This post is pure awesome.

However, I do agree with 9-10ths on a few issues regarding allowing the prayer service to be held in a secular public school in the first place. Allowing the prayer in the public schools allows too many chefs in the kitchen; all of them think they know what's best for these Muslim girls, and they all feel like they need "rescuing".

As a Muslim, I will not agree to allow the Hindu parents to dictate how I will pray (as I would never attempt to tell THEM how to pray), nor will I agree with any other non-Muslim set the parameters for how I pray (as I wouldn't dictate to them either). My prayer is between God and myself, and that is specifically why I have stated over and over again that this prayer service does not belong in the public school system at all. The whole problem begins with the allowance in the first place.

No religious group should have special accommodations within the school itself. There, problem solved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A rational society committed to pluralism blunts (secular) democracy to mitigate against the tyranny of the majority.

Seeing how this case basically amounts to the Muslim majority at this school writing their own rules, I think the issue of the tyranny of the majority works the opposite way to the one that you're suggesting.

 

[Willamena]

If you really think that this cafeteria prayer service is required by the Charter, then please provide an argument for how the Charter requires it.

It doesn't matter what I think. The school board, as a level of government, is mandated by law. The Charter requires that government guarantee the people can practice their religion, and that's enough "excuse" for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter what I think.

You're the one making the argument, but whatever.

The school board, as a level of government, is mandated by law. The Charter requires that government guarantee the people can practice their religion, and that's enough "excuse" for me.

There are many other schools in Canada that have large Muslim student bodies. Valley Park is the only one I've ever heard of that offers anything like this. Are these other schools breaking the law by not offering similar prayer services?

What other religious accommodation do you think is required by the Charter? Does it require school cafeterias to have separate kitchens for meat and dairy in order to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jewish students? Does it require the Gideons to be allowed to distribute Bibles in schools? If the Charter doesn't require those forms of accommodation, then why would it require these Muslim prayer services?

 

[Willamena]

If they are letting the imam be involved in activities in the school involving children and he hasn't had to submit his Vulnerable Sector Screening letter from the police to the school, then the school is operating at something less than its normal standard of diligence.

This one bit I will respond to:

It's not "activities of the school" that the Imam is involved in. That's been explicitly stated by the school in the letter you linked me to.

 

[Willamena]

There are many other schools in Canada that have large Muslim student bodies. Valley Park is the only one I've ever heard of that offers anything like this. Are these other schools breaking the law by not offering similar prayer services?

What other religious accommodation do you think is required by the Charter? Does it require school cafeterias to have separate kitchens for meat and dairy in order to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jewish students? Does it require the Gideons to be allowed to distribute Bibles in schools? If the Charter doesn't require those forms of accommodation, then why would it require these Muslim prayer services?

Arguing with you is entirely depressing. You argue so well with others, but it seems when it comes to me you delight in twising everything that's said. I'll have none of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This one bit I will respond to:

It's not "activities of the school" that the Imam is involved in. That's been explicitly stated by the school in the letter you linked me to.

And I'm arguing that it's unreasonable to call an activity that occurs on school grounds during class time, in which students participate "not an activity of the school". I also think that it's disturbing and problematic that the administration of the school would take the position that it isn't an activity of the school.

 

[Willamena]

And I'm arguing that it's unreasonable to call an activity that occurs on school grounds during class time, in which students participate "not an activity of the school". I also think that it's disturbing and problematic that the administration of the school would take the position that it isn't an activity of the school.

Are voting polls an activity of the school? This is no different, and the age of those who attend is a convenience. It's a convenience for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Arguing with you is entirely depressing. You argue so well with others, but it seems when it comes to me you delight in twising everything that's said. I'll have none of it.

I don't think I'm twisting anything. You're arguing that the school's response here was required by the Charter, aren't you?

If this is true, then it's true in any school with Muslim students nationwide, not just Valley Park Middle School. IOW, your argument implies that a huge number of schools are flaunting the highest law of the land.

If I've misinterpreted something that you've said, please tell me where I have, because so far, I think that all I've done is draw reasonable, logical inferences from the argument you've presented.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think I'm twisting anything. You're arguing that the school's response here was required by the Charter, aren't you?

If this is true, then it's true in any school with Muslim students nationwide, not just Valley Park Middle School. IOW, your argument implies that a huge number of schools are flaunting the highest law of the land.

If I've misinterpreted something that you've said, please tell me where I have, because so far, I think that all I've done is draw reasonable, logical inferences from the argument you've presented.

A guarantee of rights in the Charter doesn't equate to shoving religion down people's throats. No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are voting polls an activity of the school?

It's not an either/or matter. Elections Canada (or whoever's operating the poll) would be the one actually carrying on the poll, but the school would still be involved. For instance, if the poll was set up so that it blocked a fire exit, the school administration would have the responsibility to step in and correct the problem.

This is no different, and the age of those who attend is a convenience. It's a convenience for them.

Except that a school has a responsibility for care and supervision of students during school hours. They don't have this responsibility for adult voters or poll workers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A guarantee of rights in the Charter doesn't equate to shoving religion down people's throats. No.

What does this mean? If a Muslim prayer service at some other school would be "forcing religion down people's throats", why wouldn't it be so at Valley Park Middle School?

 

[Willamena]

Except that a school has a responsibility for care and supervision of students during school hours. They don't have this responsibility for adult voters or poll workers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Willamena]

What does this mean? If a Muslim prayer service at some other school would be "forcing religion down people's throats", why wouldn't it be so at Valley Park Middle School?

The law doesn't force the school board to act; on the contrary, it requires them to bend, and only when necessary.

The law doesn't force anything to happen, at this school board or others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seeing how this case basically amounts to the Muslim majority at this school writing their own rules, I think the issue of the tyranny of the majority works the opposite way to the one that you're suggesting.

And I think you need to revisit the history of this development.