Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est catholics. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est catholics. Afficher tous les articles
jeudi 19 mars 2015
jeudi 7 novembre 2013
Loyola : le ministère nous empêche d'être ce que nous sommes
« Le Québec se dirige maintenant vers une « laïcité fermée » où le gouvernement se dit non seulement laïc, mais où la société elle-même doit aussi être laïque. La religion doit alors se cantonner à la maison et à l’église et totalement disparaître de l’espace public », a déclaré Paul Donovan (ci-dessus), directeur de l'école secondaire Loyola, dans un entretien avec le National Post.
Le collège Loyola se bat depuis cinq ans devant les prétoires contre le gouvernement du Québec afin de conserver le droit d'enseigner un cours obligatoire provincial sur les religions du monde et la morale appelé éthique et culture religieuse (ECR) d'un point de vue conforme à son identité catholique.
La Cour d’appel du Québec a récemment confirmé que l'école devait enseigner le programme ECR dans sa version « laïque » gouvernementale. Elle a aussi statué que le gouvernement était dans son droit quand il a refusé de déclarer équivalent au programme ECR le cours de religions du monde et de morale du collège catholique.
Le gouvernement du Québec prescrit que le programme ECR doit s’enseigner de manière « neutre » tant dans le domaine de la religion que de la morale. L’enseignant n’a plus qu’un rôle d’animateur « objectif » impartial qui ne peut intervenir que dans de rares cas où les limites de la civilité ou du politiquement correct seraient dépassées. Dans son volet éthique, par exemple, le cours devra aborder l'homosexualité en la présentant comme un choix parfaitement normal. Même dans une école catholique. Le programme ECR est obligatoire pour toutes les écoles primaires et secondaires, publiques et privées, et — en théorie — pour les enfants qui sont scolarisés par leurs parents à la maison.
Loyola a fait appel à la plus haute cour du Canada en février après la décision de la Cour d'appel du Québec.
Le directeur Paul Donovan a déclaré dans une vidéo YouTube que la décision de justice qui interdit à son école d'enseigner un programme équivalent signifie que le gouvernement prétend qu’une école confessionnelle est « incapable d'enseigner la reconnaissance de l’autrui – la tolérance et la compréhension – et la recherche du bien commun. » Le ministère du Québec pour sa part dit que son programme doit être enseigné de manière laïque dans toutes les écoles, mais que rien n'empêche que Loyola revoie des thèmes dans une perspective catholique, mais dans un cours séparé.
« Du point de vue du ministère de l’Éducation, confirmée par la Cour d'appel, nous ne pouvons [enseigner ces choses] qu’en tant que laïcs, que dans une perspective laïque », a ajouté M. Donovan.
Dans sa tournée pancanadienne, Donovan parle de la situation dans laquelle se trouve Loyola et insiste sur la pertinence de son cas pour tous les Canadiens qui croient que la liberté religieuse est un droit assuré, protégé et irrévocable.
Apparaissant lors d'un colloque organisé par l'Université McGill à Montréal, Donovan a déclaré à ses auditeurs que l'action de Loyola devant la Cour suprême est un dernier recours devant le refus persistant du gouvernement de permettre à son école de fonctionner en conformité avec son caractère, ses valeurs et sa mission catholiques.
« Le Québec veut exclure toute explication lors [d’un cours ECR sur] les raisons pour lesquelles les gens croient ce qu'ils croient », a déclaré Donovan au National Post.
« Vous êtes censé dire voilà ce que les gens croient et c'est tout. Le gouvernement exige que, lorsqu’on discute d’autres religions en classe, l'enseignant se désolidarise complètement de toute perspective religieuse ou de toute valeur religieuse. On ne peut donc jamais dire: "En tant que catholiques, nous voyons cela comme ceci..." »
Pour le gouvernement, « si vous avez une vision religieuse, vous ne pouvez pas servir le bien commun. En tant que catholique vous êtes donc incapables d’informer vos élèves au sujet des autres religions », de déclarer le directeur de Loyola.
« Je pense qu’on est en réalité plus objectif quand on avoue honnêtement ses a priori ou son point de vue que lorsqu’on prétend ne pas en avoir », a-t-il précisé.
La possibilité d’être neutre est une chose, l’opportunité de l’être en est une autre d’ajouter Donovan. « Ne pas être neutre ne signifie pas que vous n'êtes pas juste. Aucun être humain ne vit de manière neutre, mais l’on peut être équitable dans nos échanges. Vous pouvez tout à fait être en désaccord avec quelqu'un, tout en le respectant et en le traitant équitablement. »
Loyola ne s’oppose pas au cadre conceptuel du programme ECR dont l’objectif, selon Paul Donovan, est de fournir un minimum de culture religieuse, de prendre en compte l'histoire religieuse du Québec et de garantir le respect et la tolérance entre les religions. Mais il s’oppose à l’insistance du programme ERC qui impose que les enseignants soient « neutres » et muets quant à leurs opinions.
Pour le directeur de Loyola, cette façon de faire dans un domaine moral ou religieux reviendrait en classe de mathématiques à lancer un tas de nombres en l'air et à demander aux élèves de les trier tout seuls.
L'école Loyola enseigne depuis 35 ans un programme de religions du monde. La province prétend que le « seul moyen d’atteindre le cadre conceptuel est de le faire est à la manière imposée par ECR », de déclarer Donovan. « Si le concept est celui du pluralisme, il existe un problème quand on souhaite promouvoir le pluralisme tout en insistant que tout le monde doit penser et agir d’une manière précise. »
« Ce que nous enseignons déjà présente une vision d’ensemble plus complète [que le programme ECR] de ce que sont les religions », précise le professeur montréalais. Ce que Loyola enseigne sur le bouddhisme ou le judaïsme serait considéré comme un portrait objectif par un moine bouddhiste ou un rabbin », ajoute-t-il.
Le programme ECR entend enseigner les différentes religions en comparant de petites « facettes » de celles-ci, telles que les vêtements religieux, les rituels ou les jours fériés, sans les mettre en contexte, et « beaucoup des éléments religieux finissent de la sorte par avoir l’air idiot. »
Même quelque chose comme l'Eucharistie peut paraître ridicule si, comme dans le cours ERC, on ne parle que de personnes qui reçoivent une hostie ou un morceau de pain sans expliquer la nature des sacrements ou l'importance de l'Eucharistie dans la vie de Jésus, d’expliquer Donovan.
Selon le procureur général du Québec, ces arguments ne sont pas pertinents puisque Loyola serait une entreprise et qu’elle ne jouirait donc pas de liberté religieuse.
Pour Paul Donovan, l'affaire Loyola pourrait aboutir sur une décision de la Cour suprême qui établit que des institutions bénéficient également de liberté religieuse ou, au contraire, que seuls les particuliers en jouissent.
« Depuis le début, le procureur général du Québec a fait valoir que Loyola n'a pas droit à la protection constitutionnelle sur la liberté religieuse parce que notre école est une personne morale et que seules les personnes physiques jouissent de ce droit ou de cette liberté », de rappeler le directeur de l’école.
L'issue de cette affaire pourrait avoir des conséquences importantes à travers le Canada pour la liberté religieuse des écoles, églises, synagogues, mosquées, organismes de bienfaisance ou autres institutions religieuses constituées en entreprise, en personne morale, d’avertir Paul Donovan. L'archidiocèse de Montréal, par exemple, une personne morale, pourrait très bien être considéré comme ne bénéficiant d’aucune liberté religieuse en tant que telle.
« C’est important pour notre pays », a constaté le directeur de Loyola.
Historiquement, la liberté religieuse est un droit collectif ainsi qu'un droit individuel, affirme-t-il. La Cour suprême du Canada n’a toutefois jamais statué directement sur ce sujet. Cette décision pourrait affecter la place des religions dans la société.
