Sometimes the media can be just absolutely infuriating
They endorse the Green Party position, but refuse to mention the Green Party, so since they have limited themselves to only pick between big red or big blue, they go with big red, even though they admit it is discriminatory.
This is just stupid, and is providing disinformation to the public. The Star should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.thestar.com/article/261741
A better plan for public schools
September 29, 2007
Over the past 12 years, Ontario Progressive Conservatives under the leadership of Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and John Tory have proven to be no huge fans of public education in this province.
Under former premier Harris, and to a lesser extent under Eves, the Conservatives fought endless battles with public schools by shortchanging them of money, waging war on teachers, imposing disruptive new academic programs and encouraging private schools.
Now, John Tory, in his first election as Conservative leader, has plunged Ontario into a divisive debate over public education by promising to extend government funding to all faith-based schools in the province, not just Roman Catholic schools.
Tory has framed his proposal, which might cost as much as $500 million, as a matter of fairness. How, he asks, can Jewish, Muslim, evangelical Christian and other religious schools be denied public support that Catholic schools have received since Confederation?
In one sense, he’s right. Ontario’s public education system, which funds only secular and Catholic schools, is unfair.
But it would be even more unfair to inflict additional damage on our public schools by draining money and resources away from them just as they are getting back on their feet after the years of cuts and turmoil that started in the 1990s under Harris. In effect, Tory’s push to address the historic inequity would help the estimated 53,000 students who have chosen to attend private religious schools only at the expense of the 2.1 million students in Ontario’s publicly funded schools.
And Ontario’s increasingly diverse society would not be well served in the long run by encouraging children to go to school only with others who share their own religious beliefs.
That’s why Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and NDP Leader Howard Hampton are right to shoot down Tory’s proposal. Both convincingly argue Ontario should focus on strengthening the current public education system rather than spreading its resources even thinner by extending funding to non-Catholic religious schools.
Government funding of Catholic schools has its roots in a historical compromise. Under the terms of Confederation in 1867, educational rights of Roman Catholics in Ontario and Protestants in Quebec were given constitutional protection in the British North America Act.
For years, though, the Ontario government cut off funding for Catholic schools after Grade 10, maintaining its constitutional responsibilities applied only to earlier grades. In June 1984, then Conservative premier Bill Davis announced his intention to extend full funding to all grades, a move that upset many long-time Tory voters.
Since then, other religious groups have found support in a 1985 provincial commission that recommended independent schools receive some public funding under certain conditions, although the government quickly shelved that report. In 1999, the UN Human Rights Committee upheld a complaint that Canada was violating human rights by allowing Ontario to fund only Roman Catholic schools.
Ontario is the only province that fully funds Catholic schools and gives no money to other faith-based schools. Other provinces fall generally into two categories: those that fund no faith-based schools at all, and those that give partial or full funding to faith-based schools.
As imperfect as Ontario’s current public system is, it meets the needs of the vast majority of children, whatever their faith or cultural background. However, Tory’s proposal does highlight a critical issue Ontario will have to grapple with sooner or later.
Our demographics have changed dramatically since the 1867 Confederation compromise that guaranteed publicly funded education for Ontario’s Catholic minority. In the coming years, as other religious minorities in Ontario gain numbers and Catholics represent a smaller percentage of the population, the argument in favour of continued funding of Catholic schools will lose more and more relevancy.
But the path Tory has suggested to address this issue is wrong.
Instead, this province needs to start a process that will eventually eliminate funding for all faith-based schools, including Catholic schools, in favour of investing its limited resources in a single secular school system. In fact, whichever party forms the government on Oct. 10 should strike a blue-ribbon commission to start this inevitable, if politically sensitive, discussion with the people of Ontario.
Changing the system, when the times comes, won’t be easy.
First, taking away long-held rights is harder than granting them in the first place. It requires a constitutional amendment, which both Newfoundland and Quebec got in the 1990s. It needs the approval of the Ontario Legislature, and the authorization of the House of Commons and the Senate. Approval of other provinces is not required.
Second, any government plan that is developed must phase out funding for Catholic schools in a way that does not disrupt the current system nor the lives of the nearly 625,000 students now in the publicly funded Catholic schools.
Third, on a practical level, few politicians want to risk angering the 35 per cent of Ontarians who are Catholic by suggesting such a proposal.
For all these reasons, Ontario is not yet ready to revisit the historical deal on which it was founded – either by extending funding to all faith-based schools, or by eliminating it for every religious school.
For now, our current system, as flawed as it is, is the best alternative, given that after years of neglect by Conservative governments, we need a period of stability so the next government can build on McGuinty’s record since 2003 of rebuilding the public system.
But as Ontario becomes increasingly diverse, the day is coming when the status quo will no longer be workable. At that time, Ontarians should be ready with a single secular public education system that will welcome all students, whatever their beliefs, and will play its critical role in helping Ontario become a province known for understanding, cohesiveness, inclusiveness – and true fairness.
Amen, sister
http://www.thestar.com/article/260061
Real issues are being ignored
September 25, 2007
School funding fight escalatesSept. 24
I am amazed and horrified that the people of Ontario have allowed the major political parties to sabotage the true election issues by focusing on faith-based school funding.Hungry children can’t learn. Families living in unsafe and substandard housing can’t provide a secure environment to foster learning. People earning the minimum wage or less can’t provide the necessities of life for their families. The poor who live on the streets without basic health care suffer from myriad health problems. Without clean air and water, Ontario’s environment will be unsustainable. Without a supply of knowledge workers, our economy is in jeopardy.
