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

[Jayhawker Soule]

You talk about chauvinism? You have displayed nothing but condescension and derision in this thread for views that differ from your own.

For the record: chauvinism does not equal condescension and derision and there is zero condescension in my attitude toward your position. There is, however, a very real contempt for a position I find deeply repugnant and fully deserving of derision.

Your hypocrisy here is breathtaking.

Your grasp of English is on par with your grasp of the situation at the Toronto school.

 

[Sahar]

In the case of the hijab, the motivation doesn't matter. The right to wear it is just one expression of a larger right to wear what one wants. If a Muslim girl chooses to use this right to wear a hijab, it's no different than another student using it to wear a t-shirt of his favorite band. In both cases, people are expressing themselves as they see fit.


Yes. In allowing a person to wear a hijab or not, allowing (note: but not requiring) the hijab is the option that allows the most personal freedom. In the case of the prayer service, the option that allows the most personal freedom is to let each student stand wherever they want.

So, the religious conviction part doesn't matter when it comes to hijab but somehow it does matter when it comes to the prayers.
Since in 9-10ths_Penguin world, religious convictions must carry some sort of forcing:

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.

I think your inability to prove that the Muslim students who go to pray in the cafeteria, do so against their will is interesting. Based on this, it's not surprising that when I asked you who force the students to pray, you said:

But as for who's forcing them, I guess it would be the prayer organizers and God, right?

But when I asked you who the organizers are, you couldn't tell us who the organizers are.

Then you went in telling us how what force the students to pray are not the prayer organizers but their convictions.

And as it appears now, convictions don't matter when it comes to what you wear in the school but they do matter when it comes to if I want to pray in the cafeteria and stand in the place I see appropriate there.

Again, it's not surprising that you chose to ignore:

Until now you didn't prove "that anyone was forced to 1. attend the prayer in the cafeteria 2. stand in the front or in the back 3. participate in the prayer or not."

Which I asked you repeatedly to prove.

And ignoring to reply to a question like this:

Do the menstruating girls go against their own will?

Regardless you keep asserting that the students are forced to go to pray in the cafeteria and stand where they stand against their will.

And all what I asked you for is to prove that, yet you couldn't support your claims.

Your position is inconsistent and unfounded.

 

[Sahar]

Okay... I'll concede: forcing one group to stand or sit behind another group isn't discriminatory to the group that's put in the back.

This means that if a teacher at the school decided that, for his regular classes, the Muslim students should sit in the back and the non-Muslim students should sit in the front, we shouldn't consider it discriminatory... right?

forcing people to the back isn't inferior. And in that spirit, I hope you will join me in supporting a movement to have public schools make the back of the class the Muslim seating section. After all, this wouldn't be objectionable at all, right?

The difference between your assumed analogous situation and the real situation is that as we concluded that what mostly "force" the students to pray in the cafeteria and stand in any place there is their personal convictions. And in the case of the teacher or any authority that would make the Muslim students to sit in the back, it's clear that here who "force" them to sit in the back is not their personal convictions.

When I asked you if there is anyone equivalent to the teacher/the school/the government who force the students to pray in the cafeteria, your reply was:

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.

If the convictions are the central issue, why did you spoke about a teacher, a school or governmental authority who would force the students to sit in certain places?

If the convictions are the central issue, why it's okay to cover one's hair according to one's convictions, but the one can't pray in the school's cafeteria and stand where s/he wants in that place according to her or his convictions?

I hope you realize the main defects in your argument.

 

[Willamena]

In the case of the hijab, the motivation doesn't matter. The right to wear it is just one expression of a larger right to wear what one wants. If a Muslim girl chooses to use this right to wear a hijab, it's no different than another student using it to wear a t-shirt of his favorite band. In both cases, people are expressing themselves as they see fit.


Yes. In allowing a person to wear a hijab or not, allowing (note: but not requiring) the hijab is the option that allows the most personal freedom. In the case of the prayer service, the option that allows the most personal freedom is to let each student stand wherever they want.

I wasn't going to reply to this, but the issue of personal freedom is near and dear to me. "Allowing" on behalf of another person or body of people isn't "personal freedom," regardless that the person is graciously granted a choice. That's imperialism at best, and tyrrany at worst.

It also appears to be the image you have of our government.

Conforming to rights isn't freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A right isn't a law --perhaps that's the source of confusion. A right is just something that's right, in regards to what it is to be human. The guarantee of rights in the Charter dictate law because they are legislated: as a Charter, each level of government is obligated to uphold the lot -- to uphold the guarantee of "the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. The TDSB's position - which you initially seemed to be supporting but now I'm not sure - is that the Charter created a legal requirement for them to offer the prayer service.