Considérer la liberté religieuse comme un droit qui ne s’applique qu’aux particuliers consisterait à émasculer ce droit, opine Donovan.
Sept cent quarante garçons de la 7e à la 11e année fréquentent Loyola. Sur les 100 employés de l’école, 60 sont des enseignants.
Lien connexe
Tous nos billets sur Loyola
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
jeudi 13 juin 2013
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear Loyola High School
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal from a Catholic high school that wants to be exempted from teaching Quebec's ethics and religious culture program in a secular fashion.
Jesuit-run Loyola High School wants to be allowed to use its own course and teach it from a Catholic perspective.
The law allows for such an exemption where the alternative course is deemed by the minister of education to be equivalent to the provincial program.
The minister turned down the school's request, but the Superior Court of Quebec sided with the school and allowed the exemption.
The provincial appeal court, however, reversed that decision in a ruling last December.
As usual, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to hear the case.
See also
Bilingual text Loyola v. Monopoly of Education (appeal) / Texte bilingue Loyola c. le Monopole de l'Éducation (appel)
Loyola decision infringes on parental choices, says CCRL
Loyola has had a World Religions course for 25 years
Loyola High School asks the Supreme Court to hear the case
Loyola's principal Paul Donovan on ERC Court Case
Ethics and Religious Culture in Court (on Loyola High's website)
State: Loyola’s teachers have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud
Quebec’s position smacks of totalitarianism. The Court of Appeal ruling should not, and hopefully will not stand.
Tommy Schnurmacher on Loyola High school
Our Loyola file (in English and French)
Jesuit-run Loyola High School wants to be allowed to use its own course and teach it from a Catholic perspective.
The law allows for such an exemption where the alternative course is deemed by the minister of education to be equivalent to the provincial program.
The minister turned down the school's request, but the Superior Court of Quebec sided with the school and allowed the exemption.
The provincial appeal court, however, reversed that decision in a ruling last December.
As usual, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to hear the case.
See also
Bilingual text Loyola v. Monopoly of Education (appeal) / Texte bilingue Loyola c. le Monopole de l'Éducation (appel)
Loyola decision infringes on parental choices, says CCRL
Loyola has had a World Religions course for 25 years
Loyola High School asks the Supreme Court to hear the case
Loyola's principal Paul Donovan on ERC Court Case
Ethics and Religious Culture in Court (on Loyola High's website)
State: Loyola’s teachers have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud
Quebec’s position smacks of totalitarianism. The Court of Appeal ruling should not, and hopefully will not stand.
Tommy Schnurmacher on Loyola High school
Our Loyola file (in English and French)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
lundi 4 février 2013
Loyola High School asks the Supreme Court to hear the case
Press release from Loyola High School
MONTREAL, Feb. 4, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ - The Board of Governors of Loyola High School ("Loyola") today announced its decision to appeal the December 4th judgment by Québec's Court of Appeal, which overturned the 2010 Superior Court ruling in its favor, in the case involving the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport ("MELS"), regarding the Ethics and Religious Culture program ("ERC").
The decision of the Court of Appeal has, in effect, raised fundamental issues that, in Loyola's estimation, address some of the core values of our Québec and Canadian societies. It is for this reason that the Board of Governors, with the support of the Jesuit Board of Directors, has decided to pursue the matter and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case.
In 2008, the MELS introduced its ERC course. Loyola did not object to the program's goals. "Loyola has long promoted an intelligent respect for, and appreciation of, the world's religions. In fact, at Loyola, 'World Religions' has been offered as a course in itself, or been a major component of a 'Religion' course, since 1975," argues Fr. Robert Brennan S.J., former President and Chaplain and current teacher at the school.
Despite significant reservations about the ERC course's ability to achieve its own, stated goals, it was hoped that it would at least promote some type of religious literacy and allow for a better "dialogue de société". However, as a Catholic, Jesuit high school, Loyola believed that there was a value-added dimension to teaching a course of this nature from a "confessional" perspective. "Teaching another belief system from a confessional perspective − in our instance, a Catholic one − engages belief and when belief is engaged, it gives an account of who we are and what matters to others. This provides the opportunity for life to grow, for society to evolve and for depth and openness to emerge. It creates a fire that kindles other fires," adds Fr. Michael Murray S.J., President of Loyola High School.
The background of the case
Following a procedure provided for by law, Loyola applied for an exemption from the course in March of 2008, asking that the Minister allow the school to teach all of the competencies, content and goals of the program using a structure and methodology that was more in keeping with its Jesuit and Catholic identity. The Minister refused to grant the exemption and informed Loyola that the competencies, content and goals of the program could not be taught according to ministerial expectations in a Catholic (i.e., confessional) context.
As it was unable to engage in a dialogue about the exemption with the Minister, Loyola decided to take the matter to the Quebec Superior Court. From June 8 to 12, 2009, Loyola High School was in court to argue for an exemption. On June 18, 2010, the Superior Court concluded that the decision to refuse Loyola's request was invalid because it assumed that a confessional program could not achieve the goals proposed by the Ministry program. The judgment permitted Loyola to teach its own version of the ERC course. The Minister appealed and in a judgment issued December 4, 2012, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's ruling.
The key elements in the debate
Loyola believes that the Minister was wrong to have used the criterion of "confessionality" as the reason for denying the requested exemption and for not recognizing Loyola's program as "equivalent". The Minister's argument that it would be impossible to teach tolerance, good will and good citizenship from a confessional perspective is absurd. Catholic education in general, and Jesuit education in particular, have produced a whole spectrum of intellectually competent individuals who made, and continue to make, a difference in the world.
Further, Loyola contends that the Minister's decision violates Loyola's religious freedom by imposing on the school a pedagogy that is counter to its principles. Paul Donovan, Loyola's Principal, is of the opinion that "… there is, on the Minister's part, the political desire to 'secularize' the public schools to better reflect the multi-cultural reality of our evolving society. But," he asks, "does this mean that confessional, private schools and other institutions, should be 'secularized' as well?"
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there was a possible infringement of religious freedom, it argued that the infringement was negligible because the ERC course was only one course "among many". Loyola would argue that calling the Minister's infringement on Loyola's religious freedom "negligible" is to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the nature of religious freedom.
Finally, Loyola disputes the Minister's contention that religious corporations, such as Loyola, cannot possess freedom of religion at all. Donovan indicates that "… perhaps the most remarkable facet of the case is the fact that the Quebec Attorney General has gone on public record saying that religious corporations, such as Loyola, do not even enjoy freedom of religion." According to this position, only individuals possess freedom of religion, whereas corporations such as Loyola (incorporated as a non-profit entity under the Quebec Companies Act) do not, and the State can restrict their religious practice and belief as much as it wishes. This would mean that the numerous religious groups in the province are entirely at the mercy of the State. "This is completely contrary to Canada's tradition of religious freedom as we understand it," concludes Donovan.
The decision of the Court of Appeal to overturn the initial decision was, to say the least, disappointing for Loyola. After much soul-searching, it was decided to pursue the matter and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case.
Loyola is an English private school founded and managed by Jesuits. It traces its origins to 1848. Located in Montréal, it is home to 750 boys from Secondary-One to Secondary-Five. Its mission is the formation of mature, responsible Christian adults, in accordance with the traditions of the Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus.
SOURCE: Loyola High School
MONTREAL, Feb. 4, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ - The Board of Governors of Loyola High School ("Loyola") today announced its decision to appeal the December 4th judgment by Québec's Court of Appeal, which overturned the 2010 Superior Court ruling in its favor, in the case involving the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport ("MELS"), regarding the Ethics and Religious Culture program ("ERC").