Poverty, the economy and the environment are the main election issues. Parties need to address them and share their policies with the electorate so that we can make an informed choice on Oct. 10.
Maureen Gmitrowicz, Brooklin, Ont.
More overwhelming agreement from the general public on our school funding position
http://www.thestar.com/article/259920
Voices: Funding religious schools
September 24, 2007
We asked you whether you think Ontario taxpayers should fund any faith-based schools. Here’s what you had to say.
The overall percentage in this poll was yes – 18% and no – 81%
When the Conservatives were in power they couldn’t find enough money for our current school system and let them crumble and rot around us. It now seems they can find extra money for a vote-getting promise? Where do they expect to find this funding? Our tax dollars should not be funding religious schools of any kind. That includes the Catholic system.
Stephen Roy, Scarborough
There should be one school board for all. Religion shouldn’t be taught in the schools; it should be taught at home or in the churches. It’s getting ridiculous. There are way to many religions to fund them all.
Annette Bryant, Brantford
Religion is a very personal choice that cannot be connected in any way to the public budget. If you want your kids to go to any specific faith school, you should pay for it. I don’t want my money to fund any faith-oriented school. Therefore, why should Catholics be special?
Antonio Arribas, Toronto
The civil liberties headline is another example of organized bigotry. The school is an extension of the home and should express the wishes of the family. All schools meeting the basic ministry of education standards should be funded. The argument about the evils of diversity is old and long discredited.
John F. Mills, Thunder Bay, Ont.
Frankly, the opposition of the public schools to letting people’s school taxes fund the schools of their choice smacks of fear and hatred of diverse schools, and of a desire to coerce students and their parents into a monopoly system which can safely ignore their views and choices. And the Star seems to be whipping up this tribal hatred of difference. Was John Tory smart to advocate this policy? No, he was really stupid because this over-reaction was totally predictable.
Greg Dyer, Toronto
Yes. The people who attend faith-based schools are also tax payers. The rest of us get their tax dollars to fund our schools (public and Catholic) but are denying them the same benefit. For many of these religious minorities, public education is not an option and we should not be penalizing them for that. This is unfair and discriminatory.
Haim Belisowski, Toronto
The reality of Canadian history is that accommodating religions is the norm rather than the exception. B.C., Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec have provided significant funding to faith-based schools for decades, and have dynamic, unified societies. If McGuinty really believes what he says about tolerance and togetherness, the obvious next step is to allow public funding for all faith-based schools.
Kanayalal Raina, Mississauga
Ontario taxpayers should not fund faith-based schools. Schooling based on religion will create segregation and ultimately usher in a new age of intolerance when every other public domain seems intent on tearing walls down instead of building them up. The separation of the church and state was a critical step forward, and we should think long and hard before we let religion-based education turn us around.
Robert Peacock, Guelph, Ont.
This is in no way a racism issue or being discriminatory, but all schools should be public and those who wish to teach a religion should be funded on their own, not with taxpayers’ money. I am getting tired of hearing how religious groups are feeling they are being centered out. My parents were from another country and embraced the Canadian way – not how it was in their country.
Debbie Ferro, Niagara Falls, Ont.
Funding any program which by definition cannot be used by all tax-paying citizens is absurd.
Nebojsa Grujic, Toronto
No, we should not stop funding the Catholic school system. Our Catholic schools are funded under public education. Parents have a choice whether to send their children to a non-denominational school or the Catholic school. There are many non-catholic children that are educated in the Catholic education system, which their parents have chosen. Keep the civil libertarians out of our education system.
David Smith, Dundas, Ont.
If parents of faith want their kids educated in a religious atmosphere, then they should demand funding from their respective churches, not from the taxpayers of Ontario. That should include Catholic parents. I’m opposed to the idea of funding what amounts to bible studies.
Barry Epstein, Kagawong, Ont.
So as I understand Dalton McGuinty, only the Catholic Church is trustworthy enough to partner with to educate our children? Does this imply any other faith is at least incompetent or at worst dangerous? Either fund them all or fund none. As I see no one able to stop funding the Catholic system, fund them all.
David Raby, St. Catharines, Ont.
Religion is nothing more that childhood indoctrination. It has nothing to do with getting a formal education and it certainly isn’t something that I, as a taxpayer, want to pay for.
Dave Stacey, Toronto
I am getting a little tired of Ontario’s politically correct secular crowd calling for the crushing of a 150 year constitutionally guaranteed right. These rights are the building blocks of our nation.
James Ryan, Toronto
I am a Christian and believe there should, nay, must be a total separation between church and state. No tax dollars should go to support any religious schooling of any stripe. Keep God out of the schools.
George Olds, Hamilton
Absolutely not. Religion should be based in the home and in the church. We have so many different ethnic groups and religions in this country; it is not fair to finance just one.
Margaret Evans, Peterborough, Ont.
I do not support faith-based schools and despite my dissatisfaction with McGuinty, this issue will prevent me from voting for the Conservative. The best education system has to be the most stable one — well funded — so a single system would be best. There are lots of churches, mosques and synagogues to teach doctrines and dogma of the various religions. My tax dollars need to be used to teach math, English, French, geography, health and wellness and the sciences.
Paul Wilson, Cobourg, Ont.
I do not believe in government funding for Catholic schools, nor any other non-public schools. These schools should be funded by the very institutions they claim to be affiliated with. Why should Ontario taxpayers dollars go to religious schools? We have freedom of religion in this country. Must it also be government-sponsored as well?
