52 replies to this topic

[August1991]

A Quebec couple who fought for the right to have their child pulled from a multi-denominational ethics and religion class say they’re disappointed the Supreme Court ruled against them.

The mother of two said Friday that it’s a blow for parents who want to raise their children according to their own faith.

Toronto Star

Since I post on an anglo forum, I offer an English link.

Surely federal Canada is more. At least, the federal Supreme Court could have deferred this educational question to the provincial government.

[Smallc]

They didn't prove their case. It's that simple.

[Bryan]

Awesome, more activist judges.

I'll admit right off the bat that I'm generally somewhat hostile when it comes to catholicism, but this decision really disturbs me. There is no way this case should ever have gone to court. If someone doesn't want to take a course about religion, they should be politely excused from it.

The Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to make such a ruling in this country. The very fact that they even heard the case is a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. If a court can tell you that you have to take a course about religion, then we do not have freedom of religion.

That it come out of Quebec does not surprise me though. Just like their language laws, this country has two distinct ways to read the constitution depending on what province you're from.

[bush_cheney2004]

This part is even more bizarre:

Quebec introduced the ethics and religious culture curriculum to replace the former Protestant and Catholic religious courses for all students except those in Grade 9.

[Smallc]

Awesome, more activist judges.

The course doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because it doesn't advocate for any religion. It's part of the curriculum, and parents shouldn't have the right to steal part of an education because they believe in the sky friend of their choosing.

[August1991]

Awesome, more activist judges.

Imagine a State ruled by Islamists.

It too could decide as this Court, and impose the majority decision - claiming to be a democratic society.

----

The true civilized measure of a society is how the majority treats the minority. IMV, this Federal Supreme Court decision is not civilized.

Families and local communities - a province - should decide how to teach children. Ultimately, the question of how to teach children is not for the federal State - or a federal court - to decide.

Edited by August1991, 17 February 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[Smallc]

. Ultimately, this is not for the federal State to decide.

Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say.

[Smallc]

That it come out of Quebec does not surprise me though. Just like their language laws, this country has two distinct ways to read the constitution depending on what province you're from.

That you're spouting ignorance doesn't surprise me. The above is false.

[Bryan]

The course doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because it doesn't advocate for any religion. It's part of the curriculum, and parents shouldn't have the right to steal part of an education because they believe in the sky friend of their choosing.

It absolutely does violate their rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom from it. The school has no right to make such a topic part of a mandatory curriculum.

[Smallc]

It absolutely does violate their rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom from it. The school has no right to make such a topic part of a mandatory curriculum.

This isn't a religious course, but rather a course about various religions. Freedom off religion isn't a ticket for parents to spread ignorance.

[August1991]

Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say.

Since when did a federal court defend minority rights?

Pierre Trudeau may have added the Charter of Rights to our constitution but individuals are still not protected against the power of the State, the tyranny of the majority.

[Bryan]

This isn't a religious course, but rather a course about various religions. Freedom off religion isn't a ticket for parents to spread ignorance.

The only ignorance in this thread is yours.

[August1991]

Religious freedom cases are very much the preview of this particular court, if it so chooses, as the highest court in the land. The fact that it got here means that Quebec courts already had a say.

I disagree. The federal court should have deferred this decision to the Quebec court.

[Smallc]

Since when did a federal court defend minority rights?

Pierre Trudeau may have added the Charter of Rights to our constitution but individuals are still not protected against the power of the State, the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, in fact they are. This case isn't what you're trying to make seem.

The only ignorance in this thread is yours.

there is only one Constitution. The example you cited of language laws is not what you think it is.

I disagree. The federal court should have deferred this decision to the Quebec court.

Because? The SCOC is the court of final opinion. They thought this was worth hearing, which means they thought it had national significance. Quebec is part of this country, and this was about this country's constitutuion.

[August1991]

Yes, in fact they are. This case isn't what you're trying to make seem.

Huh?

So, when Canada has an Islamist/Harper majority in the Supreme Court, will the Charter/Constitution protect you - a minority of one?

----

As I always argue, in English and French, fanboys argue ideology. But federal politics are about regionalism.

Canada. Go figure.

Edited by August1991, 17 February 2012 - 10:52 PM.