The decision of the Court of Appeal has, in effect, raised fundamental issues that, in Loyola's estimation, address some of the core values of our Québec and Canadian societies. It is for this reason that the Board of Governors, with the support of the Jesuit Board of Directors, has decided to pursue the matter and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case.
In 2008, the MELS introduced its ERC course. Loyola did not object to the program's goals. "Loyola has long promoted an intelligent respect for, and appreciation of, the world's religions. In fact, at Loyola, 'World Religions' has been offered as a course in itself, or been a major component of a 'Religion' course, since 1975," argues Fr. Robert Brennan S.J., former President and Chaplain and current teacher at the school.
Despite significant reservations about the ERC course's ability to achieve its own, stated goals, it was hoped that it would at least promote some type of religious literacy and allow for a better "dialogue de société". However, as a Catholic, Jesuit high school, Loyola believed that there was a value-added dimension to teaching a course of this nature from a "confessional" perspective. "Teaching another belief system from a confessional perspective − in our instance, a Catholic one − engages belief and when belief is engaged, it gives an account of who we are and what matters to others. This provides the opportunity for life to grow, for society to evolve and for depth and openness to emerge. It creates a fire that kindles other fires," adds Fr. Michael Murray S.J., President of Loyola High School.
The background of the case
Following a procedure provided for by law, Loyola applied for an exemption from the course in March of 2008, asking that the Minister allow the school to teach all of the competencies, content and goals of the program using a structure and methodology that was more in keeping with its Jesuit and Catholic identity. The Minister refused to grant the exemption and informed Loyola that the competencies, content and goals of the program could not be taught according to ministerial expectations in a Catholic (i.e., confessional) context.
As it was unable to engage in a dialogue about the exemption with the Minister, Loyola decided to take the matter to the Quebec Superior Court. From June 8 to 12, 2009, Loyola High School was in court to argue for an exemption. On June 18, 2010, the Superior Court concluded that the decision to refuse Loyola's request was invalid because it assumed that a confessional program could not achieve the goals proposed by the Ministry program. The judgment permitted Loyola to teach its own version of the ERC course. The Minister appealed and in a judgment issued December 4, 2012, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's ruling.
The key elements in the debate
Loyola believes that the Minister was wrong to have used the criterion of "confessionality" as the reason for denying the requested exemption and for not recognizing Loyola's program as "equivalent". The Minister's argument that it would be impossible to teach tolerance, good will and good citizenship from a confessional perspective is absurd. Catholic education in general, and Jesuit education in particular, have produced a whole spectrum of intellectually competent individuals who made, and continue to make, a difference in the world.
Further, Loyola contends that the Minister's decision violates Loyola's religious freedom by imposing on the school a pedagogy that is counter to its principles. Paul Donovan, Loyola's Principal, is of the opinion that "… there is, on the Minister's part, the political desire to 'secularize' the public schools to better reflect the multi-cultural reality of our evolving society. But," he asks, "does this mean that confessional, private schools and other institutions, should be 'secularized' as well?"
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there was a possible infringement of religious freedom, it argued that the infringement was negligible because the ERC course was only one course "among many". Loyola would argue that calling the Minister's infringement on Loyola's religious freedom "negligible" is to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the nature of religious freedom.
Finally, Loyola disputes the Minister's contention that religious corporations, such as Loyola, cannot possess freedom of religion at all. Donovan indicates that "… perhaps the most remarkable facet of the case is the fact that the Quebec Attorney General has gone on public record saying that religious corporations, such as Loyola, do not even enjoy freedom of religion." According to this position, only individuals possess freedom of religion, whereas corporations such as Loyola (incorporated as a non-profit entity under the Quebec Companies Act) do not, and the State can restrict their religious practice and belief as much as it wishes. This would mean that the numerous religious groups in the province are entirely at the mercy of the State. "This is completely contrary to Canada's tradition of religious freedom as we understand it," concludes Donovan.
The decision of the Court of Appeal to overturn the initial decision was, to say the least, disappointing for Loyola. After much soul-searching, it was decided to pursue the matter and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case.
Loyola is an English private school founded and managed by Jesuits. It traces its origins to 1848. Located in Montréal, it is home to 750 boys from Secondary-One to Secondary-Five. Its mission is the formation of mature, responsible Christian adults, in accordance with the traditions of the Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus.
SOURCE: Loyola High School
See also
Loyola's principal Paul Donovan on ERC Court Case
Bilingual text Loyola v. Monopoly of Education (appeal)
Our Loyola file (in English and French)
State: Loyola’s teachers have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud
Quebec’s position smacks of totalitarianism. The Court of Appeal ruling should not, and hopefully will not stand.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
jeudi 10 janvier 2013
Loyola's principal Paul Donovan on ERC Court Case
Loyola principal Paul Donovan said in a video (above) that his school did not go to court "just to get our way" but because the issue involved "society as a whole."
Donovan said that at the heart of the issue is the "ministry saying that as a confessional institution, we are unable to teach the recognition of others — tolerance, understanding — and the pursuit of the common good."
"From the perspective of the Ministry of Education, of the Quebec government, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we can only [teach these values] as secularists, from a secular perspective," he said.
Donovan added that the court decision does not "bode well" for a society that values religious diversity, particularly in terms of the "richness that religions of all types have to offer, and in particular the contribution of Catholicism in schools like Loyola that have contributed so much to our society, and to the well being of society."
Loyola High School has until the second of February to decide whether it appeals the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
vendredi 14 décembre 2012
State: Loyola’s teachers have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud
By Father Raymond J. de Souza
Perhaps the timing was Providential, if one is still permitted to say that at a Quebec high school. I came here to Loyola high school in Montreal to give a lecture on faith in our common life, only one day after the Quebec government had won an appellate court victory that, in effect, said there was not much room for faith at Loyola, unless the teachers here pretended it wasn’t true. Comforting the afflicted is one of the traditional tasks of both priests and journalists, so I was happy to be on hand.
My colleague Barbara Kay detailed the facts of the case yesterday in this space on Wednesday, indicating her agreement with the lower court judge that it is “totalitarian” to compel a private Jesuit high school to teach that, as between Christianity and say, witchcraft, there can be no considered judgment as to which view is to be proposed.
When Quebec secularized its schools more than a decade ago, it was decided to teach students about the realm of the spirit in a new course called Ethical and Religious Culture (ERC). The ERC curriculum requires teachers to maintain strict neutrality between all creeds, whether they appear on the extensive list in the curriculum or they are other perspectives the students might themselves introduce to the class. So the teacher would instruct the students that Christians believe that Jesus is divine, but that Muslims do not.
Happy to do so, Loyola said, noting that it already had been teaching world religions for some time. But, the Catholic school asked the ministry of the education, could we also teach that while Buddhists do not recognize Jesus as being divine, we do, being Catholics? The ministry said no, that Loyola’s teachers would have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud rather than the sovereign Lord of all creation.
Loyola preferred neither to pretend nor to deny its faith, and went to court, arguing that the ERC mandate was not only a violation of religious liberty in principle, but practically absurd. Loyola won at the superior court, but has now lost at the appellate level. A Supreme Court appeal may be launched.
This is not an argument of public provision. Loyola is a private school. And, in any case, the ERC applies even to homeschoolers. Consider that: a Muslim mother who homeschools her children in order to better teach them the Islamic way of life would also have to teach them that being Muslim is no better than being an atheist.
Pope Benedict XVI sent his inaugural tweets yesterday. I half hoped he might send one to us: “Canada, good luck with the dictatorship of relativism!” For Joseph Ratzinger warned us about this on the day before he was elected pope, in an address to the college of cardinals:
“Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labelled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be ‘tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine’, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive.”