Andrew Saksida, Mississauga
The choice is simple. Either we fund schools of all faiths or we fund none. Since we live in a secular society where religion and state are separate, the choice becomes even simpler: We should fund none.
Thomas Patricio, Toronto
You my not understand this but every school is a religious school. Like it or not the public system promotes the religion of humanism. It is a religious position (a position of faith) that there is no God, that there is no ultimate accounting for actions and attitudes. Many other religions teach differently, yet to maintain that public schools do not teach religion is not true.
Ken Van Schelven, Corvallis, Oregon
Although I disagree with the idea to stop all funding (vs. Tory’s idea to support all schools), at least it makes sense, rather than McGuinty’s discriminatory idea of funding Catholic only at the exclusion of everyone else. At least this idea is morally defensible.
Robert Walker, Toronto
There is absolutely no reason that taxpayers should be footing the bill for faith-based institutions. We live in a country where we have a free public school system (as opposed to private tuition-based system) that we pay for already. Why should I, (an agnostic) or any other persons of other belief structures support funding to religious institutions?
Lea MacDonald, Whitby
Absolutely not. Our public schools are already under-funded and they want to throw taxpayers’ money at faith-based schools? Tory made a huge misstep with this suggestion.
Jason Picard, Whitby
In my opinion we should not fund any faith-based schools. That being said, if we are going to fund one then we must fund them all. McGuinty’s reasons for not funding (other faith-based schools) are just very poor excuses. His family benefits so why does he discriminate against Ontarians of other faiths? I commend John Tory on his stance and agree that if we fund the Catholic schools then the rest of the religions must be included.
George Pengilley, Brampton
I recently wrote a letter to my school trustee about having to pay extra fees for school books and my son is only in Grade 5 and Mr. Tory wants to help all faith based religions? Where is he going to get the money, take it away from the TDSB? Now I understand why a lot of parents who have the money send their kids to private schools or home school. I wish I had that option.
Tina Pulciani, Toronto
I remember the cuts to public funding and loss of classroom resources when the Catholic schools were funded. The pie is only so big. A third system is unnecessary.
Kim Darby, Burlington
No. It was a bad idea when Bill Davis extended Catholic school funding and it is a bad idea now. It can only cause further segregation and foster intolerance.
Janice Proctor, Toronto
Taxpayers who choose to send their children to faith-based schools should be responsible for funding them. The majority of us attended public schools and send our children to public schools. Let’s continue to fund and take care of the system that once took such good care of us.
Irene Dimogerontas, Toronto
As a Catholic and a parent I do not feel the necessity of funding separate school systems. When I was in elementary school we attended religious classes at our church on Saturday mornings. Any particular culture or religious group should be able to provide for those teachings without looking to the taxpayer to support it. Education in Canada is supported by the public purse and should not be looking to segregate its citizens.
Susan Cain, Brampton
A constitutional right cannot be dismissed because it is not popular any more within the changing face of our country. Please give me, a Catholic, the opportunity to decide my own faith.
Danielle Filiatrault, North Bay, Ont.
Ontario taxpayers should not fund any religious schools. I’ve never understood why Catholic schools were singled out for special treatment.
Johanna Hoffmann, Toronto
Definitely not. We should have one publicly funded school system. Religion, creed or race should not be a factor.
Norman Richmond, Severn Bridge, Ont.
Our Constitution states clearly that we can not discriminate based on religion. Any faith-based school that is open to the public that meets the Ontario guidelines for education should be entitled to public funding. The caveat is they have to be open to the public and they can not charge fees to attend.
John Thornton, Orangeville, Ont.
No religious schools should be funded, including the Catholic schools, which should be funded by parents who send their children there. Just because Catholic schools have been funded for many years doesn’t mean that it is right. Time for it to stop. There should be complete separation of church and state.
Rennette Madill, Whitby
Well I guess the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is on board with our school-funding policy.
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/259746
School funding fight escalates
Provincial government urged to stop paying for Catholic system as civil liberties group weighs in on debate
September 24, 2007
Kerry Gillespie
Queen’s Park Bureau
The Ontario government should stop funding Catholic schools, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory has caused an uproar in the province with his plan to extend government funding to all faith-based schools that meet criteria.
It has become the most controversial issue in the election campaign.
In a paper being released today, the civil liberties association says that to resolve the unfairness of publicly funding only Catholic schools, Ontario should seek a constitutional amendment to stop funding the schools, attended by more than 600,000 students.
In 1985, Ontario extended full funding to Catholic schools. Quebec and Newfoundland, on the other hand, initiated constitutional amendments to disband publicly funded Catholic schools entirely.
Extending public funding to more faith-based schools – as Tory plans to do if elected Oct. 10 – will lead to a proliferation of such schools and ultimately leave Ontario a “much less tolerant place,” the paper states.
“We’re hoping to ensure that everyone holds the line now – and hereafter – on the funding of religious schools,” Alan Borovoy, the association’s chief counsel, said in an interview.
This is the latest in a series of public statements opposing Tory’s plan to spend up to $400 million a year to extend taxpayer funding to all faith-based schools that teach the Ontario curriculum, follow standardized testing and have accredited teachers.
Last week, the civil liberties association and public-sector unions took out a full-page ad denouncing Tory’s plan, signed by more than 50 high-profile Ontarians.
