CCRL : "parents of children in Quebec's public schools should be afforded better recognition of their religious sensibilities "

Catholic Civil Rights League's press release

Ottawa, ON March 19, 2015 - Perhaps it is fitting on the feast day of the patron saint of Canada, St. Joseph, that Loyola High School has won a major victory for religious rights of parents and students, given its victory in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) released today by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) intervened in Loyola's appeal to the SCC, and welcomes the decision as a strong endorsement of religious freedoms, especially as exercised by institutions and communities of faith.

All seven judges agreed that the Ministry of Education in Quebec had infringed on Loyola's constitutional rights in denying its 'equivalent' alternative program under the province's Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum in 2008.

A four judge majority ruled that the Quebec Ministry of Education was wrong to deny the exemption to Loyola in the delivery of the curriculum from a Catholic perspective. In the words of Madam Justice Abella: 'I agree with Loyola that the Minister's decision had a serious impact on religious freedom in this context. To tell a Catholic school how to explain its faith [pursuant to the ERC program] undermines the liberty of the members of its community who have chosen to give effect to the collective dimension of their religious beliefs by participating in a denominational school ...

Although the state's purpose here is secular, requiring Loyola's teachers to take a neutral posture even about Catholicism means that the state is telling them how to teach the very religion that animates Loyola's identity. It amounts to requiring a Catholic institution to speak about Catholicism in terms defined by the state rather than by its own understanding of Catholicism.' In an important nod to parental rights, Justice Abella continued, 'It also interferes with the rights of parents to transmit the Catholic faith to their children, not because it requires neutral discussion of other faiths and ethical systems, but because it prevents a Catholic discussion of Catholicism. This ignores the fact that an essential ingredient of the vitality of a religious community is the ability of its members to pass on their beliefs to their children, whether through instruction in the home or participation in communal institutions.'

The Court ordered that the Quebec Ministry of Education issue the exemption for the Loyola program based on its ruling.

In fact, a three judge minority opinion would have gone farther, and would have issued the requested exemption from the Quebec ERC program outright, rather than force Loyola to have to engage in a further battle over its rights, following seven years of litigation since it commenced its effort to seek accommodation of its program.

The CCRL intervened in the case, together with the Faith and Freedom Alliance, the Association of Quebec Catholic Parents and the Coptic Christian Association of Montreal, to maintain opposition to the ERC curriculum, which purports to stipulate a 'neutral' position on religion, while demeaning religious understandings generally through enforced moral relativism. It should be noted that the ERC curriculum continues to apply to Quebec public schools, for which religious parents have not been provided exemptions, following a previous ruling of the Supreme Court in 2012.

While the League welcomes the Supreme Court's analysis applicable to Loyola, we urge that Quebec, and all remaining provincial and territorial systems, reflect seriously on the recognition of religious rights of students, parents and others in our shared public education systems, rather than limiting such rights to those who can afford privately funded education.

In particular, parents of children in Quebec's public schools should be afforded better recognition of their religious sensibilities, as a matter of justice, without having to incur the costs of privately funded education. Parents are the first educators of children, and the state should not intrude on deeply held religious understandings without adequate cause.

Madam Justice Abella for the majority stated as follows: 'A secular state does not - and cannot - interfere with the beliefs or practices of a religious group unless they conflict with or harm overriding public interests. Nor can a secular state support or prefer the practices of one group over those of another ...The pursuit of secular values means respecting the right to hold and manifest different religious beliefs. A secular state respects religious differences, it does not seek to extinguish them.'

The case is a significant response in favour of a robust understanding of religious freedoms, especially communal religious freedoms, which were expressly outlined by all judges in their ruling today, for which the CCRL is thankful.

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

Supreme Court rules Quebec infringed on Loyola High School's religious freedom

(See report at the start of this news broadcast.)

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

Loyola High vs Minister of Education — Brian Liley is pessimistic

Voir aussi :

Notre dossier sur Loyola

Nos articles sur la décision Whatcott : Cour suprême — « toutes les déclarations véridiques » ne doivent pas « être à l’abri de toute restriction » et Tribunaux suprémacistes (arrêt Whatcott, suite).