When we hear about dictatorship in Canada, our initial response is to be skeptical. Surely not here! But what else to call a state mandate that dictates that Catholic schools — and every single religious believer in Quebec of any creed — must teach relativism pure and simple, namely that between two contradictory positions, both are equally true or equally false, or to put it more directly, equally nothing.
Loyola had its Christmas decorations up when I visited. I spoke in front of a large Christmas tree and nativity scene. Tonight, they are having their Christmas concert and, yes, they call it a “Christmas” concert. The poster features the Magi from the east. What are the teachers to say about all this if ERC is imposed upon them? That the Magi were not wise men but on a fool’s errand?
The Quebec government seems to believe religion is like the playful Santa Claus in the Loyola foyer, a mere seasonal decoration that few will miss. But the nativity scene in the heart of the school is not a decoration — it is a statement of faith. It won’t do to profess the faith in the centre of the school only to deny it in the classroom.
The Magi were searching for Jesus. They had to deal with King Herod. Today, those seeking for Jesus have instead the Quebec ministry of education and the appellate court. Be of good courage, Loyola!
See also:
Our Loyola file (French and English)
Our ethics file (English, most entries relate to ECR)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
Perhaps the timing was Providential, if one is still permitted to say that at a Quebec high school. I came here to Loyola high school in Montreal to give a lecture on faith in our common life, only one day after the Quebec government had won an appellate court victory that, in effect, said there was not much room for faith at Loyola, unless the teachers here pretended it wasn’t true. Comforting the afflicted is one of the traditional tasks of both priests and journalists, so I was happy to be on hand.
My colleague Barbara Kay detailed the facts of the case yesterday in this space on Wednesday, indicating her agreement with the lower court judge that it is “totalitarian” to compel a private Jesuit high school to teach that, as between Christianity and say, witchcraft, there can be no considered judgment as to which view is to be proposed.
When Quebec secularized its schools more than a decade ago, it was decided to teach students about the realm of the spirit in a new course called Ethical and Religious Culture (ERC). The ERC curriculum requires teachers to maintain strict neutrality between all creeds, whether they appear on the extensive list in the curriculum or they are other perspectives the students might themselves introduce to the class. So the teacher would instruct the students that Christians believe that Jesus is divine, but that Muslims do not.
Happy to do so, Loyola said, noting that it already had been teaching world religions for some time. But, the Catholic school asked the ministry of the education, could we also teach that while Buddhists do not recognize Jesus as being divine, we do, being Catholics? The ministry said no, that Loyola’s teachers would have to pretend that the Catholic school was equally open to the idea that Jesus was a complete fraud rather than the sovereign Lord of all creation.
Loyola preferred neither to pretend nor to deny its faith, and went to court, arguing that the ERC mandate was not only a violation of religious liberty in principle, but practically absurd. Loyola won at the superior court, but has now lost at the appellate level. A Supreme Court appeal may be launched.
This is not an argument of public provision. Loyola is a private school. And, in any case, the ERC applies even to homeschoolers. Consider that: a Muslim mother who homeschools her children in order to better teach them the Islamic way of life would also have to teach them that being Muslim is no better than being an atheist.
Pope Benedict XVI sent his inaugural tweets yesterday. I half hoped he might send one to us: “Canada, good luck with the dictatorship of relativism!” For Joseph Ratzinger warned us about this on the day before he was elected pope, in an address to the college of cardinals:
“Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labelled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be ‘tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine’, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive.”
When we hear about dictatorship in Canada, our initial response is to be skeptical. Surely not here! But what else to call a state mandate that dictates that Catholic schools — and every single religious believer in Quebec of any creed — must teach relativism pure and simple, namely that between two contradictory positions, both are equally true or equally false, or to put it more directly, equally nothing.
Loyola had its Christmas decorations up when I visited. I spoke in front of a large Christmas tree and nativity scene. Tonight, they are having their Christmas concert and, yes, they call it a “Christmas” concert. The poster features the Magi from the east. What are the teachers to say about all this if ERC is imposed upon them? That the Magi were not wise men but on a fool’s errand?
The Quebec government seems to believe religion is like the playful Santa Claus in the Loyola foyer, a mere seasonal decoration that few will miss. But the nativity scene in the heart of the school is not a decoration — it is a statement of faith. It won’t do to profess the faith in the centre of the school only to deny it in the classroom.
The Magi were searching for Jesus. They had to deal with King Herod. Today, those seeking for Jesus have instead the Quebec ministry of education and the appellate court. Be of good courage, Loyola!
See also:
Our Loyola file (French and English)
Our ethics file (English, most entries relate to ECR)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
jeudi 13 décembre 2012
Tommy Schnurmacher on Loyola High school
Listen:
Alternate link: http://www.radioego.com/ego/listen/12567
A listener says that if parents don't want their children to be taught the controversial Ethics and religious culture course, they just need to send their children to a completely private school, receiving no subsidies. This is incorrect. All pupils in Quebec (except those of the Kativik School Board) have to attend ERC classes during ten years, in all public schools, in all private schools and even, theoretically, those home-schooled.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
Quebec’s position smacks of totalitarianism. The Court of Appeal ruling should not, and hopefully will not stand.
All must be accorded absolute respect, according to a draconian mandate from Quebec's education junta.
By Barbara Kay.
Until 2008, the curriculum of Montreal’s (private) Catholic Loyola High School included a course called “Morals and World Religions” (MWR). MWR taught students the basic history and tenets of other major religions from the Catholic perspective, which is presumably what the students’ parents were paying for.
 |
Paul Donovan, principal of Loyola High School
in Montreal. Photo: G. Hughes for National Post |
The ERC’s mandate is to introduce students to Quebec’s diversity of religions and cultures with “absolute respect for every religious position.” As a short perusal of ERC’s culturally relativistic texts makes clear, Wicca, Raëlism, aboriginal animism or even a student’s own invented religion are all accorded equal spiritual standing with Christianity. This is an untenable intellectual perspective, and obviously one that stands in opposition to Catholic teachings. Yet no child may be exempted on grounds that the ERC might negatively impact confidence in his own religion.
Loyola sought an institutional exemption, arguing that the school taught the same substantive knowledge as ERC in their MWR course. The ministry denied the request. Loyola pursued a legal challenge on Charter grounds of religious freedom. At trial, the Quebec attorney general contended that the Charter applies to individuals; religious corporations, such as a Jesuit school, he argued, are not entitled to freedom of religion.
The presiding lower court judge, Justice Dugré, disagreed with Quebec’s position. He ruled that the forced replacement of MRW would undermine Loyola’s own sense of identity and religious character, even stating that Quebec’s supersession of ERC over Loyola’s teaching commitments was “totalitarian in nature.”
But Quebec’s Court of Appeal then overturned the lower court’s ruling. Unless resolved otherwise by the Supreme Court, it means that a government can compel a faith community to jettison its driving beliefs in order to promote the state’s secular religion of multiculturalism; or indeed, in the future, to compel promotion of any other theory or belief the state may wish to substitute for a faith community’s convictions.
If the “Catholic perspective” mocked or refuted other routes to spiritual fulfilment, the Court of Appeal decision would be correct. On the contrary, though, the Catholic understanding of faith is far richer and more respectful of religion than that presented in the ERC, which comes at the subject from a secular perspective, and essentially ignores the whole concept of “faith” altogether.
To Quebec’s education ministry, religion is a cultural preference, not a deeply held core belief. For Catholics, on the other hand, everyone who is a Catholic or a member of another religious faith —or even atheistic — is respected as a spiritual pilgrim on a profound journey in pursuit of truth.
In view of its raison d’être, Loyola finds itself caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. As Douglas Farrow, professor of Christian Thought at McGill University and an expert witness in the case, put it to me: “Were the Loyola community to accede to this demand, it would not only be violating its conscience, but also allowing that the Court stands above its conscience … This it cannot do and remain Catholic in any meaningful sense.”
