Home › Canadians want limits on accommodating minoriti...
Canadians want limits on accommodating minorities - SES Research/Policy Options Survey
By significant majorities in Canada as a whole, and by overwhelming majorities in Quebec, Canadians and Quebecers declare limits to reasonable accommodation.
When asked whether it was reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities, or whether immigrants should fully adapt to culture in Canada, only 18 percent of respondents said reasonable accommodation best reflected their personal views, as opposed to 53 percent who thought immigrants should fully adapt (21 percent who agreed with neither statement).
In Quebec, only 5.4 percent of respondents thought reasonable accommodation reflected their views, while fully 76.9 percent thought immigrants should fully adapt.
Interestingly, the parts of Canada with fewer new Canadians were more likely to support accommodation. Leaders from across Canada should be watching the developments in Quebec, because they may well be a precursor of things to come in other parts of Canada.
In the support materials on the right is the release and the detailed polling tables. Survey results touch upon awareness of reasonable accommodation, and views about accommodating minorities at work, school, public places etc. Quite a bit of very interesting information.
What do you think? Should Canada accommodate minorities or should minorities adapt/accommodate to Canada?
Cheers,
Nik
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
| 
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
The suburbs around Paris used to be a peaceful Christian enclave. Now it is an I... more
Bernard (Ontario) 25 Sep 11:57
This result is really depressing--I've always imagined that Canadians were far m... more
Jim McDonald (Nova Scotia) 25 Sep 13:17
This poll reflects the problem John Tory is having with his faith based school ... more
parnel (Ontario) 25 Sep 05:45
Canada has been very accommodating in the past, however, I think that we now nee... more
Bernicessssss (Ontario) 09 Oct 23:26
Having watched the Bouchard / Taylor Commission hearings for hours, I am led to ... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 11 Oct 04:07
Hi Jim McDonald, I felt just as you did, especially the first day, I gave up.... more
blossom (Québec) 26 Sep 07:37
Comments
parnel
This poll reflects the problem John Tory is having with his faith based school policy. While it has other angles to it, the general perception is that it is a sop to immigrant communities.
Quebec has long been ahead of the ROC in these types of issues that generally come into the national conscious later on. They have had non religious schools for a few years now and were the first province to fully "secularize" education and make the school boards linguistic (English and French only) as opposed to the approach Tory is trying. Some of that relected a nationalistic bent but was also done to better integrate Quebec society and in fact has accompished that. Part of the fallout is that nationalism,the separatist version, has also dropped off. The ROC can learn a lot from this.
Immigrants will get fully immersed in Canadian culture only if they are nutured to do so. Our federal policies have been somewhat geared to cultural minorities keeping their "old Country' ways intact. This obviously goes against the grain of Canadian thinking per your poll. There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's culture but it must be also be part of the integration process as well.
[updated Tue Sep 25 05:45:33 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 05:45
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Always well thought out parnel.
However, I am not sure that you understand that the main choice is French, unless you really come from an Anglophone family. Choices are still restricted out here, due to this separatist culture. They really still always feel threathened in Qc. to the detriment of their own future in the business world. Private schools was the alternative for those who wished to integrate in English school.
Today p. marois has just been elected in her riding, and the first thing that came out of her mouth, was sovereignty, which before she was elected said that the people did not want another referendum, and wanted new ideas from the pq. Just today, she stated that "sovereignty" and a referendum will be called as soon as she feels the people are ready for it. She is even pleading for mario dumont to stand with her...This is the same idiot that the pq threw out without shame after his party lost the election. He seems to be playing hard to get, however. What a bunch of liers and hippocrites!
26 Sep 08:40
gjones
The irony of course is that "reasonable accommodation" felt by Quebecers at less than a third of the national average doesnt align with their expectations of the extent to which the r.o.c. should "reasonably accommodate" Quebec in Canada
Overall, this does not speak well of Quebec.
25 Sep 07:21
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
By definition the term "reasonable accommodation" has its limitations. Having no accommodation would not be reasonable, nor would total accommodation.
I would lean toward as much accommodation as reasonably possible. There would very few select issues that I would object to. None come to m ind at the moment. Diversity is an essential ingredient in nature. Diversity is humans even at the community level goes along way to ensure survival. I welcome that diversity. How boring would it be without it?
