Quebec’s Bill 21 Has It All Wrong

I am writing this, not because Quebec’s “An Act respecting the laicity of the State”, commonly referred to as Bill 21, goes against Canadian values and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it does, but because it’s provisions will not achieve it’s supposed purpose of a secular state and civil society.

As an atheist I support secular public institutions. That means government and public institutions should be religiously neutral. The institutions should not favour one religion and include religious symbols, like crucifixes in the National Assembly or government buildings, hospitals or schools named after saints or popes. It does not meaning everyone working in the public sector needs to be an atheist.

Quebec has historically been a Roman Catholic Christian society. That historical majority, with or without individual symbolism, will see itself within government and public institutions. For public institutions, like schools, to be truly religiously neutral they must reflect all of Quebec society and it’s people of various religions. That inclusiveness and diversity, like justice, must not just exist but must be seen to exist. Quebec’s Bill 21 has it backwards.

COVID-19 and Education in Ontario – An Imaginative Approach

Let me start by saying that I understand that hindsight is a big advantage and some may ask why didn't I think of this sooner and my response is that thinking about education in Ontario is not my full time job but it is for Ontario's Ministry of Education.

While it may be seem late now It seems to me that at some point the Education Ministry should have realized that too much time has passed to do justice to the curriculum for this year and the best solution might be to just start over next fall and use the rest of the school year creatively for students.

The result would be Ontario students requiring thirteen tears to complete their elementary and secondary education instead of twelve. This is something that millions of Ontario students, including myself did before 2003 and we turned out just fine.

Instead of trying to finish the curriculum using what can only be described as rushed into service experimental online methods, why not do something more creative with the online teaching and what little in classroom teaching time may be left in this school year.

Why not let teachers go “off-curriculum” or perhaps more accurately described as parallel to curriculum, by putting a local focus on their teaching. Teach local history, and in particular the history of the indigenous peoples in their area. Teach about the history of their communities and local industries and businesses, community groups, etc. Focus science and geography on the local ecosystem and the scientific principles behind local industries. Go a bit farther afield and teach some of the history of the local immigrant communities, particularly refugees. The opportunities for creative teachers are endless.

Each community and neighbourhood should have it's own focus which is why letting individual teachers go “off-curriculum” is the best way to achieve this.

Use this as an opportunity for these students to finish elementary and secondary school with a greater education than otherwise, rather than a lessor one.

The Teachers Dilemma

Nobody wants to give in to a bully. Indeed teachers teach students not to give in to bullies and teachers are expected to be role models and teach by example.

So the teachers, when the bully took away their collective bargaining rights with draconian legislation that took away their right to strike, used the only legal avenue they had to fight back against the bully and refused voluntary activities.

They knew the government had pushed them into a corner so that their only legal way of fighting back would impact students and keep them from doing things they loved to do. I am sure they were looking individually and collectively for a way to bring things back to normal for their students while still taking a stand against the bully government.

When they found another way to make a last stand against the government with minimal impact on students, Dalton McGuinty said no that is illegal, the only protests we will allow you to undertake are ones that harm your students.

So what next.

Teachers Political Protest Not a Strike and Not Illegal

First of all it is not a strike because it is not part of the collective bargaining process because with a government imposed contract, imposed under a draconian law whose constitutionality is under challenge, there is no collective bargaining process. Secondly the political protest is aimed at the government as policy maker and legislator, not as employer.

It is not illegal because political protests are not illegal in Canada, even if Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty wish they were.

Not that the teachers are completely free of consequences. For one they will not be paid for the day, and secondly their contract provisions may provide for discipline for absences not approved by the employer. But any such action will be subject to the grievance and appeal provisions of their contracts. That being said the usual discipline by employers for such absences is suspension from work without pay. So theoretically the school boards could force the teachers to take time off work without pay as punishment for taking time off work without pay. Sort of like suspending students for truancy.

The biggest irony, or perhaps more appropriately described as hypocrisy, is that Dalton McGuinty has his knickers in a knot over teachers taking a day off without pay to protest a process that has imposed a contract on them that requires them to take days off without pay.

Question for Dalton McGuinty About Sex Education

When should students learn about sex in the classroom?

Before or after they learn about it in the schoolyard?

Before or after they start having sex?

When professional educators deem it appropriate or when the Roman Catholic Church says it's allowed?

The Supreme Court Rules !

As my daughters would say “The Supreme Court Rules”. And just why does the Supreme Court rule. The Supreme Court rules because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in “R. v. A.M.” that young people do not lose their constitutional protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply because they are in a school.

According to a CBC report:

The first case involved an unexpected police visit to St. Patrick's High School in Sarnia, Ont., in 2002. During that visit, students were confined to their classrooms as a trained police dog sniffed out backpacks in an empty gymnasium.