The stated objective of the ERC program is to “cultivate the recognition of others and pursuit of the common good.” Must the “recognition of others” preclude a special attachment to one’s own heritage?
As for “pursuit of the common good,” it was a religion, not a state, after all, that gave all of mankind the Golden Rule to “do unto others as you would be done by.” Surely that is the pursuit of the common good par excellence. The onus should therefore be on Quebec to prove Loyola’s MWR was failing to meet objectives that were already Catholic objectives before they were Quebec’s objectives.
The replacement of the Catholicism-friendly MWR with the Catholicism-banalizing ERC is not, as the Court of Appeal claims, the imposition of a pedagogical curriculum like any other. It is the abrogation of the Charter provision for freedom of religion, and sets a disquieting precedent for other faith-based corporations. The lower-court justice was correct: Quebec’s position smacks of totalitarianism. The Court of Appeal ruling should not, and hopefully will not stand.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
lundi 10 décembre 2012
Vatican Radio : Catholic School in Quebec loses religious freedom case
ROME — A Catholic private school is considering petitioning the Supreme Court of Canada, after the Quebec Court of Appeal issued a decision obliging it to teach a state-imposed Ethics and Religious Culture course (ERC) at odds with Catholic teaching. The Quebec court issued its decision Dec. 4, overturning an earlier judgment of the Superior Court, which supported the request Loyola High School put to the education minister to teach the course objectives from a Catholic perspective. The Jesuit boys school, located in Montreal, has been battling the provincial government on this issue since 2008.
Marie Bourque, vice-president of the Catholic Parents Association of Quebec, said the decision infringes on the rights of parents to choose an education for their children in line with their faith and values and “to rely on the collaboration of confessional schools” to this end. The Catholic Civil Rights League also issued a comment in agreement.
Bourque described the ERC as a “totally superficial, folkloric and materialistic” program, which “forbids any chronological or historical teaching of religions.”
“It presents them as the fruit of the human mind,” she explained. “It’s all relativistic; there’s no absolute truth at all. So, moral and philosophical stands, which are atheistic, certainly sound more credible than any religion at all in this context.”
Both the Catholic Church and the UN Declaration of Human Rights state that parental rights in education are essential and must be upheld, she underlined.
“The responsibility belongs to (parents) to teach morals and religion. They can delegate it to whom they choose but it belongs absolutely to them in the first place,” she said.
Loyola High School first took legal action in 2008, when the education minister refused to grant equivalency to the school’s Morals and World Religions course. The minister argued that Loyola’s course is taught from a Catholic viewpoint, whereas the state course requires religions to be taught from a secular and religiously neutral perspective.
Listen to the interview by Laura Ieraci with Marie Bourque:
See also
Supreme Court — Break with Common Law Putting the Onus on Parents rather than the State(With sample activities and material used in ERC classes)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
jeudi 6 décembre 2012
Loyola decision infringes on parental choices, says CCRL
MONTREAL, QC December 6, 2012 – The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) today commented on the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that requires Loyola High School, a private Catholic institution, to teach the province’s Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course. The school had asked to cover the course material in a religion program based on its Catholic perspective, a request which was upheld by the Quebec Superior Court but appealed by the province.
The Court of Appeal decision, issued December 4, declared that because Loyola’s course is Catholic in orientation, it could not be considered equivalent to the ERC program, because the ERC course was specifically designed to be religiously "neutral".
“With this decision, the Court of Appeal has seriously infringed upon the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children,” says League President Philip Horgan.
In 2008, the Education Minister at the time, Michelle Courchesne, refused to declare that the course in Morals and World Religions Loyola High School in Montreal was equivalent to ERC, arguing that the program offered by the school was given from a Catholic viewpoint whereas the ethics and religious culture approach must be "secular". The school took the case to Quebec's Superior Court. In June 2010, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the minister and the school was allowed to teach its substitute program as equivalent. The Court of Appeal has overturned that decision and upheld the original decision of the Minister of Education.
This decision creates a dilemma for Catholic parents in Quebec, who may seek to send their children to a private Catholic school to avail their children of an authentic moral and religious upbringing in accordance with their faith, a right recognized and guaranteed by several international treaties to which Canada is a party, and to which a robust understanding of the Charter of Rights would normally recognize.
In February, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the case of S.L. that sufficient evidence would be needed to support a finding for an exemption from the ERC curriculum. Loyola produced the requests for exemption on behalf of its entire school community, supported by expert opinions on the merits of its program as compared to the Quebec ERC curriculum. The trial judge accepted that position, stating at one point that the Quebec government's position was verging on totalitarianism.
With this ruling, the Court of Appeal has chosen to overrule the trial judge's decision, which was based on extensive expert evidence, in favour of the ambitions of the Quebec government, which stated that its program was better suited for greater tolerance in society.
Quebec continues to engage in a grand social experiment, over the legitimate objections of religious parents.
The Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec (APCQ) deplores the fact that everywhere in Quebec, children 6 to 16 years will be introduced, through the ERC course, to a set of amalgamated religions, beliefs, myths and legends. The President of the APCQ, Jean Morse-Chevrier, who is also a Quebec director of the League, believes this teaching devalues religion in favour of a phenomenalist and relativistic approach. She says that the judgment gives more clout to a government that devalues the religious rights of its citizens and their institutions.
The CCRL hopes that the Supreme Court is invited to review its previous ruling on the ERC curriculum in the context of the Loyola experience.
About CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.
For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director, 416-466-8244; joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca
The Court of Appeal decision, issued December 4, declared that because Loyola’s course is Catholic in orientation, it could not be considered equivalent to the ERC program, because the ERC course was specifically designed to be religiously "neutral".
“With this decision, the Court of Appeal has seriously infringed upon the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children,” says League President Philip Horgan.
In 2008, the Education Minister at the time, Michelle Courchesne, refused to declare that the course in Morals and World Religions Loyola High School in Montreal was equivalent to ERC, arguing that the program offered by the school was given from a Catholic viewpoint whereas the ethics and religious culture approach must be "secular". The school took the case to Quebec's Superior Court. In June 2010, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the minister and the school was allowed to teach its substitute program as equivalent. The Court of Appeal has overturned that decision and upheld the original decision of the Minister of Education.
This decision creates a dilemma for Catholic parents in Quebec, who may seek to send their children to a private Catholic school to avail their children of an authentic moral and religious upbringing in accordance with their faith, a right recognized and guaranteed by several international treaties to which Canada is a party, and to which a robust understanding of the Charter of Rights would normally recognize.
In February, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the case of S.L. that sufficient evidence would be needed to support a finding for an exemption from the ERC curriculum. Loyola produced the requests for exemption on behalf of its entire school community, supported by expert opinions on the merits of its program as compared to the Quebec ERC curriculum. The trial judge accepted that position, stating at one point that the Quebec government's position was verging on totalitarianism.
With this ruling, the Court of Appeal has chosen to overrule the trial judge's decision, which was based on extensive expert evidence, in favour of the ambitions of the Quebec government, which stated that its program was better suited for greater tolerance in society.
Quebec continues to engage in a grand social experiment, over the legitimate objections of religious parents.
The Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec (APCQ) deplores the fact that everywhere in Quebec, children 6 to 16 years will be introduced, through the ERC course, to a set of amalgamated religions, beliefs, myths and legends. The President of the APCQ, Jean Morse-Chevrier, who is also a Quebec director of the League, believes this teaching devalues religion in favour of a phenomenalist and relativistic approach. She says that the judgment gives more clout to a government that devalues the religious rights of its citizens and their institutions.