Obligating everyone to a right would violate another right, the right to personal thought, opinion and expression, and the Charter specifically says that one guarantee will not violate another.

Again: I think you're confusing a few different issues. I'm talking about legal rights... i.e. rights as they are enshrined in law. And they most certainly do create obligations: "I have the right to life" implies "you have the obligation not to kill me". This is Law 101 stuff; I don't know why you're having a hard time with it.

The government doesn't extend rights. Gawd, what country do you live in? The government, via the Charter, guarantees, i.e. protects, our rights. Our rights.

As it's spelled out in the Charter, the right to equality is dependent on other actions of the government: by itself, the right to equal protection and benefit of the law doesn't demand that the government do anything. However, it does mean that once the government engages in some action, it has the responsibility to do so equitably. If it extends a privilege to one group (e.g. a school prayer service for Muslims) then it must extend the same privilege to all.

We have the right to practice our freedom of religion. The Charter guarantees that, so the school board (the government) provides at our behest. It's all about us, we drive this situation, not the government.

But that freedom has limits. As you already pointed out, a right (or freedom) cannot infringe on some other right. Also, under Canadian law, all rights are tempered by the qualifier that they are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

The freedom to practice religion isn't absolute. If it was, then every school cafeteria where a Jewish student or parent had requested it would have two separate kitchens for meat and dairy... while at the same time, every school where a Hindu student or parent requested it wouldn't serve beef at all. If we were entirely free to practice religion in public schools, then Sikh students wouldn't have to sew their kirpans shut so that they can't be drawn.

I said it correctly.

Then can you explain how you're not contradicting yourself?

The student's Charter rights were being met, because they could practice their religion. The school board offering space at the school is a convenience at the request of the parents/community.

And in so doing, because of the Charter's equality provisions, it creates an obligation on the part of the school board to grant this "convenience" to every other group on an equal basis.

The Charter is flagged as justification because people in Toronto seem to unanimously equate "public" with "secular".

What does this mean, exactly?

Requiring students to recite a prayer is silly. Allowing them to is right. The school running a prayer session is silly. The school allowing a group to come in and run their own prayers at the request of the community is right.

At very least, not wrong.

But the school does have a hand in running the prayer service. It provides the venue and excuses students from class to participate (in contravention of the Education Act, as I pointed out earlier). Also, the principal has a say in selecting which imams lead the service. Despite their protestations, the school is most definitely involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the record: chauvinism does not equal condescension and derision and there is zero condescension in my attitude toward your position.

No, the chauvinism comes from your apparent disdain for any position on this issue that isn't your own.

There is, however, a very real contempt for a position I find deeply repugnant and fully deserving of derision.

But your feelings are not so deep as to motivate anything like a real argument against it, apparently. When it motivates more than heckling, maybe I'll take it more seriously.

Your grasp of English is on par with your grasp of the situation at the Toronto school.

My grasp of English is just fine, as is my grasp of the situation at the school.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, the religious conviction part doesn't matter when it comes to hijab but somehow it does matter when it comes to the prayers.

It doesn't matter because no religious accommodation is necessary in the case of the hijab: students can wear what they want anyhow and are only limited in this when there's good reason. There's no good reason to prevent a student from wearing a hijab, so she's able to wear one without any special accommodation whatsoever.

I think your inability to prove that the Muslim students who go to pray in the cafeteria, do so against their will is interesting.

Since I've never argued that they're praying against their will, I'm surprised that you would expect me to prove this.

Based on this, it's not surprising that when I asked you who force the students to pray, you said:

But when I asked you who the organizers are, you couldn't tell us who the organizers are.

There are a number of people involved. The parents, the imams, the principal and the students all have a hand in organizing these prayer services.

Then you went in telling us how what force the students to pray are not the prayer organizers but their convictions.

If you want me to answer whatever question you have in your head, you'll have to ask it clearly. I can only respond to what you actually say, and your arguments and questions have been all over the map. I'm having a very difficult time in following what you're actually arguing, except for the overall theme of your posts that whatever I say is necessarily wrong.

 

[Sahar]

Since I've never argued that they're praying against their will, I'm surprised that you would expect me to prove this.

In allowing a person to wear a hijab or not, allowing (note: but not requiring) the hijab is the option that allows the most personal freedom. In the case of the prayer service, the option that allows the most personal freedom is to let each student stand wherever they want.

There are a number of people involved. The parents, the imams, the principal and the students all have a hand in organizing these prayer services.

So all those including the students are forcing the students to pray in the Cafeteria :

But as for who's forcing them, I guess it would be the prayer organizers and God, right?

I hop it's clear how you are being more and more inconsistent and dishonest....all the issue is that you want to justify your position by any means even by changing your arguments and contradicting yourself...