Loyola : le ministère nous empêche d'être ce que nous sommes

Le directeur de Loyola, une école secondaire privée anglophone de Montréal impliquée dans une bataille juridique que la Cour suprême entendra le 24 mars 2014, a récemment effectué une tournée à travers le Canada. Objectif de cette tournée : discuter du laïcisme crispé croissant au Québec qui, selon lui, forcera les chrétiens à taire leurs opinions religieuses dans l’espace public et même, dans le cas du programme d’éthique et de culture religieuse (ECR), dans les écoles privées.

« 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..." »

« Le gouvernement veut que les enseignants présentent les croyances religieuses de façon absolue. Il ne faut pas en discuter, les remettre en question. Il ne faut pas les considérer comme rationnelles. Pourtant, dans la tradition catholique, saint Thomas d'Aquin dit que la raison est la première étape de la foi. Nous ne sommes donc pas autorisés à être qui nous sommes. »

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 7^e à la 11^e 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 $)

McGill Symposium : Religious Freedom in Education (3-5 October)

Education is one of the chief interests of families, of religious communities, and of society and the state; it is both a field of cooperation between private and public bodies and, by nature, a primary cultural and political battleground. It has long been a legal battleground as well, particularly where religious issues arise. From the famous 1940 Minersville case in the USA, for example, to the current Quebec case, Loyola v. Courchesne, the courts have been asked to adjudicate the boundaries between family, religion, and the state. The UDHR (art. 26), the Toledo principles, and various international covenants seek to provide guidance in negotiating these boundaries. The purpose of this symposium will be to explore the question of religious freedom in both public and private education.

The purpose of this symposium will be to explore the question of religious liberty in both private and public education.

NB: The information that follows is subject to correction or change.

List of Contributors

• Iain Benson (Global Center for Pluralism) *
• Benjamin Berger (Law, York)
• Janet Epp-Buckingham (Political Studies, TWU)
• Dia Dabby (Law, McGill)
• Paul Donovan (Loyola High School)
• Douglas Farrow (Arts and Religious Studies, McGill)
• Asif Iftikhar (Islamic Studies, McGill)
• Ian Jamison* (Tony Blair Faith Foundation)
• Solange LeFebvre (Religious Studies, U. Montréal)
• Ian Leigh (Law, Durham) *
• Ian Linden (SOAS, London) *
• Blair Major (Law, McGill)
• Kevin McDonough (Education, McGill)
• Eugene Meehan, QC (SupremeAdvocacy LLP)
• Victor Muniz-Fraticelli (Political Science and Law, McGill)
• Mawlana Ammar Naasir (Al Shari‘ah Academy, Gujranwala) *
• David Novak (Religion and Philosophy, Toronto)
• Mark Phillips (BLG Montreal)
• Ayaz Sadiq, (Speaker of the National Assembly, Pakistan) *
• Saleem Khan Safi (Geo Television Network, Pakistan) *
• Charles Taylor (Philosophy, McGill)
• Shauna Van Praagh (Law, McGill)
• Mary Anne Waldron, QC (Law, Victoria)
• Daniel Weinstock (Law, McGill)
• Jonathan Waind (Religious Studies, McGill)

* via Bluejeans video conference, courtesy the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

For registration: http://www.newmancentre.org/rfec.shtml.

If you have any questions regarding registration, please contact Linda Diez: 514-398-4106 or newmancentre@mail.mcgill.ca or juli.gittinger@mail.mcgill.ca

---

Symposium Schedule

 

Thursday 3 October McGill University
 

3:15–4:15 Registration (Newman Centre)

4:45 pm Religion, Education, and the ‘Crisis’ in State Neutrality (Moot Court)

Welcome
Address: Benjamin Berger
Respondent: Solange LeFebvre
6:15 pm Reception (Newman Centre)

7:45 pm Secularism, Religion, and Societal Values (Moot Court)

Chair: Paul Donovan
Panel: Charles Taylor; respondent TBA

How do we determine our collective ‘values’ and principles? What role does religion play in such determinations in societies that regard themselves as 'secular'? And how far is it the responsibility of teachers and educators to reinforce (rather than re-engineer) collective values?