The CCRL hopes that the Supreme Court is invited to review its previous ruling on the ERC curriculum in the context of the Loyola experience.
About CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.
For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director, 416-466-8244; joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca
See also
Supreme Court — Break with Common Law Putting the Onus on Parents rather than the State (With sample activities and material used in ERC classes)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
mercredi 5 décembre 2012
The Supreme Court decision in the Drummondville case raises a host of questions
From McGill professor Farrow's website :
The Supreme Court decision in the Drummondville case, which (unlike the Loyola case) concerned the right of parents to exempt their children altogether from State-mandated lessons in religion and ethics, was released on 17 February 2012. The Court concluded that the appellants had not proven that their religious liberty was violated by the Ministry’s refusal to exempt their children from the ERC program: "Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish. However, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society. The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education. Although such exposure can be a source of friction, it does not in itself constitute an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and of s. 3 of the Quebec Charter." – Deschamps, J., S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7, par. 40
This raises a host of questions: Was such a suggestion really being made, or were the parents merely asking that the State not interfere with their children's private religious instruction by forcing upon them what they regard as an incompatible form of instruction under the guise of religious literacy? Who should be the judge of compatibility? What is the current relation between the (declining) rights and duties of parents and the (advancing) rights and duties of the State with respect to religious literacy? What kind of literacy is the State aiming at, and under what circumstances might its aims be construed as a violation of parental rights or of religious liberty? Does "the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment," which is no doubt "a fact of life," constitute grounds for the State to enforce certain kinds of exposure? Which kinds? And is it really possible for the State to neither favour nor hinder any particular belief or belief-system (ibid., par. 32), or for its neutrality to mean that "the State cannot formally take any position on the true and the good"? What then of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself, or of the State's determination to define and defend "the multicultural reality"? Do these not entail such commitments?
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
mardi 21 février 2012
Prof. Paul Allen : debate far from over about Ethics and Religious Culture
Paul Allen, a professor of theology at Concordia University, says the legal matter is far from settled, because Loyola High School is challenging the contents of the provincially imposed coursework.
See also
Professor Douglas Farrow's "On the Ethics and Religious Culture Program" Report as Expert Witness in the Loyola High School vs. Ministry of Education court case.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
mercredi 27 octobre 2010
Jean Morse-Chevrier on the Ethics and Religious Culture course going to the Supreme Court
DR. JEAN MORSE-CHEVRIER, psychologist and president of the Catholic Parents Association of Quebec, was talking on October 26th on Roadkill Radio, a B.-C. radio, about the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent leave to hear one of the most important cases concerning parental rights in Canada. The show is hosted by Terry O'Neill and Ron Gray.
Listen :
(50 minutes)
Listen :
(50 minutes)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
jeudi 8 juillet 2010
Secularism vs. Freedom of Religion?
A Radio debate on the Quebec Ethics and Religious Culture, the role of religion in the schools, the role of the State, freedom of religion and the public curriculum. The debate deals with the ruling on Loyola High School, a private school, allowing it to give an equivalent ethics and religious culture course from a Catholic perspective.
A panel discussion with host Rob Breakenridge and Jean Morse-Chevrier, president of the Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec and Michael Payton from the Canadian Secular Alliance.
The Rob Breakenridge Show, Corus Entertainment Radio
AM 770 CHQR Calgary, Alberta
A panel discussion with host Rob Breakenridge and Jean Morse-Chevrier, president of the Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec and Michael Payton from the Canadian Secular Alliance.
The Rob Breakenridge Show, Corus Entertainment Radio
AM 770 CHQR Calgary, Alberta
Listen: (20 minutes)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
Brief Legal Summary of the Loyola Ruling by Justice Dugré
Loyola High School v. Courchesne, Superior Court (S.C.), Montréal, QC, CANADA, 500-17-045278-085, Justice Gérard Dugré, judgment rendered On June 18, 2010 and reported at 2010 QCCS 2631, SOQUIJ AZ-50647607, 2010EXP-2071, J.E. 2010-1137 (91 pages).
Motion to quash a decision rendered by the Quebec Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports, and application to be exempted from the Ministerial Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program on the grounds that the school teaches that subject using its own program. Granted.
Facts
The applicant, Loyola High School, is a Jesuit-administered Catholic confessional educational institution. Loyola filed an application to be exempted from teaching the Ministerial ERC program under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Act respecting private education because it is incompatible with its mission and convictions, primarily because it inculcates a relativist philosophy commonly called "normative pluralism". It applied for the exemption on the grounds that it dispenses an equivalent program. The Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports dismissed its application, hence the action instituted by Loyola. The Minister asserts that she has broad discretion under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation and that her decision is reasonable and should not be quashed. Regarding the issue of freedom of religion, she states that because Loyola is a legal person, it cannot allege infringement of freedom of religion. She argues that her ERC program does not infringe Loyola's freedom of conscience and of religion and, even if such an infringement occurred, it is warranted in a free and democratic society.
Decision
The exemption provided for in the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation is automatic if an equivalent program is dispensed by the educational institution. The word "equivalent" must be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning. The Minister is not competent to define the term "equivalent" or to determine criteria of equivalence. She only has a non-discretionary power, namely to decide whether or not Loyola's program is, within the ordinary meaning of the word, "equivalent" to the program established by the Minister. In the case under consideration, if the Minister decides erroneously that a program is not equivalent, she has exceeded her jurisdiction. Therefore, the standard of judicial review to be applied to her decision is the correctness of her decision. Four of the six grounds of the impugned decision are based on the distinction between the ERC program approach, which is cultural, and the Loyola program approach, which is confessional. The four grounds raised by the Minister are erroneous and amount to an excess of jurisdiction. The ordinary meaning of the word "equivalent" does not involve any such distinction or exclusion.
The power delegated to the Minister under the Regulation is the power to "judge", not the power to "legislate". She is not empowered to define standards of equivalence or to delegate a power that she does not have to the civil servants who reviewed the application for exemption. She failed to take into account highly relevant facts, namely that the program is dispensed by a private Catholic confessional school and that the parents and students of that school want all courses to be taught in accordance with the precepts of the Catholic church and the Catholic religion.
The Minister refused to grant the exemption on the grounds that in granting an exemption she would be authorizing a mandatory course in religion thereby contravening the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her refusal is wrong and unreasonable, firstly because it is premature to presume that had she granted the exemption applied for, there would be contestations based on the charters, and secondly because the values of the charters must be taken into account only where the wording of a statute is ambiguous, which is not the situation in this case. Even in the event of ambiguity, the combined effect of the principles stated in sections 3, 41, 42, 52, 53, 54 and subsection 56 (3) of the Québec Charter confirm Loyola's entitlement to the exemption under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation, because such quasi-constitutional provisions in regulatory measures must be construed and applied as they are written. The two other grounds raised by the Minister in her decision, namely the acquisition of skills in dialogue, and the teacher's role, are pretexts. A reading of the exhibits tendered into evidence unequivocally confirms that the program dispensed by Loyola covers both aspects. Moreover, the Minister could not add laicity as a prerequisite to program equivalency. She applied an irrelevant consideration; it is the program that must be equivalent or comparable, not the manner in which the mandatory ERC content is taught.
Notwithstanding that since enactment of a 1997 constitutional amendment, confessional schools are no longer entitled to constitutional protection, the Québéc legislator has allowed schools to retain their confessional recognition. The Minister may require a public secular school to teach the ERC program in a secular manner, but she cannot prevent a private confessional school from dispensing ERC according to confessional precepts.