A similar letter to the editor was signed by 45 people, including astronaut Roberta Bondar, chair of the charitable Maytree Foundation Alan Broadbent, film director Deepa Mehta, chief executive of Indigo Heather Reisman and executive director of the South Asian legal clinic Uzma Shakir.
“I knew that the issue would spawn some debate,” Tory said, about his plan.
“You can’t let the prospect of debate or of people putting ads in the paper deter you from taking a step that you think is the right thing to do,” he said in an interview yesterday.
None of the three major parties has said funding for Catholic schools should be withdrawn. Premier Dalton McGuinty and NDP Leader Howard Hampton say they support the status quo. But the Green party says funding for Catholic schools should be eliminated.
Ontario is the only province where taxpayers pay 100 per cent of the costs for students who attend Catholic schools and none of the costs for students attending Islamic, Jewish or other faith-based schools. Other provincial governments either partly fund all faith-based schools that meet their guidelines, or fund none of them.
“I obviously believe both the fairness and inclusion issues need to be addressed and so I’m addressing them the best way I thought, and the best way the party thought, was available to us,” Tory said.
Borovoy disagrees.
“People understandably are angry when their religious schools are denied funding and another religion gets it,” he said.
“The way to eliminate this … and put the issue of public funding for religious schools behind us is to eliminate funding for Catholic schools.”
Public schools bring children of all faiths and backgrounds together while religious ones divide them and don’t always teach values the government should be supporting, Borovoy said.
“There are uneasy feelings about what some schools may be propagating … discriminatory and hate-filled messages,” he said.
Tory has said the schools will be monitored and the human rights code will prevent them from teaching anything discriminatory.
“There’s a certain amount of unreality in the claims made by him and others wanting to publicly fund religious schools,” Borovoy said.
Tory hopes the association and everyone else who opposes his plan comes around.
“I would hope that all of these people, if we’re elected, would understand that we’re going to implement the policy but that they will have lots of opportunities to see some of their concerns addressed,” he said.
But Tory said he won’t back down no matter how many people come out against his plan.
“When you take a stand on conviction and on a matter of principle then you have to expect there will be people who object to it, but if it’s a matter of principle, it’s a matter of principle,” he said.
The risk that Tory’s school plan could further divide society and make Ontario less tolerant is too great, according to the association paper.
“No one can claim to be clairvoyant. None of us really knows the many consequences that this province would sustain. But, in view of what we do know about human behaviour in various situations, we believe that the proposed funding is simply not a risk worth taking,” the paper states.
The paper, given to the three parties over the weekend, is designed to get politicians and the public thinking and talking.
“It’s also an indication of a pretty strong commitment on the part of our association to this,” Borovoy said.
Does that mean legal action if Tory wins the election and starts to implement his faith-based schools policy?
“I don’t want to ruin the surprise,” he said.
Well I see I’m not the only one to feel this way.
http://www.thestar.com/article/258857
The HPV vaccine is about preventing cancer. Period
September 21, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
In the current public debate about the HPV vaccine, the most crucial issue is getting lost. The HPV vaccine can prevent the cause of cervical cancer. We would like to put the emphasis back on preventing cancer and saving lives. Parents and their daughters need to know the facts before they make a decision about the vaccine.First, there is no evidence linking the initiation of vaccine programs for sexually transmitted infections to increased promiscuity. The human papilloma virus is a common sexually transmitted infection. The majority of sexually active Canadians are infected with HPV at some point. A small proportion of infections will lead to cervical and other cancers and non-cancerous warts.
Cervical cancer is preventable. Yet year after year, about 400 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 150 women die from the disease in Ontario. Many future deaths can now be averted through vaccination. However, the vaccine is only effective if given to girls before they are sexually active and exposed to HPV. The vaccine has been widely tested and subjected to the same rigorous evaluation process required of all new drugs in Canada.
HPV immunization is a powerful new tool in the battle against cervical cancer, but it is not a stand-alone prevention strategy. It is not a substitute for cervical cancer screening. Because the vaccine protects against 70 per cent of the cancer-causing HPV types, women still need to receive a regular Pap test to detect changes in the cervix that might turn into cancer. Also, most women have already been exposed to HPV and need to be screened.
By adding HPV immunization to regular cervical screening, we have the potential to put an end to cervical cancer. We encourage parents to get the facts and discuss the HPV vaccine with their children.
Dr. Verna Mai, Director of Screening, Cancer Care Ontario, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/article/258598
HPV furor a pain for politicians
September 20, 2007
Jim Coyle
This week, the Catholic board in Halton was the latest to wrestle with the HPV vaccination program for female students in Grade 8. It narrowly rejected a motion to ban from its schools a program offered by the province to inoculate against the virus that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.
The program, opponents said, would promote promiscuity and premarital sex and contradicted Catholic teaching that sex is only appropriate within marriage. One trustee went so far as to suggest students not even be offered counselling or advice on the vaccine.
It’s easy to understand complaints that the program was rushed, or that boards don’t have enough information on the vaccine, or that parents should retain the right to approve such a vaccine.
What’s difficult to grasp is the connection between a properly explained preventive health measure and the transformation of righteous innocents into fornicating citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It seems a bit like arguing against tetanus shots on the grounds that students who receive them will commence recklessly impaling themselves on rusty nails.
It seems unlikely, moreover, that at the pivotal moment, in the back seat of a car or wherever it is adolescents go about such business, the deciding factor in shedding one’s virginity will be what’s recorded on a vaccination card. And the Talibanesque notion of withholding information from youngsters striding into adolescence is as disrespectful as would be sneaking the vaccine into them on the desexualized pretence that it wards off bubonic plague or baldness.