My ancestors came here in 1760. I haven't "accommodated" yet, and don't intend to. :-)
[updated Tue Sep 25 07:46:37 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 07:46
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
wilson
I am not sure that this question is worded clearly enough to elicit a truly informative response. The term "reasonable accomodation" has been tossed around in Quebec over the last year by a wide variety of people with a very different intentions behind it. For some it is not objecting to the wearing of veils while for others it means publicly funded religious schools and for some it is a code behind which racism lurks waiting to oppress whomever we don't like this week.
The detail on what kind of institutions should accomodate differences is fascinating because the workplace, the only completely private space, got the lowest results for accomodation, which would suggest that accomodation is somehow a public value that people feel easier about refusing privately.
It seems to me that no matter what your view, there will be existing values and practices in the country to which newcomers will need to adapt and there will be values and practices brought by newcomers that will change the way the existing society behaves. This interplay can be reasonable or unreasonable, it can help or hinder and it can be difficult to find the respectful and constructive way to resolve apparent conflicts, but I would suspect few people would call their own view on how the interaction should play out unreasonable. I would be interested in specific examples of where people feel justified in limiting religious or cultural expression. Is it ok that little girls wear head coverings while playing soccer? Is the expression of "christian" views against homosexuality, no matter how hurtful to others, reasonable expression because it stems from the majority culture? Personally, I would like to Canadians drop any discussion of the limits to tolerance in favour of an exploration of the benefits of diversity. Let's talk about how we have managed to make our country stronger while other nations have failed. Why does Canada have no race riots. And while we're at it, let's look at how the newcomers from France and Britain failed to accomodate First Nations and how that should inform this debate.
[updated Tue Sep 25 10:11:55 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 10:11
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
wilson!
This is excellent. I wish I had said that way.
25 Sep 14:47
blossom
I like your thoughtful expose. It counteracts some of the same arguments which we have all brought forward, and helps to broaden the discussion. In view of this light, you would probably enjoy watching the debate on cpac, and some of Charles Taylors very responses to some of those views.
Re. exploring the benefits of diversity is also contained in Mr. Taylors assessment to all views opined by all, and emotions are also integrated into the discussions. Today's candidates were brought in, but screened before presenting their thesis, which was beneficial in elevating the discussions to all levels of consequences.
I am also happy that you remembered to denounce how our First Nations' Natives are still affected, and that herein, we need the political will of this government.
26 Sep 09:25
PMK
To me, this poll raises the much larger question of Canada's coming demographic crisis and our current lack of leadership from our business and political elites. If there's an issue screaming for "leadership" and hard choices, it's this one.
Here's my reading of where we are: Canadians do not want to accommodate minorities; our rapidly aging society has significant consequences for our economy and standard of living; immigrants are a critical source of population growth; yet our society is not open to accomodating immigrants. Canada, we have a problem!
[updated Tue Sep 25 11:02:32 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 11:02
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
I have to disagree...Canadians want to accomodate realistic accomodations, and this conversation is to help to integrate them, and not stickmatize them to ghettos, whereby they will replete upon themselves. This is why they are called 'reasonable accomodations".
But like anything else, this can also get out of hand.
We are just discovering that we are not as multicultural as we thought, but more of the melting pot generation. We desperately need new immigrants in this Country - we can't even get a blue collar worker to come for repairs at home. Our hospitals are so understaffed that we should be ashamed of not chasing after those physicians and nurses who have diplomas.
Where we are doing them the most disservice is by not giving them employment, and many of those immigrants are highly certified. The best jobs go to Canadian born. This is what is outrageous. When they appear for a job request, they are denied, and placed at the bottom of the pile! We are doing ourselves a great disservice.
26 Sep 08:59
PMK
Hi blossom, I have always enjoyed reading your comments on this blog and am happy that you've responded to one of mine!
I read that you disagree, but I sense that you agree with me. How are we ever going to attract immigrants, if our political discourse is framed by "accommodation"? I think we should be focussing on pluralism and how to become a society that accepts people for who they are. Would you want to go somewhere where the message is "you need to change" or "we embrace and accept your differences"? We have failed to accept that immigration will become about competing with all Western countries attracting/ recruiting the right people.