I think any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hop it's clear how you are being more and more inconsistent and dishonest....all the issue is that you want to justify your position by any means even if this by changing your arguments and contradicting yourself...

I've been entirely consistent. I've often had trouble trying to figure out exactly what you're asking, which has apparently led to misunderstandings, but my position has remained the same.

My position all along has been that simply segregating the children on the basis of gender is itself gender discrimination even before we consider whether either group has been negatively impacted by the segregation.

It's also been my position that the prayer service is inappropriate on a number of other levels:

- it creates a situation of inequity between Muslims and people of other religions, in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various other pieces of legisliation and policy.

- it is in contravention of the Education Act, which doesn't permit any religious services in schools between arrival and dismissal times, and outside these times only when they meet very specific requirements.

I think any further argument with you is a waste of time.

Since you've turned it into a snipe hunt, it probably is.

 

[Willamena]

My position all along has been that simply segregating the children on the basis of gender is itself gender discrimination even before we consider whether either group has been negatively impacted by the segregation.

It's not, inherently. It can be interpreted to be in support of gender rights. Every clause in the Charter was put there for a purpose, to protect the rights of a certain portion of the population. The gender discrimination laws were put in place to address feminist issues: it stemmed from a time (the 70's) when society very much favoured the white male. The gender discrimination laws protected women from (for instance) being turned down for a job based on gender. They incidentally also protect men.

Who do you think is being protected by the separation of girls from boys in prayer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not, inherently. It can be interpreted to be in support of gender rights. Every clause in the Charter was put there for a purpose, to protect the rights of a certain portion of the population. The gender discrimination laws were put in place to address feminist issues: it stemmed from a time (the 70's) when society very much favoured the white male. The gender discrimination laws protected women from (for instance) being turned down for a job based on gender. They incidentally also protect men.

Who do you think is being protected by the separation of girls from boys in prayer?

Personally, I don't think anyone's being "protected" per se, but I take it you're referring to subsection 2 of Section 15 of the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So... is it your position that, if not for segregated prayer, Muslim girls would be disadvantaged because of their gender?

Edit: is it also your position that segregated prayer ameliorates conditions for those girls?

 

[Willamena]

So... is it your position that, if not for segregated prayer, Muslim girls would be disadvantaged because of their gender?

No.

If I must have a position simply by making an argument, then it is that the protection afforded by separating them, if such is the case, could arguably be in the spirit of the purpose of gender rights in the Charter.

Edit: is it also your position that segregated prayer ameliorates conditions for those girls?

No. I have no information on that. My post stands for what it said, nothing more.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. The TDSB's position - which you initially seemed to be supporting but now I'm not sure - is that the Charter created a legal requirement for them to offer the prayer service.

There is no requirement built into the Charter to conduct a religious session (to "offer prayer service") on anyone's part, especially the government. The guarantees spelled out in the Charter don't require that rights translate into particular processes, procedures or actions.

The school board is required, as a level of government and per their mandate, to work with the community to make this request happen. This is Government 101 stuff.

Flagging the Charter as justification of the prayer service is holding up a banner that says, "These people have a right to practice their religion, and because they asked for our cooperation, and because of our mandate, it's our job to ensure that they are able to do that."

Again: I think you're confusing a few different issues. I'm talking about legal rights... i.e. rights as they are enshrined in law. And they most certainly do create obligations: "I have the right to life" implies "you have the obligation not to kill me". This is Law 101 stuff; I don't know why you're having a hard time with it.

The Charter is a compilation of guarantees that protect our rights --rights we already have, rights we defined to be included in the Charter (bless Trudeau and his vision of defining what it means to be a Canadian). "I have the right to life" implies nothing more than that you also "have the right to life" --it's guaranteed for both of us --just as "I have the right to personal thought, opinion and expression" implies nothing more than that you also have that right. That's why we can shout at each other on street corners (per the video).
On the other hand, I have an obligation to obey the law that says, "killing bad; do not kill." The law isn't related to the right --the left hand to the right hand. They are different structures, have different backgrounds and different reasons for being.

As it's spelled out in the Charter, the right to equality is dependent on other actions of the government: by itself, the right to equal protection and benefit of the law doesn't demand that the government do anything. However, it does mean that once the government engages in some action, it has the responsibility to do so equitably. If it extends a privilege to one group (e.g. a school prayer service for Muslims) then it must extend the same privilege to all.

I agree that once the school board has accommodated one religious group in this type of service they should accommodate equably. (I disagree that it is "extending a privilege," but that's neither here not there. I, rather, see it as "doing their job".)