Application of correctness as the standard of judicial review requires that this Court determine if both programs are "equivalent" within the meaning of the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation. The word "equivalent", used as a qualifying adjective in that paragraph, commonly means, "that which has the same value or function". In using that word, the government has not required that both programs be the same. The content of both programs is similar, if not the same. The objectives are similar, hence equivalent. The skills of dialogue targeted by both programs involve two interactive aspects, namely internal deliberation and the exchange of ideas with others. The ERC program's secular approach and the Loyola program's Catholic confessional approach cannot prevent a finding of program equivalency. The cultural approach promoted by the ERC program is not in any manner incompatible or irreconcilable with the confessional approach required by Loyola's religious precepts.
The Minister argued that were she to approve Loyola's confessional program, she would be making a course in religion mandatory, in contravention of the charters. That argument is unfounded and indicates an excess of jurisdiction in her decision because, on that legal basis, she has excluded a confessional program for teaching ERC in a private Catholic school from the definition of the word "equivalent", from the outset and without any evidence or complaint. As regards the constitutional aspect of the decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the right of a legal person to invoke freedom of religion under the Canadian charter. However, as the impugned decision emanates from a Québéc minister and is based on a Québéc regulatory provision, the Court should limit itself to application of the Québec Charter. The proper standard of judicial review is correctness of the impugned decision given that this is a review of a ministerial decision conducted in light of the principles set forth in the Québec Charter.
Loyola is a non-profit company incorporated under Part III (ss. 216 to 233) of the Companies Act. The attribute of legal personality should not deprive a group or grouping of persons of the fundamental rights protected by the charters.
Freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression are an integral part of the fundamental basis of the primacy of the law, a principle that benefits all persons and is not limited solely to human beings. In section 3 of the Québec Charter, the legislator used the word "person" and not the term "human being". Moreover, the designation "person" is defined by the Québéc legislator as including natural and legal persons. That section of the Charter included legal persons such as Loyola. The school asserts the right to teach the mandatory ERC subject matter in the general secondary curriculum using its own confessional program. That right, like freedom of religious expression, is included in the expression "freedom of religion" and is therefore protected by the Québec Charter. Loyola students and parents must sign an undertaking to the college that covers the religious aspect. Parents must exercise their parental authority, which includes education and religion, in the greater interests of their children.
The Québec Charter recognizes the parental right to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in accordance with their convictions. That right is not limited to the home and places of worship. It must be interpreted as including the private educational institution in which parents choose to have their children educated and instructed. No statutory standard prevents Loyola from being a Catholic confessional educational institution. It should therefore be allowed to teach all subjects in accordance with the catholic confessional approach.
In Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (S.C. Can., 2004-06-30), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, the Supreme Court held that, to trigger freedom of religion, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion and that the impugned conduct of the third party amounts to a non-trivial or non-insubstantial interference with the exercise of that practice or belief. In the case under consideration, Loyola and its members are sincerely convinced that to fulfil its mission as a Catholic confessional educational institution, the school must teach ERC using its own program and in accordance with Catholic precepts. The Minister's decision qualified in light of Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component and British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (S.C. Can., 2009-07-10), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295, is not a rule of law and therefore cannot be protected under section 9.1 of the Québec Charter.
In addition, the trivial infringement test is not satisfied in the case under consideration. The Minister had several solutions available to her to avoid infringing a right protected by the Québec Charter. Moreover, according to the reasoning of Justices Deschamps and Abella in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (S.C. Can., 2006-03-02), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, recourse to a constitutional law justification is not appropriate where, as in the case under consideration, what must be assessed is the propriety of an administrative body’s decision relating to human rights.
Lastly, to allow the Minister to attempt to justify her decision would in itself result in an excess of jurisdiction. Her decision is therefore quashed. It is hereby declared that pursuant to the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation, Loyola is exempted from being required to use the program established by the Minister to teach the mandatory subject of ERC.
Lastly, Loyola is hereby authorized to teach ERC using its own program.
Motion to quash a decision rendered by the Quebec Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports, and application to be exempted from the Ministerial Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program on the grounds that the school teaches that subject using its own program. Granted.
Facts
The applicant, Loyola High School, is a Jesuit-administered Catholic confessional educational institution. Loyola filed an application to be exempted from teaching the Ministerial ERC program under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Act respecting private education because it is incompatible with its mission and convictions, primarily because it inculcates a relativist philosophy commonly called "normative pluralism". It applied for the exemption on the grounds that it dispenses an equivalent program. The Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports dismissed its application, hence the action instituted by Loyola. The Minister asserts that she has broad discretion under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation and that her decision is reasonable and should not be quashed. Regarding the issue of freedom of religion, she states that because Loyola is a legal person, it cannot allege infringement of freedom of religion. She argues that her ERC program does not infringe Loyola's freedom of conscience and of religion and, even if such an infringement occurred, it is warranted in a free and democratic society.
Decision
The exemption provided for in the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation is automatic if an equivalent program is dispensed by the educational institution. The word "equivalent" must be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning. The Minister is not competent to define the term "equivalent" or to determine criteria of equivalence. She only has a non-discretionary power, namely to decide whether or not Loyola's program is, within the ordinary meaning of the word, "equivalent" to the program established by the Minister. In the case under consideration, if the Minister decides erroneously that a program is not equivalent, she has exceeded her jurisdiction. Therefore, the standard of judicial review to be applied to her decision is the correctness of her decision. Four of the six grounds of the impugned decision are based on the distinction between the ERC program approach, which is cultural, and the Loyola program approach, which is confessional. The four grounds raised by the Minister are erroneous and amount to an excess of jurisdiction. The ordinary meaning of the word "equivalent" does not involve any such distinction or exclusion.
The power delegated to the Minister under the Regulation is the power to "judge", not the power to "legislate". She is not empowered to define standards of equivalence or to delegate a power that she does not have to the civil servants who reviewed the application for exemption. She failed to take into account highly relevant facts, namely that the program is dispensed by a private Catholic confessional school and that the parents and students of that school want all courses to be taught in accordance with the precepts of the Catholic church and the Catholic religion.
The Minister refused to grant the exemption on the grounds that in granting an exemption she would be authorizing a mandatory course in religion thereby contravening the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Her refusal is wrong and unreasonable, firstly because it is premature to presume that had she granted the exemption applied for, there would be contestations based on the charters, and secondly because the values of the charters must be taken into account only where the wording of a statute is ambiguous, which is not the situation in this case. Even in the event of ambiguity, the combined effect of the principles stated in sections 3, 41, 42, 52, 53, 54 and subsection 56 (3) of the Québec Charter confirm Loyola's entitlement to the exemption under the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation, because such quasi-constitutional provisions in regulatory measures must be construed and applied as they are written. The two other grounds raised by the Minister in her decision, namely the acquisition of skills in dialogue, and the teacher's role, are pretexts. A reading of the exhibits tendered into evidence unequivocally confirms that the program dispensed by Loyola covers both aspects. Moreover, the Minister could not add laicity as a prerequisite to program equivalency. She applied an irrelevant consideration; it is the program that must be equivalent or comparable, not the manner in which the mandatory ERC content is taught.
Notwithstanding that since enactment of a 1997 constitutional amendment, confessional schools are no longer entitled to constitutional protection, the Québéc legislator has allowed schools to retain their confessional recognition. The Minister may require a public secular school to teach the ERC program in a secular manner, but she cannot prevent a private confessional school from dispensing ERC according to confessional precepts.
Application of correctness as the standard of judicial review requires that this Court determine if both programs are "equivalent" within the meaning of the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation. The word "equivalent", used as a qualifying adjective in that paragraph, commonly means, "that which has the same value or function". In using that word, the government has not required that both programs be the same. The content of both programs is similar, if not the same. The objectives are similar, hence equivalent. The skills of dialogue targeted by both programs involve two interactive aspects, namely internal deliberation and the exchange of ideas with others. The ERC program's secular approach and the Loyola program's Catholic confessional approach cannot prevent a finding of program equivalency. The cultural approach promoted by the ERC program is not in any manner incompatible or irreconcilable with the confessional approach required by Loyola's religious precepts.
