Canada's largest newspaper
Our kids deserve equality
There is clearly a continuing public demand for Catholic schools and the same option should be available to other faiths
The Toronto Star, Opinion, Jan. 31, 2005
By METROPOLITAN SOTIRIOS, AARON BLUMENFELD, M.D., KHALID AND RIPSODHAK SINGH GREWAL
With the recent flip-flop of the Quebec government on religious school funding, it's time to reconsider the issue in Ontario. Minority religious schools should be funded in Ontario not only to end the discrimination between Catholics and other religious groups, but also because our schools provide a necessary public service that public schools cannot offer.
In Western Canada and Quebec, faith-based schools receive substantial government funding.
By contrast, Ontario fully funds the Catholic school system, while providing no direct funding to the 2 per cent of children attending non-Catholic religious schools.
In 1999 , the U.N. Human Rights Committee found this policy in violation of Canada's international obligations.
It ruled that Ontario must end its discriminatory policy. The status quo puts Ontario at odds with modern democratic norms and all other Western societies.
But should any religious education be government funded?
Some have argued that funding the Catholic school system is a "relic" from the past that should end.
However, almost one-third of Ontario parents send their children to Catholic schools, where the general studies curriculum is enriched with the spiritual and cultural dimensions that are, for many, an integral part of a quality education.
There is clearly a continuing public demand for Catholic schools.
The same option should be available to other faiths.
Most of our parents are middle- or lower-income earners who endure financial hardships to educate their children in accordance with their conscience. For many, tuition is the largest item in the family budget, in addition to their taxes which fund public and Catholic education.
Why do they sacrifice so much, if public schools are freely available to them?
The Ontario courts have determined that public schools can teach about religion, but cannot encourage the observance of a particular faith. What this means is public schools are not an option for parents who wish their children to remain true to their faith.
The Supreme Court acknowledged in a 1996 decision that "the Jewish community's survival as an identifiable and practising religious community depends upon broad access for Jewish children to Jewish day schools."
Other faiths are no different.
Genuine tolerance and acceptance of diversity in our society requires the government to provide equal access to education for all Ontarians.
The absence of funding effectively denies many religious Ontarians the ability to educate children in their faiths.
Consider the disastrous consequences to aboriginal children who lost their identity and creed at residential schools.
The suggestion that funding minority religious schools will "fragment" the public school system is unfounded. Most democracies, including many in Europe and across Canada, fund religious schools with no adverse impact on public schools.
In every case, most parents choose to send their children to the public school systems, while the basic needs of religious and cultural minorities are also met.
Ontario would be stronger and public schools better off if religious schools were funded.
As a matter of justice and fairness, Ontario should join the many other jurisdictions in extending equality of educational opportunity to all children.
Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios belongs to the Multi-faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Religious Schools; Aaron Blumenfeld, represents the Ontario Association of Jewish Day Schools; M.D. Khalid is an executive member of the Islamic Society of North America Canada; Ripsodhak Singh Grewal is a member of the Khalsa Community (Sikh) School.
The Edmonton Journal
November 12, 2006
A safeguard for women? An insult to women? Canada's infanticide law, like the crime itself, ignites strong emotions on both sides. Just how did the legislation evolve and why do some legal experts want it scrapped?
"You heartless bastards!"
The words rang out in a Wetaskiwin courtroom, Ryan Effert's verbal attack on the eight-woman, four-man jury that had just found his 20-year-old sister, Katrina, guilty of murdering her newborn baby.
Ryan Effert was the first to lash out at the jury, but his angry words have been echoed by many others. Defence lawyers, legal experts, pundits and members of the public have all expressed upset and bewilderment at the decision on Sept. 26. Read More ..
The Calgary Sun
September 25, 2010
For six decades, women who have killed their babies have typically benefited from reduced sentences under our infanticide law because of the belief their minds were disturbed from giving birth.
University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand wonders why only mothers who kill their infants get a break.
Fathers and adoptive parents should have a shot at judicial compassion as well, he argues in a provocative article in the Alberta Law Review.
There is little evidence of a direct connection between the physical effects of childbirth or lactation and the onset of mental disturbances in women, he declares.
Rather, poverty, isolation and other social stresses are more likely causes of the mental illness some women experience after childbirth, Anand argues.
And if mothers are vulnerable to mental breakdowns because of the socio-economic burden of child-rearing, surely fathers and adoptive parents risk the same stress and should also be able to use the defence of infanticide, he says.
"Once the law recognizes biological mothers who kill their children may commit these acts because of the effects of mental disorders caused by social stresses, the law must also acknowledge all parents are susceptible to such influences," Anand writes. Read More ..
One of British medicine's most senior advisers on medical ethics has provoked outrage by claiming that infanticide is "justifiable".
Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, said that it was not "plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal" - suggesting that there was no moral difference between aborting a foetus and killing a baby. Read More ..