Friday 4 October McGill University (Birks Chapel)

 

9:30 am International Perspectives on Freedom in Education

Welcome: Ellen Aitken
Chairs: Paul Donovan, Dia Dabby
Panel: Iain Benson, Ian Leigh, Ian Linden, David Novak
Tensions respecting education in socially and religiously diverse environments exist in many nations. How are the competing interests of the state, the family, and religious communities being negotiated in other western countries? What are the best resources and strategies for finding a solution to difficult issues? Have the Toledo Principles proved useful? Should the discourse of human rights (per UDHR art. 26, ICCPR art. 18.4, ICESCR art 10.1 and 13) be our focus or should our attention be turned elsewhere, perhaps to more locally devised solutions based on the principle of subsidiarity?

11:00 am Religious Education as a Site of Violence

Chair: Asif Iftikar
Panelists: Mawlana Ammar Naasir, Saleem Safi, Ayaz Sadiq
Violence has been cultivated both by certain forms of religious education (in Pakistan, e.g., or London) and by the suppression of religious education (in Tibet, e.g.). What principles and protocols can be followed in liberal democratic societies to negotiate successfully between the Scylla of an anti-pluralist demand for conformity and the Charybdis of an unregulated pluralism?

12:30 pm Lunch

1:15–2:15 A Place at the Table?

Lunch-time Forum on the Voices of Children and the Role of Families
Chair: Blair Major
Presenters: Dia Dabby, Jonathan Waind
Are the voices of children being heard? How are they recognized and interpreted at law, by educational institutions, by government bodies, etc.? What about parent’s voices? This forum will seek to locate children and families in the discussion of religious freedom in education.

2:30 pm Culture Wars: Majority v. Minority Values

Address: Mary Anne Waldron
Respondent: Daniel Weinstock

4:00 pm What can be taught neutrally? (Can religion, ethics, sex, or law?)

Chair: Douglas Farrow
Panel: Janet Epp-Buckingham, Ian Jamison, Kevin McDonough, Shauna Van Praagh
The claim is made by the Quebec Ministry of Education that ethics and religious culture must be taught neutrally or non-confessionally. An analogous claim is made in various places that sex education should be delivered without reference to any particular moral framework. Again, the claim is made (by the Canadian Council of Law Deans) that a confessional school is no place for a recognized law program. How are we to understand such claims? What does it mean to teach ‘neutrally’? Are public institutions more likely to achieve objectivity, at least, than private or religious ones?

Saturday 5 October Loyola High School (Atrium)

 

9:30 am The Supreme Court of Canada on ‘Religious Law’: where we’ve been, where we are, where we’re going

Welcome: Fr Michael Murray
Address: Eugene Meehan
Respondent: Mary Anne Waldron

11:00 am Loyola v. Courchesne: What really is at stake?

Chair: Victor Muniz-Fraticelli
Panel: Paul Donovan, Daniel Weinstock, Mark Phillips
This case, currently before the SCC, brings together questions about the nature of religious freedom, the role of religious institutions in public education and their relation to the state, whether such entities can qualify as legal persons claiming rights and freedoms, and much more. What are the competing ideas of religious freedom in play in Loyola? How might the Court's decision affect religious education throughout the country?

12:30 pm Lunch

1:30 pm Does it still make sense to speak of religious freedom?

Address: Douglas Farrow
Respondent: Victor Muniz-Fraticelli

2:45 pm General Forum

Private school balks at teaching province's Ethics and Religious Culture program

From the B.C. Catholic,

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear Loyola High School's appeal of a decision forcing the private school to teach the province's mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program.

"I'm delighted," said John Zucchi, one of the parents named in the lawsuit involving the right of the Montreal Jesuit-run high school to teach its own world and religious culture program from a Catholic perspective. "You never know if they are going to listen to these appeals or not."

"It signals there is something very important about this case," he said.