But that freedom has limits. As you already pointed out, a right (or freedom) cannot infringe on some other right. Also, under Canadian law, all rights are tempered by the qualifier that they are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

The freedom to practice religion isn't absolute. If it was, then every school cafeteria where a Jewish student or parent had requested it would have two separate kitchens for meat and dairy... while at the same time, every school where a Hindu student or parent requested it wouldn't serve beef at all. If we were entirely free to practice religion in public schools, then Sikh students wouldn't have to sew their kirpans shut so that they can't be drawn.

Modifying infrastructure, like the additional cafeteria, is much larger and more complex issue than providing existing space for a community group. That's where "such reasonable limits prescribed by law" come into play. There are already laws in place about when, where, and how much government-owned infrastructure can be modified: at very least it requires a project review, budgeting and time (often years) to get a program in place. The government is obliged by the Charter, but the Charter is obliged by existing laws and those laws that arise from application of the Charter. Plus there's the consideration that the Jewish or Hindu student who requested the infrastructure change might have graduated by the time the program comes into effect, so his request for his rights to be accommodated in that regard could not be reasonably met.
None of this translates into "freedom has limits" unless you equate "rights" as either the law or the guarantees provided in the Charter. Best to keep them separate, not only for clarity's sake but for all our sakes.

Then can you explain how you're not contradicting yourself?

The Charter does not require that a prayer service happen (what you suggested). The Charter does require that the school board uphold the Charter, and the Charter protects the freedom to practice religion.

And in so doing, because of the Charter's equality provisions, it creates an obligation on the part of the school board to grant this "convenience" to every other group on an equal basis.

Those who request it, yes. The Muslim prayer session certainly creates a precedent; but keep in mind that this prayer session didn't happen in a vacuum. There were circumstances

What does this mean, exactly?

Mostly a poke at the lady in the video who kept repeating, with indignation, "But it's a public school!" Which is reflected in your post #96, which is where I entered the fray.

But the school does have a hand in running the prayer service. It provides the venue and excuses students from class to participate (in contravention of the Education Act, as I pointed out earlier). Also, the principal has a say in selecting which imams lead the service. Despite their protestations, the school is most definitely involved.

"A hand" is, ideally, the most government should have in this (that's the libertarian in me talking).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no requirement built into the Charter to conduct a religious session (to "offer prayer service") on anyone's part, especially the government. The guarantees spelled out in the Charter don't require that rights translate into particular processes, procedures or actions.


The school board is required, as a level of government and per their mandate, to work with the community to make this request happen. This is Government 101 stuff.

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.

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you know if there's consensus on the meaning of: "at a time that is before or after the school’s instructional program"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you know if there's consensus on the meaning of: "at a time that is before or after the school’s instructional program"?

Based on stories I've read about the "Christian" public school in St. Catharines, "the school's instructional program" is normally interpreted to mean the time from the start of the first class of the day until the end of the last class of the day.

Edit: last regular class, that is. I assume that if the school also has night classes, they would be considered a separate "instructional program".

Edit 2: at Valley Park Middle School, the students are actually excused from class to participate in the prayer service.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks. Is there a legal interpretation?

Also, is there a court challenge pending asserting a violation of the Education Act?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks. Is there a legal interpretation?

Of the definition of "instructional program"? I don't know of one, no.

Also, is there a court challenge pending asserting a violation of the Education Act?

Not that I know of. You'd need standing to launch a court challenge, and I don't know whether anyone with standing feels like filing a suit.

If corrective action is coming, it would most likely be in the form of a directive from the provincial Minister of Education, who has yet to comment on the issue. However, based on statements from the Premier, it seems that he doesn't want the provincial government to get involved.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not that I know of. You'd need standing to launch a court challenge, and I don't know whether anyone with standing feels like filing a suit.

Has anyone other than you claimed a violation of the law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Has anyone other than you claimed a violation of the law?

Yes:

Board runs afoul of Education Act with prayer services

Public schools that allow formal prayer services during the day are breaching Ontario’s Education Act, say critics and education experts.

The Toronto District School Board has been embroiled in controversy for allowing an imam to conduct Friday prayer services for Muslim students in the cafeteria at Valley Park Middle School. It argues freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights trumps the Education Act.

“As a public school board, we have a responsibility and an obligation to accommodate faith needs,” education director Chris Spence said Friday.

But one prominent constitutional lawyer said Charter cases have found just the opposite — that religion has no place in public schools.

[...]

Valley Park’s prayer services, which until recently operated without complaint, have raised a debate about the place of religion in an increasingly diverse public system. One Hindu group plans protests, and the progressive Muslim Canadian Congress is contemplating legal action to force the board to comply with the Education Act.

“Charter cases have said . . . you cannot accommodate the desire for prayers or religious instruction in a public school,” said constitutional lawyer Ed Morgan, of the University of Toronto.

Something after school, or on weekends, would be fine, he added.

Board runs afoul of Education Act with prayer services - Parentcentral.ca