I have two young children who attend an urban school. There are Sikhs, Africans, East Indians, East Europeans in their classes. To them, this is their world. Girls wear head scarves and boys wear turnbans. I think it is wonderful opportunity for them to get ready for life in the 21st century.
Could it be that the "accommodation" debate is (once again) a baby boomer issue.
26 Sep 11:10
blossom
Hello PMK,
You have a great point...I am sitting on both sides of the issue so to speak. This debate is going to be very complicated, and just today, I realized that in a democratic society, it is good that everyone voices their opinions, but we shall have to set limits.
It was, for example, argued today that all immigrants should be more or less induced to participate in community sports, sort of collectively...One can conclude how this proposal is rediculous, and made me realize that although I have always participated in sports as my personal choice, that one can not force it on others.
I have always benefited from enjoying friendships with people from different Countries, and basically all human beings aspire to the same fundamental aspirations. When engaged in shools, institutions, work, friendships we do not see racial differences.
Last night, I tried to explain from memory the different opinions that were opined, and some quite interesting, but I do agree that it stemmed and was precipitated from fears, in this province about forcing all immigrants to learn French (in a bilingual province), and as you mentionned that children from different backgrounds, benefit insofar that they learn languages from one another and grow up never noticing ethnic differences and learning to live with each other later on.
Yes, I absolutely believe in pluralism and accept people for what they are.
It is undeniable that no one, except occasionally has asked for certain accomodations, but in a world where our governments (some) foster fear, that citizens want to define what they feel comfortable with. Perhpas they are trying to define themselves also?
Scarves and turbans are not what is on the line.
The covered faces (burqha) of women, the 'kirpan" (and please forgive my spelling since I have not really paid attention to those) have been viewed, in this world that we now live in, become moot points, at least out here. I would totally agree with you that our own citizens running around with guns are far more dangerous than the few who carry those religious artifacts.
On the encouraging side, one very small town was totally proud of how they lived with ethnic groups, and muslims in perpetual interaction and serenity. With the wisdom that our Premier denoted in giving this arduous task to a very wise and accomodating personality as Charles Taylor, I believe that the end results will be good for all, and put most peoples' minds at rest, and finally that it might benefit all of us to have taken the bull by the horn, so to speak, at the outset. The best thing is that the politicians stay out of this citizens' debate.
When you say the right people, I presume that you do not mean only the deserving because they are more fortunate, but that this will embrace all people who want to come here and aspire to build on their dreams. Indeed it is when we welcome all those immigrants and stop reminding ourselves of the outer differences, but concentrate on the individual.
It is great that your children are happy and mingling with young people of different nationalities, and religions, who will learn early that it is always the intention/ heart that matters. Childrens' main pre-occupation should be education. This is the real tool of freedom for all. We should all become citizens of the world, and avoid enriching the arms dealers who provoke wars.
Thanks for responding to my post; am happy that you did so.
27 Sep 03:09
PKtest
test
[updated Wed Oct 10 17:21:57 EDT 2007]
10 Oct 17:21
Bernard
The suburbs around Paris used to be a peaceful Christian enclave. Now it is an Islamic hellhole. The country of Lebanon used to be a peaceful Christian nation. Now the followers of the great deciever are on the verge of taking over and it too is often a war zone. Canadians are peace loving tolerant people and we want to keep it that way. Most immigrants have contributed to the development of peaceful diversity. There is only one group that can poison this balance,and it is members of the so-called "Religion of Peace" that takes offence at just about anything, demands special privileges everywhere, uses women as population bombs, and tries to take over any place it gains a plurality. The results of this survey shows there is a significant number of Canadians who see this and want measures taken to prevent Canada from becoming subject to the proposed re-establishment of the Caliphate and replacement of our constitution with shariah law. The Stop Islamization of Europe movement (SIOE) has been established (www.sioe.wordpress.com). If need be, a Stop Islamization of Canada organization will be established too.
[updated Tue Sep 25 11:57:34 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 11:57
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
Bernard
I emphatically disagree.