Any faith-based education system fearing its foundations are so flimsy and its teachings so tenuous and its young so intellectually fragile that a lifetime’s ethical instruction can be undone by a couple of jabs with a needle is as good as declaring its own failure.
Good public policy, freed from religious influence, is based on a reasoned understanding of how the human animal actually tends to behave, not some idealized notion of how in a perfect world it should. We hope, after all, that everyone will at all times drive carefully. But we still make them wear seatbelts.
If nothing else, the HPV fooferaw demonstrates how the best laid plans of mice, men and campaigning politicians can go awry.
For a man branded the “Education Premier,” September must have seemed a smashing month to tour. All those school visits. All those fresh faces and fresh starts. Enthusiasm as yet undulled by tedious routine. Then this.
At a stroke, it probably makes clear the potential for neverending turbulence from the proposal by PC Leader John Tory to extend public funding to other faith-based schools. It certainly makes things more awkward for the premier’s defence of a status quo when Catholic board health policy seems sourced more from the Vatican than Queen’s Park.
http://www.thestar.com/article/258470
Girls’ health comes first
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
I can only laugh at the naiveté of Catholic school trustees opposed to the HPV vaccine because they think it means children are going to be promiscuous very early in their teenage years. Sexuality is part of a much larger (and natural) learning experience that includes influences from family, peers, schools and the media. I’d hate to think that we believe our children’s entire moral compass on such complex issues could be guided by the mere presence or absence of a vaccine.Although long-term studies should be conducted before we vaccinate an entire generation of Canadian girls, this is just one more issue that leads me to think it’s time to dissolve the Catholic school system instead of expanding faith-based school funding.
Jennifer Lemon, Angus, Ont.From a young age we steep our kids in a culture that glorifies lifelong promiscuity – from the magazines they read to the songs they hear to the TV shows they watch. From “hot” male models on billboards to “JUICY” printed across their bottoms, they’re bombarded with sexually stimulating messages.
To suggest the HPV vaccine will make them think premarital sex is okay is ludicrous. It also does a disservice to the intelligence of our daughters. I am raising my girls to avoid premarital sex, but I told them that I can’t do anything about the HPV status of the man they’ll marry. There’s no way I’ll let them get that gift on their wedding night.
Mia Andrews, TorontoOur public-health officials have determined that the HPV vaccine can save women’s lives. They also concluded that the most effective time to administer the vaccine is at age 13. Schools were the obvious choice for the administration of these vaccines. We now see that Catholic school boards are debating the vaccine on “moral” grounds.
The unwillingness of some Catholic boards to administer the HPV vaccine is yet another reason why faith-based schools should not receive government funding.
Mary Kainer, TorontoThe objections of some Catholic school boards to the HPV vaccination should make clear to voters the implications of Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory’s proposal to expand faith-based school funding. Why are boards spending their time and resources debating what is medically beneficial to children? This is not their job.
Allowing religious principles to guide the education system tragically misinforms students on important issues, stunting their ability to think critically.
Steve de Eyre, Cleveland Heights, OhioRev. David Wilhelm, a trustee on the Halton Catholic District School Board, believes that Catholic schools don’t have the right to deny the HPV vaccine to students, but the reality is they do. Should the public fund an institution that has the right to withhold a vaccine deemed safe by another publicly funded institution?
Few Catholic school graduates will thank their school board or parents for withholding the vaccine when they contract cervical cancer.
Neil Hollands, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/printArticle/258471
More faith needed in teens
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
As a former Catholic elementary school student, I was appalled to read that some Catholic boards are deciding not to let their students and parents make the ultimate decision on whether girls receive the HPV vaccine. It seems kind of contradictory to me, since students receive the vaccine for hepatitis B. Does this not also promote “promiscuity” and/or drug use?Catholic school boards need to look beyond the immediate picture and see that this vaccine is very effective when given to a girl before she starts having sex. Just because she gets the shot does not mean she is going to think she is free and clear from all sexually transmitted diseases and decide to have wild sex.
At the same time, Catholic boards need to put a little more faith in their teens. Since the Catholic Church preaches abstinence, give girls the benefit of the doubt that they will follow their faith.
Sarah Millar, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/article/258472
A case of ostrich syndrome
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
As a Catholic educator, I was both saddened and troubled by the report on the actions of some Catholic school boards. At least one board has delayed the implementation of the new HPV shots on “moral grounds.” The logic goes like this: Giving female teens a shot to prevent a cancer that may be contracted through sexual activity is the same as endorsing premarital sex.Do I want my 14-year-old daughter or son to have sex? Of course not. And I hope that the values they learn at home, church and school will help them decide not to become sexually active as a young teen. However, in 2005, Statistics Canada reported that one in eight 15-year-olds was sexually active. By age 17, that had risen to 28 per cent. So does teaching abstinence work? Clearly not. Or do these boards believe that their students aren’t represented in these statistics?
Do I support celibacy outside marriage? Absolutely. Do I want to see teens denied a simple cure to a deadly disease due to fuzzy logic and a failed plan? Absolutely not.
Peter Monahan, Alliston, Ont.http://www.thestar.com/article/258465
Vaccine is not about sex
September 20, 2007
Catholic schools debating moralissue of HPV shot
Sept. 19
It saddens and horrifies me that someone with as weak a grasp on logic and reality as Huron-Superior Trustee Regis O’Connor has anything at all to do with the education of children. “As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous,” he said.Somehow he expects us to believe that protecting our children against four strains of a sexually transmitted disease is going to cause them to run out and have sex, ignoring all of the other consequences. That’s ridiculous and offensive. It’s also offensive to imply that the 400 women who die every year in Canada from cervical cancer are dying because they were promiscuous.