Loyola had sought to have the Quebec education minister recognize their ethics and world religions course as equivalent to the ERC, but she ruled the fact it was taught from a Catholic perspective undermined the neutral purpose of the program. A lower court overturned the education minister's ruling, but the Court of Appeal reinstated it.

"We're not fighting for a new right," said Zucchi, who teaches history at McGill University. "We're asking to have the rights we had before."

Zucchi said he expects their lawyers will pursue constitutional arguments.

"Can you coerce a person to go against his or her deepest-held religious beliefs in a classroom for a few hours a day, or a week or a year?" asked Zucchi?

Wicca ceremony being enacted in Montreal school

The Supreme Court has never pronounced on the issue of whether a corporation can have religious rights, he said.

Zucchi said the view held by some liberals that secularism is the only viewpoint and should be the only voice in the public sphere is not new. That view is "only part of the pluralistic landscape," he said.

The Coalition for Freedom in Education (CLÉ), a parents' rights group, issued a statement saying it hopes the Supreme Court would agree with the trial judge's analysis and grant an exemption to Loyola to teach the world religions program from a Catholic perspective that has been offered since 1975.

The ERC "juxtaposes a series of beliefs, legends, myths, habits and customs in the name of tolerance and neutrality," CLÉ said. This approach may "make a caricature of religion" by stringing legends, myths and celebrations one after the other, it said.

Loyola has promoted a more complete understanding of other faiths and that does a better job of promoting tolerance than the ERC, CLÉ said.

Cardus Executive Vice President Ray Pennings says the Loyola case will be heard in the context of several other state incursions into parental rights in education and against the religious freedom of confessional schools, both public and private.

"We're in a bit of a beachhead moment," he said, citing Ontario's anti-bullying Bill 13; Manitoba's Bill 18; the case of Drummondville parents who wished to withdraw their children from the ERC; and the fight Trinity Western University is experiencing in trying to establish an accredited law school because of its requirement all faculty and students uphold a moral covenant respecting traditional marriage.

"It strikes me there is an agenda that would appear to be there of attacking the freedoms that have been historically enjoyed in this country for parents to make choices whether as part of their communal identity, a desire to have input into curriculum or to have options outside of a government system," he said.

Pennings questioned whether the state needs to have a monopoly to accomplish its ends.

Cardus conducted a study on the outcomes for those who are educated outside of the government-funded system entitled "A Rising Tide Raises All Boats" comparing them with those for the government-funded schools. The students educated outside the system had better outcomes, he said.

One has to question why education is something the state needs to control in a monopoly way, Penning said.

"Those seeking religious rights are the pluralists and the democrats in this discussion," he said.

There is a common interest in children being educated," he said. "For society to thrive and prosper, we need citizens that can participate in the polity of the country. We need children to grow up to become economic contributors."

"There is an appropriate role for the state," he said. "The state's interest is one of particular outcomes."

The data we collected show those outcomes are achieved better in the non-state- run settings, he said.

"Education based on a principle theistic worldview is producing results that are tolerant and respectful," said Penning. "When you teach children every child is made in the image of God regardless of differences that exist between them that provides a foundation for respect that is far greater than any policy program that it's good to be nice to each other."

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

Ethics and Religious Culture program - Loyola High School granted leave to appeal to Supreme Court

MONTREAL, June 13, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ - Loyola High School ("Loyola") wishes to announce that today, the Supreme Court of Canada granted it leave to appeal the December 4, 2012 judgment of the Québec 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, 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," offer 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 the Loyola High School. 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

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

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)

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

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

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.

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 $)

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 $)

Tommy Schnurmacher on Loyola High school

The Tommy Schnurmacher Show (Montreal English Talk Radio) on the 7th of December about the Court of appeal's ruling forcing Loyola High School, a Catholic private high school,  to teach ethics and religion from a secular perspective!

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 $)

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 $)

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

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 $)

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 $)

ERC and Supreme Court — Press conference video with lead counsel Mark Phillips

Lead Counsel Mark Phillips' statement



Questions from journalists
1. Could this open the floodgates to other provinces implementing similar courses?

2. Exposing children to "realities".

Many thanks to the Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec who recorded this (support them financially!)