[updated Tue Sep 25 14:48:58 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 14:48
Bernard
What part of what I wrote do you disagree with, Bernie? I hope it's not the line "Canadians are peace loving tolerant people and we want to keep it that way." :-)
By the way, my apologies for mispelling the word "deceiver". I don't know how to edit my comments after they've been posted.
[updated Tue Sep 25 19:36:15 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 19:36
Bernie
Bernard
"I hope it's not the line "Canadians are peace loving tolerant people and we want to keep it that way." :-)"
As you already know, of course not. Although I would qualify that with "most Canadians" or, at least, that's what I believe
The message I received from your post is that we should not be so tolerant. It is that which I disagree with.
The first two sentences of your post are a matter of interpretation and I see it differently.
Whenever a segment of society is excluded form the society at large, the economic and social deprivation that takes place results in conditions that have ramification for the larger society. The inclusion and accepting of that segment prevents the development of those conditions.
Reasonable accomodation would avoid those problems, in my opinion.
26 Sep 07:46
Bernard
Hey Bernie,
We should be tolerant of all tolerant people. Those who are intolerant should not be tolerated. The great deceiver divided the world into dar il islam (the world of submission) and dar el harb (the world of war). In the words of Craig Winn, author of Prophet of Doom (see http://ProphetOfDoom.Net ), "The Qur'an orders Muslims to fight until the whole world submits to Allah. It is a declaration of war against all humankind." Your opinion that "Reasonable accomodation would avoid those problems..." experienced in by other societies is, in my opinion, a mistake. You do not, I believe, know about the three stages of jihad. Stage one is entrance to dar el harb territory and quiet growth until attaining a population threshold of strength (Quranic instructions suggest that figure is 10%). Stage two is taking over and establishing sharia as the law of the land. This can be bloody or not, depending on circumstances. Those who are not members of the so-called "Religion of Peace" have two or three choices, according to Islam; (a) convert to Islam, (b) pay jizya (part of a protection racket), or (c) die. Option b is not an option for people who are not Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians. Stage three is "the greater jihad", coming to terms in one's heart and soul with the violence one may have committed to achieve the take-over. Islam is worse than Communism. Islam is worse than the Mafia. Islam is worse than Nazism. There is nothing worse in the world and it is the height of folly to let it fester and grow, or, in your words "tolerate" it. Would you tolerate someone taking over your home and extracting a livelihood from you through extortion? Of course not. Neither should Canadians allow followers of the great deceiver to do that to our home and native land. Good people who are nominal muslims should leave Islam and either join another religion or be freethinkers with no formal religious affiliation, and in this way become free of the death cult they had been born into through no fault of their own, or that they had been tricked into through fraudulence. They should denounce Islam as have many ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwash, Walid Shoebat, Ali Sina, Salman Rushdie and more. If enough of them do it, then the hardened followers of the great deceiver will be discouraged and not attempt jihad at all. Then we will "...avoid those problems...".
[updated Wed Sep 26 12:11:35 EDT 2007]
26 Sep 12:11
Bernie
Bernard, I detect a lot of negative bias in Mr Winn, if not outright bigotry.
I've read several books on Islam. Books by S Huntington, B lewis, M Chaudry, G Hawting and M Kramer. The best was my Karen Armstrong "Islam: A Brief History" It was the most honest truthful and unbiased and also the most scholarly.
27 Sep 08:20
Bernard
Bernie, Craig Winn acquired his negative biases honestly. As he writes in his "Letter to the Reader" at the beginning of his book **Prophet of Doom**...
"My quest to understand Islam began on the morning of September 11th 2001. I wanted to know why Muslim militants were killing us. So I went off to Ground Zero for Islamic terror - Israel. The West Bank is home to more suicide bombers per capita than anywhere else on earth. I arranged to meet with the terrorists themselves. I asked members of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, and Hamas why they were killing us. They said, "Islam. We are following Muhammad's orders." That adventure is recounted in Tea With Terrorists . "
After hearing the terrorists tell him the inspiration for their violent activities was Islam, Mr. Winn conducted a highly thorough examination of Islam by going to the original sources; the hadiths and the Quran. In the "Letter to the Reader", cited above, Mr. Winn explains why you might not like what he has written:
"The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree - but I didn't write those parts. They came directly from Islam's scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.