I sincerely hope that not a single daughter of a parent who refuses the vaccine is ever faced with a spouse who had a few youthful indiscretions. I also hope that none of them is ever sexually assaulted by an infected attacker. However, the world being the way it is, both hopes are probably in vain.
Promiscuity is not required to get the human papilloma virus. All that’s required is for one partner to have the virus, and that one partner could be a woman’s husband.
Adrienne Dandy, St. Agatha, Ont. http://www.thestar.com/article/258249
Voices: STD vaccinations
September 19, 2007
We asked you whether you think it is appropriate to vaccinate Grade 8 girls against sexually transmitted diseases. Here’s what you had to say. As sorry as I am to have to say this to the august Bishops of the Catholic Church, we don’t all live in their utopian fantasy world. Denying Catholic children this vaccine will just leave them exposed. A large number of their kids will have sex out of wedlock whether they like it or not. Common sense has to prevail in matters of public health.
Peter Reynolds, Toronto
Seems like this is a great example of why Ontario needs to stop paying for the spread of religious ideals in schools and concentrate on a strong public education system. For the Catholic school boards to interpret the immunization of children against a prevalent strain of cancer as some kind of “immoral undertaking” is as puzzling as it is ignorant. This the health program is about battling cancer.
Brian Carleton, Toronto
For the Catholic school boards to say that they preach against promiscuity and fear that vaccinating teenage girls will promote sexual activity is like saying they preach against dangerous driving and fear that providing seat belts will promote recklessness. Naturally, no parent wants a promiscuous daughter but to deny them a potentially life saving vaccine is, in my view, irresponsible.
Jonathan O’Mara, Whitby
At a cost of $400 per person, perhaps our health-care dollars can be better spent on increasing the number of hospital beds or rebated from health premiums. This vaccination is a luxury item as HPV is only transmitted sexually. I think we should be putting health-care dollars to diseases in which people have little control over.
Trevor Carneiro, Toronto
As parents in this day and age, are we really naive enough to think that our children, during their teenage years, are never going to have any intimate contact? It is our responsibility as parents to protect our children from anything we can possibly protect them from. I only wish there had been that same vaccine about 14 years ago, when I was young.
Christina Leighton, Ajax
I knew this was going to come up sooner or later. High school kids – Catholic or not – are likely to have pre-marital sex no matter what the schools are telling them is the right thing to do. Giving them the option to have this vaccine is preventative and it’s definitely a good thing. Get off your high horses, Catholic schools.
Kerry Chan, Markham
A vaccination does not promote sexual promiscuity. Perhaps a more comprehensive education would help to dispel the myths surrounding the use of vaccinations as well as the influence of media and the pre-existing human disposition for sexual relations.
Bianca Williams, Toronto
I think it’s horrible that Catholic school boards are taking away the chance for these girls to be protected from HPV due to the fact that it promotes promiscuity. It’s ridiculous. A girl who may remain abstinent until marriage could contract the HPV virus through her spouse and then be at greater risk for cervical cancer. Even if the school boards do not support the HPV vaccine, ultimately it should be up to the parents and the girls.
Melanie Coulas, Ottawa
While cervical cancer may not be as prevalent as breast cancer, any preventative course is the only responsible act a person can take. Explain to your child as she lies dying of cervical cancer that it is her fault for being a loose woman. While a woman may be abstinent prior to marriage, her future husband might not be.
Tanya Quaestor, Toronto
If the concern over the HPV injection is side effects or safety, that is reasonable. To assume that Catholic teens are any less sexually active than any other group of teens is naive. You can be sure the Church won’t pick up the tab for the medical care of these girls if they get cancer in the future, nor will it provide financial support for the children they may leave behind.
Kim Darby, Burlington
Abstinence is only as good as both parties agree. Some girls will wait until marriage, but did their partners? This disease is preventable with this vaccine. It is abusive to deny any girl the right to prevent cancer in her body.
Brenda DelPozo, Toronto
This vaccine is approved for use in females aged 9 to 26 years. I don’t think this is advocating sexual activity in prepubescents. Regardless of when you think it is appropriate to allow your child to be vaccinated, the onset of sexual activity is something you can neither predict nor control. Shouldn’t the overriding concern be to prevent a disease that may one day harm or kill your child?
Christine Lyons, Toronto
I am firmly opposed to this vaccination both on moral and on fiscal/political grounds. It seems to me that an awful lot of money is going to be wasted so that Merck can line their pockets with our tax dollars. Compare this with this incidence of prostate cancer in this country. It is a major adult male killer and yet the $25-35 test is not deemed worthy to be covered by provincial health care. Parents who wish to protect their pre-sexually active daughters against a largely unknown virus by using a largely unknown and untested vaccine should do so out of their own pocket (at their own risk) and not the public purse.
Nestor Komar, St. Catharines
The fact that moves are being made within Roman Catholic school boards to suppress this important public health initiative on grounds of religious morality is compelling evidence — if any more were needed — of why public money should not be used to finance faith-based schooling of any kind.
David Mayerovitch, Ottawa
It’s extremely difficult to fathom anyone putting a young girl’s future health status at risk for the sake of making a dogma-based non-sensical moral argument. Parents need to decide whether they want to follow their Church’s teachings or save their daughters from experiencing a preventable cancer. The choice seems rather simple.