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.

Prof. Doug Farrow, ERC — "Why the Fuss?" (14 pages PDF)


(Lecture by Prof. Doug Farrow with long Q&A, audio: 1:26:34)

Majority of Quebecers want ‘more freedom’ in education, reject mandatory ethics course: survey (27-29 February 2012)

Leger-Marketing Poll: Quebecers want school vouchers and ERC optional or scrapped

Teacher and principal: "ERC courses are considered irrelevant by most students and teachers whom I know."

Supreme Court — Break with Common Law Putting the Onus on Parents rather than the State

National Post — Supreme Court puts the final nail in the coffin of religious freedom (ERC case)

Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture course is more about indoctrination than education

«In the modern world in which you are living, you've probably realized that the value systems
 have broken out, that each has its own standards [...]

Based on the knowledge that we will acquire and from our discussions during the school year, may arise
within you the impression that ABSOLUTE GOOD and EVIL do not exist,
but that there is a good and evil relative to each PERSON [...]

Don't worry.»

Ethics and Religious Culture in Quebec: Canada’s Supreme Court has erred (National Post)


Prof. Paul Allen : debate far from over about Ethics and Religious Culture

Joanne McGarry of the Catholic Civil Rights League on the Tommy Schnurmacher Show

Talkshow — The Supreme Court didn't agree, neither did our panelists

Prof. Zucchi: Being 'neutral' on religion, involves making a choice

Majority of Quebecers want ‘more freedom’ in education, reject mandatory ethics course: survey

From LifeSiteNews.

QUEBEC, March 9, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A survey conducted in the province of Quebec revealed that 55% of Quebecers favor the introduction of a school voucher program in which the government allocates a fixed amount of money for the education of each child, letting the parents decide whether their child is educated in a public or private school. The percentage jumped to 63% for parents of school-aged children.

“To be truthful, I think people want more choice,” said Patrick Andries, secretary of the Coalition for Freedom in Education (CLE), to LifeSiteNews. “They want to get away from the monopoly of the education system so that they can have more choice and not be subject to financial penalties because they want to choose a private school.”

The survey, conducted by Leger-Marketing from February 27 to 29 on behalf of CLE, came two weeks after Canada’s Supreme Court denied the pleas of a Christian family to have their child exempted from the Quebec government’s mandatory relativistic course on ethics and religious culture.

The survey’s sample size was 1,001 people over 18 years from all regions of Quebec and had a margin of error of ± 3.1% in 19 out of 20 cases.

Despite the existence of provincial legislation that allows children to be exempted from school curriculum, the Ministry of Education has reportedly turned down over 1,700 requests for exemptions, and has even moved to impose the course on private schools and home schoolers.

“The majority of Quebecers oppose the compulsory nature of ERC [Ethics and Religious Culture course]: a quarter of them would prefer it to become optional while another 29% would scrap it altogether and replace it with a course like French or Mathematics,” stated CLE in a press release.

The survey also found that 54% of Quebecers believe that schools should have a greater freedom in their choice of programs that they teach and in the way that they teach them.

Sylvain Lamontagne, CLE president, said in a press release that the survey’s results “show clearly that there is no consensus around the compulsory nature of the ERC program and that a majority of Quebecers want more freedom in education.”

“Why does a government that prides itself in imposing this one-size-fits-all program in the name of diversity show no more respect for parents and their diversity?”

Andries pointed out that Québec parents are “in line with results published by international bodies like the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] that identify teaching freedom as an essential component to a quality education.”

Research from the OECD indicated that “in countries where schools enjoy autonomy over their curricula and assessments, students tend to perform better”.

The CLE believes that Quebec’s failing education system will only get back on track if the government grants additional freedoms to schools regarding what they teach and how they teach it. The Coalition also believes that such additional freedoms will “better respect the rights of parents.”

“We would like to have more of a free market,” Andries told LifeSiteNews. “We believe that with school vouchers it will be fairer and that it will sit better with what parents want, and even with what the market wants, rather than what bureaucrats decide should be taught. And also it would better respect the rights of parents as first educators of the children.”