Others will say that I cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair verdict. They will charge that I took the Islamic scriptures out of context to smear Muhammad and Allah. But none of that is true. Over the course of these pages, I quote from almost every surah in the Qur'an - many are presented in their entirety. But more than that, I put each verse in the context of Muhammad's life, quoting vociferously from the Sunnah as recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari - Islam's earliest and more trusted sources. I even arrange all of this material chronologically, from creation to terror."
I've heard of S(amuel) Huntington, B(ernard) Lewis and Karen Armstrong, but not the others. Karen Armstrong was nominated for the Useful Idiot of the Year 2006 award by members of FaithFreedom International and won a plurality with 26% of the vote. You can see the thread where she is criticized here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34195
While some may say that Craig Winn "cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair verdict", others say that Karen Armstrong cherry-picked the few nice parts of Islam to render an unfair verdict in its favour. Ali Sina, the founder of FaithFreedom.org wrote about her in the above referenced thread "Many people have been misled by this woman into believing that Islam is a religion of peace. Many of them who wasted several years of their lives in Islam, and then left it (and) blamed Armstrong as the first cause of their misguidance." Bernie, I hope this discussion between us will spare you such a sad personal experience.
27 Sep 10:38
This comment has been removed by the Moderator.
Samm
Lack of information and education. Lebanon was never a christian nation.It was created after WWII by the French. Christians and Moslems shared it about half and half. Christians are the ones who started the civil war in Lebanon. He should read recent history. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine were one country. I hope that Hitlers with these ideas dont come to power again in any nation. Unfortunately they exist in all nations, and some are rulers of powerful countries and operating freely today and responsible for the death of many people.
Bernard , get educated before you speak.
Sam
[updated Sat Mar 29 10:09:30 EDT 2008]
29 Mar 10:09
Bernard
According official census, in 1932, the enclave that became the country of Lebanon in 1943, had a 55% Christian population. The government estimate of the size of the Christian population for 1956 was 54%. The CIA world factbook now estimates the Moslem population to be 59.7%. I think these figures speak for themselves, Sam.
[updated Sun Mar 30 21:54:18 EDT 2008]
30 Mar 21:54
Jim McDonald
This result is really depressing--I've always imagined that Canadians were far more accepting and tolerant than this suggests. It's also disturbing that anyone objects to something that is identified in its definition as 'reasonable'.
The data would be easier to interpret, though, if we knew a little more about the assumptions that underlie the answers. What exactly is the 'Canadian' culture to which immigrants are expected to adapt? And what aspects in particular of their native cultures do respondants require them to abandon? I doubt that anyone is thinking of traditional dress or diet or folk-dances here.
If the real substance of the question is about importing violent religious conflict--which is on many people's minds these days--, the answers are easier to understand. But they're still frighteningly wrong-headed.
[updated Tue Sep 25 13:17:39 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 13:17
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
doralh
I couldn't agree more. The questions do appear to be rather fuzzy. But the answers would seem to show that most Canadians are rather bigotted. I suppose the same people who think that Muslim women should not be allowed to wear a veil in Canada would be the first ones to object if some Islamic country required Canadian women in that country to cover up.
Strange that people who are all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants should be so intolerant of other immigrants.
[updated Tue Sep 25 20:00:36 EDT 2007]
25 Sep 20:00
blossom
Hi doralh,
This is the point. When journalists (women) go to Muslim countries, they have to wear the head gear, and respect the law and traditions of that land. Men eat in one room, and women in another. The kitchen is where all women are allowed! The point is, if you are an outsider you do not put up a fight, or it is at your own risk!
For instance, Muslim women, hide, and meet to wear cosmetics in rudimentary homes. In Afghanistan, for instance, there was a documentary whereby two women presented themselves to see a play, sat down on the ground, and were ousted out by the men, and told in no uncertain terms not to come back!
During world war 11, women were shaved for conspiring with the enemy...just to humiliate them...Have we ever heard of a man's beard being shaved, or his hair clipped?
Muslim men, traditionally will not shake hands with another woman, if his wife accompanies him, however, it can be another story if she isen't!