Robin Kelly, Toronto
It isn’t the vaccines which promote promiscuity, its raging teenage hormones and the lack of education and open discussion inside the Catholic school boards. By restricting discussion to abstinence you mystify and poorly prepare youth for life.
Geoffrey Peart, Milton, Ont.
In this day and age, everyone needs to be educated against STDs and anything that can help in the spread of them helps. I have some concerns about the long-term effects though. Do we know enough? That being said, STDs are for the most part preventable with education.
Charlene Smith, Woodstock, Ont.
The truth is, at some point, teenagers will be having sex. Not every Grade 8 girl is off to the nunnery. The larger issue is just how much do mom and dad know what their precious little kids are doing? It’s a safe bet that many kids are only telling part of the story to mom and dad, and they are probably not talking about the one thing that does promote promiscuity: alcohol.
Trevor Wedgewood, Toronto
Yes, it is appropriate to vaccinate young girls against sexually transmitted diseases. Young women (and young men) will make their own decisions about whether or not they want to wait for marriage to become sexually active. A jab in the arm doesn’t suddenly make people want to do something they didn’t want to do before. Getting your tetanus shot doesn’t encourage you to go step on rusty nails, does it?
Jeff Zarnett, Toronto
Is it morally appropriate not to prevent our future generations from a virus that afflicts so many women in this country?
Sha Skel, Toronto
A wicked and perverse generation should be preaching the virtues of abstinence, rather than promoting another “condom” for the number of risks associated with premarital sex.
Robert Baker, Toronto
Huron-Superior trustee Regis O’Connor’s comment that “…we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous” is insulting to say the least. Even if the girls (for they are the ones at risk, not the boys) meet his standards and are chaste until marriage, who is to say their future husbands have been? Should these girls have to pay for their husbands’ sexual partner’s disease? Mr. O’Connor – and apparently the Halton-Superior school board – must have very little faith in the success of their teachings with girls (and boys too, I guess). Perhaps their program needs to be changed, but this is a health issue, not a morals issue.
Cynthia Lagueux, Uxbridge, Ont.
Finally, our medical system has a vaccination that prevents cancer. Cervical cancer is now a totally preventable disease yet some people have their heads buried in the sand thinking their “teens” aren’t sexually active. Would there be this many outcries if there was a vaccination against colon, or breast cancer? I doubt it. It is because of the perception that HPV is solely contracted through promiscuity that people are opposing it.
Mike Eliadis, Toronto
As a health care professional I don’t see how this vaccine is any different than the Hep B vaccines being provided to students already. How else do they feel teenagers are exposed to Hep B? Blood transfusions? Sharing needles? Let’s be honest, if Hep B is being acquired by teenagers these days it’s most likely through sexual exposure.
Danielle Porter, Newmarket
After reading the article in The Star, I am amazed at the narrow-minded view of the Catholic members that providing a vaccination program will promote promiscuity. It is time the members of the Catholic Society realize that humans will have sex before, during and after marriage. It is our nature and should not be illustrated as something evil or unnatural. If someone chooses to abstain then they should also be respected for their decision. The decision of the HPV vaccination should and must rest with the parents, not a religious doctrine.
David Kowch, Courtice, Ont.
It is entirely appropriate to vaccinate girls against this disease. If this was for a disease that affected men only, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be saying a word.
Ian Graylish, Scarborough
This is so infuriating.
Why are Catholic school boards even allowed to debate something like this? Religious beliefs should not affect decisions of public health. What these people don’t realize is that this vaccine should be given to grade 8 girls, not because they may be sexually active, but because medically speaking, it is the most effective time in a woman’s life to receive the vaccine. A woman may not have sex until she is married, and her husband may pass on this virus to her. If she has been vaccinated, then she won’t get cervical cancer. Seems pretty simple, and yet the ignorance that comes out during this debate is astounding. My favorite line is from Huron-Superior trustee Regis O’Connor, “As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous” Is he insane? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. As if a girl, in the heat of the moment, would base her decision on whether or not she has been vaccinated. It is truly frightening that this man has anything to do with educating children.
This is simply another reason why the government should not be funding faith-based schools.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/258142
Catholic schools debating moral issue of HPV shot
Catholic school boards across the province are facing growing complaints that the HPV vaccination program promotes promiscuity.
Last night, the Halton Catholic District School Board narrowly rejected a motion to ban the program from its schools this year and the Toronto Catholic District School Board is to vote tonight.
The Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board decided unanimously last week to delay the program in its schools until it receives more information from the Ministry of Health.
The board believes the vaccine will give students a signal of support for premarital sex and the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops notes in a Sept. 13 letter to parents that sex is “only appropriate within marriage.”
Absolutely absurd.
The vote by the Halton board, after lengthy debate, was four to three in favour of retaining the vaccine program to protect girls from cervical cancer.
Oakville Trustee Anthony Danko, whose motion had sought to ban the program, had also asked the board not to offer counselling or advice to students regarding the vaccine on school property during the 2007-08 school year.
Why is this man involved in teaching children when he is advocating ignorance for students?
Another trustee, Rev. David Wilhelm from Milton, spoke out against Danko’s motion, saying it was too strong and that parents should have the ultimate decision to decide whether their children would have the vaccine.
“We don’t have the right to take that away,” Wilhelm said.
Three Halton student trustees weighed in against the program, although they were not allowed to vote.