The Minister argued that were she to approve Loyola's confessional program, she would be making a course in religion mandatory, in contravention of the charters. That argument is unfounded and indicates an excess of jurisdiction in her decision because, on that legal basis, she has excluded a confessional program for teaching ERC in a private Catholic school from the definition of the word "equivalent", from the outset and without any evidence or complaint. As regards the constitutional aspect of the decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the right of a legal person to invoke freedom of religion under the Canadian charter. However, as the impugned decision emanates from a Québéc minister and is based on a Québéc regulatory provision, the Court should limit itself to application of the Québec Charter. The proper standard of judicial review is correctness of the impugned decision given that this is a review of a ministerial decision conducted in light of the principles set forth in the Québec Charter.
Loyola is a non-profit company incorporated under Part III (ss. 216 to 233) of the Companies Act. The attribute of legal personality should not deprive a group or grouping of persons of the fundamental rights protected by the charters.
Freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression are an integral part of the fundamental basis of the primacy of the law, a principle that benefits all persons and is not limited solely to human beings. In section 3 of the Québec Charter, the legislator used the word "person" and not the term "human being". Moreover, the designation "person" is defined by the Québéc legislator as including natural and legal persons. That section of the Charter included legal persons such as Loyola. The school asserts the right to teach the mandatory ERC subject matter in the general secondary curriculum using its own confessional program. That right, like freedom of religious expression, is included in the expression "freedom of religion" and is therefore protected by the Québec Charter. Loyola students and parents must sign an undertaking to the college that covers the religious aspect. Parents must exercise their parental authority, which includes education and religion, in the greater interests of their children.
The Québec Charter recognizes the parental right to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in accordance with their convictions. That right is not limited to the home and places of worship. It must be interpreted as including the private educational institution in which parents choose to have their children educated and instructed. No statutory standard prevents Loyola from being a Catholic confessional educational institution. It should therefore be allowed to teach all subjects in accordance with the catholic confessional approach.
In Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (S.C. Can., 2004-06-30), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, the Supreme Court held that, to trigger freedom of religion, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion and that the impugned conduct of the third party amounts to a non-trivial or non-insubstantial interference with the exercise of that practice or belief. In the case under consideration, Loyola and its members are sincerely convinced that to fulfil its mission as a Catholic confessional educational institution, the school must teach ERC using its own program and in accordance with Catholic precepts. The Minister's decision qualified in light of Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component and British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (S.C. Can., 2009-07-10), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295, is not a rule of law and therefore cannot be protected under section 9.1 of the Québec Charter.
In addition, the trivial infringement test is not satisfied in the case under consideration. The Minister had several solutions available to her to avoid infringing a right protected by the Québec Charter. Moreover, according to the reasoning of Justices Deschamps and Abella in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (S.C. Can., 2006-03-02), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, recourse to a constitutional law justification is not appropriate where, as in the case under consideration, what must be assessed is the propriety of an administrative body’s decision relating to human rights.
Lastly, to allow the Minister to attempt to justify her decision would in itself result in an excess of jurisdiction. Her decision is therefore quashed. It is hereby declared that pursuant to the first paragraph of section 22 of the Regulation, Loyola is exempted from being required to use the program established by the Minister to teach the mandatory subject of ERC.
Lastly, Loyola is hereby authorized to teach ERC using its own program.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
lundi 28 juin 2010
Canada — Do We Still Have Religious Freedom ?
In this program, Radio Maria interviews Suzanne Lavallee from Drummondville, Quebec. Her family has been forced to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether they have the constitutional right to exempt their children from the Ministry mandated secular course called, Ethics and Religious Culture. Suzanne's legal struggle to have her children taught the Catholic faith shows the present difficulties faced by families when the province imposes a moral and religious curriculum. This is a battle for religious freedom and to keep religion in the public square.
Listen: (28 minutes)
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
mercredi 23 juin 2010
Sean Murphy of the Catholic Civil Rights League on the "Loyola" ruling
Sean Murphy of Catholic Civil Rights League examines the crucial liberty issues involved in a recent Quebec court decision involving parent's protected rights to instil your values and ethics in determining the education choices of their children. This is an important victory for some Canadians, commonsense and democracy. This decision limits the state’s power to impose a mandatory secular 'religion' and ethics course into all schools, be there private or public.
Listen to the broadcast from Roadkill Radio (Vancouver)
(29 minutes)
Read also:
Barbara Kay: Score one for Quebec’s religious freedom.
Prof. Zucchi: Being 'neutral' on religion, involves making a choice
Raymond J. de Souza: violation of liberty repaired
Montreal's Gazette editorial: Victory for religious freedom
Charles Lewis: Public money is religious too
Listen also to:
Doug Farrow: ERC, why the fuss?
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
mardi 22 juin 2010
The Gazette welcomes the Loyola ruling
The Gazette's editorial in today's issue is favorable to Justice Dugré's ruling. Extract.
The ruling, in a case brought by the private Catholic Loyola High School, is excellent news for those who believe in freedom of religion and in parental choice in education. However, the ruling sends the government, and society in general, back to Square One in the matter of teaching about religious tolerance and the equality of religions in the public sphere.
The ERC course, with its no-religion-is-more-right-that-any-other theme, was part of Quebec's too-often-panicky approach to the whole problem of accommodating and integrating religious and other minorities. There might well be a need to ensure that no Quebec schools are systematically producing religious bigots, but mandating this course was using far too big a hammer for the job. Loyola has given Montreal a steady stream of distinguished citizens; we haven't heard of any religious fanatics among them.
A strong majority of Loyola parents had asked that their children not be taught the mandatory ERC course, since it prevented the school from teaching from a Catholic perspective, which is after all the purpose of a Catholic school. When the government refused an exemption, Loyola's administration was emboldened to go to court. It has now won vindication for freedom of choice across the board: Other religious high schools will surely apply the ruling, and public schools will also have to grapple with the problem.
That's fine. This ill-conceived denial of religious orientation in the teaching of ethics won't be missed.
Loyola High's principal, Paul Donovan, assailed by reporters at yesterday's press conference.
The ERC course, with its no-religion-is-more-right-that-any-other theme, was part of Quebec's too-often-panicky approach to the whole problem of accommodating and integrating religious and other minorities. There might well be a need to ensure that no Quebec schools are systematically producing religious bigots, but mandating this course was using far too big a hammer for the job. Loyola has given Montreal a steady stream of distinguished citizens; we haven't heard of any religious fanatics among them.
A strong majority of Loyola parents had asked that their children not be taught the mandatory ERC course, since it prevented the school from teaching from a Catholic perspective, which is after all the purpose of a Catholic school. When the government refused an exemption, Loyola's administration was emboldened to go to court. It has now won vindication for freedom of choice across the board: Other religious high schools will surely apply the ruling, and public schools will also have to grapple with the problem.
That's fine. This ill-conceived denial of religious orientation in the teaching of ethics won't be missed.
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
Who are the real pluralists now ?
John Zucchi, father of a Loyola student and a plaintiff in the case, called the government's approach to Loyola heavy-handed.
"There's a plurality of views out there, and we're defending our right to have our own particular view in the public forum," he said. "There are neutral perspectives out there, there are liberal perspectives, Jewish perspectives, Muslim, Catholic, Marxist, whatever. I think they all have a right to be heard, and there's no reason in the name of pluralism to silence one of these voices."
Source : National Post
Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)
lundi 21 juin 2010
Loyola High School wins its court case against Quebec's Ministry of Education
Help the families in their legal fights (tax receipt for all $50,00 donations or higher)
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)