I see a lot of discrepencies against Muslim women, and I believe that some are honestly trying to put a stop to this, and for the good of the women.
The list goes on and on...
[updated Wed Sep 26 09:41:24 EDT 2007]
26 Sep 09:41
doralh
Good morning Blossom,
I'm not really going to pursue this question, because when I read all of the comments so far, it seems to have degenerated from a discussion to an argument that will go nowhere.
When I was in grade school during the1930s I was regularly beaten up for no reason other than that I was the only Catholic in a secular (mostly Protestant) school. Later I saw the way Japanese Canadians were treated. Not to even mention how we treated our aboriginal people. I did believe that in the last 65 years Canadians have become less bigoted but I can see that I was wrong. We've merely found other targets. It seems that we always need someone to pick on.
Just two or three points though, before I bow out. First, you might be interested to know that Saskatchewan and Alberta had very active Welcome Wagons in most communities at least 50 years ago. My family moved around a good deal at that time and met them everywhere we went. As far as I know they still operate. I know they do where live.
Second point. You state that the State and Religion must be kept separate. As far as I know they are, except where the state benefits from some cooperation. For example, most independent and faith based schools save the rest of the taxpayers a lot of money because they operate cheaper and produce better results for the students. But that's not the point. On the one hand you say that Church and State must be separate, but on the other hand you state, or imply, that you believe the state should tell people exactly how they must practice their religion. To put it another way, you don't want people of faith to have any influence on the state but you want the state to control how people of faith should live. Rather inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
You make a number of other good points that tell me that you are struggling to resolve a lot of social questions in your own mind. This is good. I hope that you succeed.
By the way, it is a political question. Perhaps it shouldn't be but every politician is trying to find ways to make hay out of it, including the opportunist Charest.
I think a good way to define tolerance is simply this: we should mind our own business and stop trying to tell everyone else how to mind theirs. I don't suggest that to be the whole of the definition. Just a good place to start.
26 Sep 12:22
blossom
Good evening doralh,
Sorry to hear that you had to take so much abuse when you were young. I din't!
I was however, in a private school (co-ed) in the US, and there was segregation at this time...The rule of law was that if anyone bullyed, or even hinted an intolerant word against another that there was fair warning for what was to follow. In the five years that I was there, there was one very small offensive word spoken by a young enough student, an apology accepted, and the whole school felt shame about what had happened. The teachers saw to it that the two students made-up, and became friends...Lessons learned for the future!
I agree that in the days past, parent's paid tuitions, the teachers (nuns) superior insofar as their only responsibility was to teach and keep order in the class. Civility was at its utmost, and generated what we have lost today.
Absolutely - Church and State separate...I said that different denominations should pay for their Churches, Schools, and not the State. I guess you are referring to Catholic schools which were subsidized, but I am not for it.
If you are referring to the different points of discussions that were brought-up in the light of the commission in place, and since it is of importance to some, I think that it is a good thing...rather than to let the heat bubble into steam! Whether one likes the topic or not, better to get everybody's grievances out there, rather than keeping them pent up. There are always solutions to all arguments. The reason we live in a form of democracy is because everyone is allowed a voice!
When I have enough of the medias telling me what I should do about my health, what I should eat, etc..and have had enough, I turn the dial off!
Cheers,
28 Sep 02:15
doralh
Blossom, As usual your comments are reasonable and reasoned. I wish more people would follow your example. Over the past 4 or 5 years I have left several forums because the moment I disagreed with the apparent majority I'd get flamed from all directions. There is a tendency on this forum for some people to be slightly uncivil but it's not too bad yet.
Until grade ten I attended one room country schools. More accurately, back country, on the edge of nowhere. One teacher and maybe as many as 30 kids. We never ran to the teacher when we were in a fight, and the teacher couldn't be everywhere. You remarked that letting off steam is a good thing. I agree, and childhood fights are just that. Letting off steam and nobody really gets hurt. Today one of my very best friends is a man who as a boy 65 years ago, beat me up more often than anyone else. He's still a strong Protestant Evangelical and I'm still a Traditional Roman catholic.