One was Erin Gamble, 16, from Oakville, who spoke in favour of Danko’s original motion.
“I’m taught every day to save myself for marriage and practise abstinence,” she said. “Giving the vaccine to Grade 8 girls contradicts what I have been taught.”
Drink some more kool-aid, Erin.
Trustees in favour of Danko’s motion said they were concerned the province implemented the vaccination program too quickly before there was enough research to prove the vaccine was safe and effective.
They were also concerned students would be able to opt for the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. But Rev. Wilhelm printed the letter from the Ontario Bishops, which said the parents had the right and the responsibility to decide whether their daughters should have the vaccine.
“And I don’t think any of us have the right to take that away as difficult as that may be,” the priest said.
After the narrow vote defeating Danko’s motion, Burlington Trustee Bob Van de Vrande proposed that the regional health unit also provide an information package to parents and that it include a letter from Hamilton bishop Rev. Anthony Tonnos.
Van de Vrande’s motion also wanted the region to ensure the vaccine will not be administered to a student unless parental consent is obtained in writing.
The board carried Van de Vrande’s motion by a five to one vote.
The Ontario bishops ask that parents remember that “infection with HPV or other sexually transmitted diseases can occur only through sexual activity, which carries with it profound risks to a young person’s spiritual, emotional, moral, and physical health.”
The Huron-Superior trustees have reservations about allowing the vaccine in their schools, said trustee Regis O’Connor.
“As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous,” he said.
“We teach abstinence outside marriage.”
Even if the school board receives more information from the Ministry of Health, O’Connor said he is unlikely to vote for the HPV vaccine.
Again, how stupid do you have to be before you are no longer allowed to affect education policy? O’Conner and his board have asked the Ministry of Health to provide more information on this vaccine, at taxpayer expense, and he is saying ahead of time that even if he gets the information, he’s already made up his mind and will be voting against it. There is just so much wrong with this one statement that it nearly makes my head explode.
In July, the Ontario government announced that all Grade 8 girls in the province would have free access to Gardasil, a $400 three-shot vaccine that can prevent HPV types 16 and 18, which are responsible for 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases. Nearly 400 Canadian women die of the disease each year.
Dr. Bob Nosal, Halton’s Medical Officer of Health, said the bishops’ letter is factual in its description of how HPV is transmitted and points out it is a voluntary program.
“This is a safe, effective vaccine that works,” said Nosal. “This will – and should be – offered to all Grade 8 girls and it’s up to parents and to the child themselves whether she has it.”
Halton launched the vaccination program in public schools this week, offering it to the region’s some 3,000 Grade 8 girls.
Halton’s Grade 7 students take part in the immunization program for Hepatitis B, a disease that can be sexually transmitted.
“I’m struck by how I don’t get a hue and cry about the hep B vaccine, but I’m hearing about the HPV vaccine,” he said.
“For those who want to be protected from at least two strains that cause 70 per cent of cancers, this vaccine works.”
Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty said the government would like to conduct the vaccination program through the schools because of convenience for parents and children.
“But if we run into a lot of resistance from a particular school board, we’ve already thought this through – we can do it through public health,” he said.
“We have to wait and see how many boards are going to say no before we pin it on one particular board, but … my advice to the board is the single most important issue here is the health of our young women.”
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said he hoped all Ontario schools, including Catholic ones, adopt the new program.
“I would like to hope all school boards will co-operate in making sure these vaccines are available and that if there’s anybody that doesn’t want to have the vaccine, that’s a parental decision,” he said.
Check out http://www.oneschoolsystem.org
http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/home.html
Some excellent info on this issue.
Great Poll by the Toronto Star
Rate the ads: Greens on education
30 second radio ad….make sure to see the results of the poll afterwards….very encouraging…
Simply Brilliant
I was emailed this and I have no idea who the original source is, but it is written so well I have to share it:
Members of the Ontario Legislature routinely cite a constitutional “obligation” in excusing the wasteful anddiscriminatory practice of funding a separate school system for the members of a single Ontario faith group.
In reality, that constitutional “obligation” presents no real obstacle to reform. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 permits the Constitution Act, 1867 (BNA Act) to be amended through a simple bilateral agreement between the affected province(s) and the Federal Government alone when the amendment affects one or more, but not all provinces. Quebec and Newfoundland both sought and obtained section 43 amendments rescinding denominational school rights in the late 1990s. The Newfoundland amendment was proclaimed just four months after being requested by the provincial legislature. The Quebec amendment affected section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867; the same section granting denominational school rights in Ontario.
In the process of authorizing the Quebec amendment, neither the Quebec nor the Federal Government could find a single constitutional expert who did not agree that section 43, the bilateral amendment mechanism, was appropriate in amending or eliminating section 93 rights. Ontario could easily follow the Quebec example.
Ontario Government Ministers have thus far been unable to put forward a compelling argument for the continuation of separate schools in Ontario. Quite frankly, there isn’t one. The constitutional “obligation” so often cited is largely illusory, as it is within the Government’s power to remove it very quickly. Some MPPs cite the precedent of history, which is to suggest that “since Ontario has a time-honoured tradition of discrimination and wastefulness in education, it should continue indefinitely.” More rubbish. Such thinking would have never abolished slavery or given women the vote. Ontario Catholics enjoy choices and opportunities unavailable to all other Ontarians because the Ontario Government chooses not to exercise its power to remedy those inequities.
Our Official School Funding Policy Position.
I am proud to represent such a principled and prudent position.