The dog led police to a pile of backpacks, one of which contained marijuana and magic mushrooms. A youth, identified only as A.M, was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

But police admitted they didn't have a search warrant or any prior tip about drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials.

In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a previous trial judge's decision to exclude the drugs as evidence and acquit the youth. The court referred to the incident as "a warrantless, random search with the entire student body held in detention."

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that while "a warrantless sniffer-dog search is available where reasonable suspicion is demonstrated" in this case, "the dog-sniff search was unreasonably undertaken because there was no proper justification."

The court wrote that students' backpacks "objectively command a measure of privacy."

"No doubt ordinary businessmen and businesswomen riding along on public transit or going up and down on elevators in office towers would be outraged at any suggestion that the contents of their briefcases could randomly be inspected by the police without 'reasonable suspicion' of illegality," the court wrote.

Indeed, the Supreme Court does rule. Young people are slowly gaining the recognition that they deserve the same constitutional rights as anyone else and should not be discriminated against solely because of their age.

Too Dangerous for Crops - Let’s Rub It On Our Children’s Brains

The CBC and CTV report that shampoos, marketed to treat head lice, that contain an insecticide, Lindane, that has been banned from agricultural use, are being sold over the counter in Canada.

According to the Lindane Education And Research Network:

Lindane is the primary synonym for gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) also commonly referred to as benzene hexachloride (BHC). Lindane is a nerve poison, an organochlorine pesticide. Lindane is a known carcinogen in the state of California where it has been banned. Lindane is an Endocrine Disrupting Chemical and Persistent Organic Pollutant. Lindane is found in air, water and soil samples throughout the world. Lindane is documented in human breast milk and amniotic fluid. Many countries have banned lindane. Unfortunately, in the United States, it is still widely prescribed and used on children and their families for treating head lice and scabies. It is also used on pets, livestock, fruits and vegetables, cotton, wool, tobacco, plants, trees and as a wood preservative.

The CBC report states:

While several environmental groups have called for a ban on lindane-based pharmaceuticals, Health Canada still allows its use in lice and scabies treatments, even though its use as an agricultural pesticide has been banned.

The Canadian Paediatric Society is reviewing its position on lindane products and currently recommends that they not be used on infants and children under 17. The society advises that products that contain pyrethrin or permethrin, instead of lindane, are considered safe.

Pesticide linked to convulsions, deaths

California banned lindane products in 2002 amid concerns the chemical was showing up in wastewater and because lindane-based medications were generating reports of skin irritation, dizziness, headaches and, in some extreme cases, convulsions and death.

California estimated that a single treatment of a lindane-based product that was washed down the drain was impacting 22 million litres of water and bringing contamination above the limit of 19 parts per trillion.

Parents should also note that head lice “aren't dangerous and they don't spread disease” (kidshealth.org) and “head lice are not a hazard to health” (simcoemuskokahealth.org) and finally “Head lice rarely (if ever) cause direct harm, and they are not known to transmit infectious agents from person-to-person. Thus, they should not be considered as a medical or a public health problem” (hsph.harvard.edu).

So why have parents been frightened into using a dangerous toxic chemical and carcinogen on their children’s brains to treat something that is not harmful. Our schools must stop promoting this lunacy and tell parents the truth about head lice and Lindane-based shampoos. And parents must not allow themselves to be bullied (by their children’s schools) into placing their children’s health at serious risk.

Public Education and Public Health - The HPV Vaccine

I was all set to go on a tirade against the Catholic school system for attempting to thwart local health units HPV vaccine programs. However it appears that the boards have backed down from their threat to put religion before public health. But it could have happened.

The Catholic Church is free to have it’s religious position on non-marital sex but do the church leaders really believe that Jesus would have thought cervical cancer was an appropriate punishment for engaging in non-marital sex.

Our public health system uses the school system to provide effective and efficient vaccination programs. None of the vaccines provided are without controversy, including the HPV vaccine. But it is the responsibility of our public health system to decide which are appropriate to be provided, not the responsibility of religious leaders. The HPV vaccine program is supported by medical experts as well as federal, provincial and local health officials.

This is just another example of the problem with publicly funded religious based schools. It goes beyond education into public health. The Catholics may have backed down but there are certainly many “Christian” and other religious schools that will not allow public health units to use their schools to provide the HPV vaccine, or perhaps any vaccines. With the extension of public funding to all religious schools this will become a real problem, whether the schools co-operate or not.

The benefit of using the school system to provide vaccinations, and this applies to all vaccines including the standard childhood vaccines, is the efficiency provided by only having to deal with two school systems in each community. With public funding of all religious schools we will undoubtedly have more of them and the effectiveness of using the school system to provide vaccines will be greatly diminished.

And, of course, the effectiveness of sex education to prevent the spread of STDs and HIV/AIDS, as well as reduce teenage pregnancies, will also be reduced by the increased number of religious based schools.

Public education and public health go hand in hand and that is just one more reason to have a single public education system.