As for schools, I am totally opposed to the communist school systemthat prevails in Canada.. By communist I mean a system which is compulsory, where it is run by the bureaucrats and not by the parents, where it is impossible to opt out because they'll make you pay fior it anyway. I'm a retired teacher and during all of my teaching career I was forced to be a member of a union that I didn't approve of. No option, just forced regimentation. I believe that the State should get out of the education system and leave it to private enterprise to operate the schools. And no monopoly to one big company either. There should be free and open competition and parents should be free to chose which school to support and send their kids to. The cost would be less and the quality would be higher.
This may be a bit off topic but education is a hot button in Ontario just now, so I thought I'd get in my two cents worth.
I'm off line for the weekend. (With all the dials turned off!!)
Doral
28 Sep 10:42
blossom
Hello doralh,
I can understand, at least feel empathy for what you had to put up with. I also very much appreciate that you went to the trouble of explaining your plight. I felt that you had a lot to say last eve, and felt badly.
All of us who stand alone, and feel our ideas rejected have to go through this sort of self-reflection, but as you say, this forum tends to hold its constraints, because some of us really connect, and learn so much from those, who with civility can question our opinions. I would worry if we all agreed on all issues, and think that we are perhaps on the funny farm.
Getting back to the issue, as someone else pointed out, we all come from different parts of the Country, have different needs, and I for one, did not settle in the easiest of Provinces. I guess I was referring to what John Tory proposes in Ontario, and my view is that I would be against it. I made sure that I would never belong to a union...therefore I can well sympathise on this score with you.
We have private schools out here, whereby, students must dress with a uniform. As a matter of fact last week I happened to go to one, and I was amazed to see the decorum shown to us by those very students. This is just one example.
Close by, there is an elementary school for specially gifted children. Sometimes when I pass by I see them in the yard, and they are exemplary, and the teachers always with them. There is much surveillance.
Sometimes I also hear about schools whereby the teachers have nothing to say, and parents are overwhelming to the teachers. This is wrong. I heard a lot about bullying, and cannot understand that this is still so? From some, what I hear is that it is the teachers who need protection. However, I know not enough to give a valid opinion.
In my days I rather liked the way it worked. One had to pass the state exams which was a requirement, and quite up to standards, and more so than today, from what I hear. At that level, it was a private school though, and not funded by the State. I have always had much respect for teachers, and consider myself lucky to have had great teachers.
Out here, this is what parents are asking for: to send their children to the schools of their choices, and the language of their choices. Now, it is just downing on me, that I am inconsistent if I say no to funding, but it is the element that is has to be a religious school that is my problem. I got confused with the issue of languages - French and English is the question in Qc. I shall leave you with this decision, but definately State and Church separate!
You are certainly in a position to give your opinion and make suggestions,and you have earned it so.
29 Sep 01:06
Bernie
Hi doral and blossom.
Forgive me for butting in but this is so interesting I couldn't resist.
I may sound self-contradictory here. I am for separation of state and religion. I want one public school system. But on the other hand I think parents have priority rights to bring up their children as they see fit, unless, of course, it's outside normally accepted community practices. I believe parents rights exceed the state's except were illegal activities are concerned. Those parents who are so concerned that they insist on having their own schools should be allowed to do so without having to also pay for the public system. I would hope that they would be happy with the public system but I would not be willing to enforce it on them.
We have a publicly funded separate school system here in Ontario. I wanted my children to go to the public school system. My wife insisted on them going to the separate system. She won. I'm am not disappointed I am happy with the results. For one thing they were much more disciplined and had a better way of relating with people. I feel there was something intangible, something I can't quite explain that they received that I don't see to the same extent in the pudlic school system.
There is quite a discussion in Ontario now. With election coming up next week the PC party leader say he will fund all faith based schools. I think it will cost him a lot of votes. Two months ago I was prepared to vote for him, now I will not. But not for that reason. I don't like his attitude toward health care or the environment and certainly not his 'attack ads".
I have a high regard for teachers. I would pay them double and have parents give them greater support in dealing with their class, especially in discipline matters..
But I'd also make clear to them what parents expectations are.
This post is getting rather long. I have several others things to say re my personal experiences in this area, but I'll have to leave another time
Again, sorry for jumping into someone else's conversation.
29 Sep 09:00
doralh
Good morning Bernie.I don't think any of the posts on this site are private, so don't feel that you're butting in. You have made some very good observations.
As I mentioned, I'll be off line from now until at least Monday. But I'll add one more comment on the education problem. Throwing money at a person does not make them a better teacher. Teachers are very well paid today, at least in B.C. and Alberta where I taught before I retired. More money for higher wages is not the answer. In fact it would be just the opposite. There are already too many people in teaching who are just there for the money. The answer lies in competition, which means getting government out of the education system. Canadians are always going on about free enterprise. They think it's just fine to have shops and accountants and lawyers and farmers operating in a competitive, free enterprise system. So why then should the two strongest unions in the nation, that is the teachers' unions and the doctors' unions, operate just exactly the way they do in every communist country? Why is there no competition in Education or Health Care? It is competition that turned the Tin Lizzie into modern, efficient and comfortable automobiles. Why should teachers have tenure which makes it virtually impossible to get rid of those who aren't doing a good job? Why should parents be forced to pay for a system that is failing to produce good results?
O.K., that's my Saturday rant. I'm off to enjoy the cold, crisp fresh air for a couple of days.
Special note for Blossom. Your last post was very good, and very thoughtful as usual. You are a real credit to this forum.
29 Sep 09:28
Bernie
Hi doralh
It's obvious we have a different philosophy. Yes, your post was a rant. I'm not saying that in a negative way. We'd be better off if there was more ranting. At least, we would understand each other more clearly. I'll rant back :-)
I'm for public most everything, health, communication, transportation and most of all education.
If it's private the individuals have to pay directly. There are many who can not afford to pay for their children's education.
Also we have many immigrants. How do we get them to integrate into our society?
I also disagree re teachers salaries. I think teaching is the most important profession and they should be paid accordingly. Yes, more than doctors, lawyers or politicians. Not many teachers I know will agree with you in saying they are paid enough. Oh yes, there are good and bad teachers. There always will be as in any other profession. They are humans like the rest of us. But by paying the higher salary we can entice the best people. How many who would be good teachers, go to other professions for economic reasons? We are losing the best.
I am also more interested in cooperation than in competition. Competition may be good for free enterprise, for private affairs, for commodities, but not in public affairs. When the public is concerned individulism should defer to the collective. Public competition is chaos
Union are also good. They are another protection of individuals who have less power from those who have more I hate to see the situation the poor working class would be in today if not for unions. If there were no union you would see how quickly it would go back to what it was like a 100 years ago.
People are not commodities. You cannot equate efficiencies producing commodities to efficiencies envolving people
Now I expect a rant back. I am eagerly awaiting in anticipation :-)
30 Sep 09:36
Tom Good
Hello Bernie-----In BC there are the independent schools that receive the per pupil instructional allotment as determined provincially for the public school student. What the independent schools do not receive is an allotment for capital expenditures which must be funded by their support group which is usually a church group. Within that independent school funded group are what we generally call "private schools" or "boarding schools" whereby parents pay a mighty hefty fee---in the neighbourhood of $25,000+ per annum. The system seems to work well so it is a system of independent schools and public schools. Home schooling is also an option and the Ministry of Education will supply the text books necessary or there is Correspondence Education so the parent has two options in the home schooling scene.
The standard of education whether it is public, independent or home schooling varies considerably. Private schools can pick and choose and they, understandably, have a mighty enthusiastic parent body behind them (with bucks in their pockets too). They consistently produce top results but I have seen one Catholic girls school being right at the top in this province too. There are some public schools that are producing excellent results too----as good as any independent school.
I agree, parents should have a choice outside the public school system and the choices in BC seem to fill the bill. I would strongly disagree that schools outside the public system should be fully funded from the public purse.
As in all callings whether it be the doctor, lawyer, nurse, auto mechanic, teacher or even politician there are varying degrees of expertise-----all are just human and are only equal before the law supposedly ! ! !
Generally, discipline depends upon the personnel within the schools whether they be public or independent schools. Parent support is vital but, again, they do not "run" the school but some would like to as you likely know. The ability of the school to impose discipline has been eroded over the last 50 years-----this has been a good thing where authority was abused and a bad thing where standards of discipline dropped to silly low levels.