Contact:
Line Beauchamp, Quebec Minister of Education
Ph: 418 644-0664
E-mail: line.beauchamp@mels.gouv.qc.ca

By Post:
Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport
Édifice Marie-Guyart
1035, rue De La Chevrotière
16e étage
Québec (Quebec) G1R 5A5

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.

Leger-Marketing Poll: Quebecers want school vouchers and ERC optional or scrapped

We received this Press Release from the CLE.

A recent Leger-Marketing poll conducted for the Coalition for Freedom in Education (CLE) shows that 55% of Quebecers favour the introduction of school vouchers by which the government allocates a fixed amount of money for the education of each child and then lets the parents choose the school they prefer be it private or public. The Coalition supports this mechanism which gives parents more educational choice independently of their income.

More than three years after the Québec government imposed the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) as a compulsory program in Québec schools, only four out of ten Quebecers want the ERC course to remain compulsory. The majority of Quebeckers oppose the compulsory nature of ERC: a quarter of them would prefer it to become optional while another 29% would scrap it altogether and replace it with a course like French or Mathematics. This desire to return to basics is probably not altogether unrelated with the sharp decline in skills observed in the latest Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP-2010) which indicated that pupils in Québec have experienced sharp declines in reading skills (from the 1st place to the 7th spot) and in science (dropping from the second to last place).

According to the president of the Coalition for Freedom in Education, Sylvain Lamontagne, “these results show clearly that there is no consensus around the compulsory nature of the ERC program and that a majority of Quebecers want more freedom in education. Why does a government that prides itself in imposing this one-size-fits-all program in the name of diversity show no more respect for parents and their diversity?”

Over half of Quebecers (54%) think schools should have greater freedom in choosing the curriculum they teach and in how to teach it. For Patrick Andries, secretary of the CLE, “Québec parents are in line with results published by international bodies like the OECD that identify teaching freedom as an essential component to a quality education.” One should not only stress the administrative autonomy of schools and the evaluation of teachers. Indeed as the OECD states, “[i]n countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.¹” For the Coalition, granting additional freedom in what schools teach and how they teach it will better meet the future needs of Québec, while at the same time better respect the rights of parents.


The survey was conducted from February 27 to 29 2012 by Leger Marketing. The sample size was 1,001 people over 18 years from all regions of Quebec. The weighted sample chosen has a margin of error of ± 3.1% in 19 out of 20 cases.

---

[1] “School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance?”, OECD, October 2011.

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.

Were parents right? Poll shows the more you are grounded in your religion, the more you know about other religions

A series of Canadian Newspapers published the same story a week ago. It all started with The Gazette of Montreal. This series of articles prompted this answer from a reader.

Dear Sir,

I read with interest your article entitled “Group shows exposure to other religions likely to increase interest in own faith”¹ which you say confirms the “top court's statement that exposure to different faiths does not interfere with people's own religious traditions”.

I believe a few things need to be clarified.

First, the Quebec parents whose case was rejected by the Supreme Court never said that mere exposure to facts about other religions interfered with their passing on their faith; they said that the way the government was presenting those religions was doing so. The Ethics and Religious Culture program does not consist of a simple presentation of world religions. Instead, it adopts an approach that discredits religion in the eyes of the student by requiring the teacher to always present the religious content in juxtaposition with mythical and supernatural beings. In textbooks, this often leads to the presentation of Christ and other religious figures beside cartoon characters, for example. A common typical exercise in class is to invent one’s own religion.

Second, the top court's did not really say that “exposure to different faiths does not interfere with people's own religious traditions” but rather that the parents did not prove that it did interfere and that even if there was a little bit of “cognitive dissonance” associated to the ERC course, this was all for a good cause: learning to be “tolerant”. Tolerant to what the Court did not say precisely.

Lastly, finding a correlation between two variables in a poll does not prove causality. In fact, the poll could just as well be interpreted as saying that the more one is interested in one’s own religion, the more one is knowledgeable about other religions. And that is quite different to saying that the more you are exposed to other religions, the more you believe in your parents’ faith. You may, as an adult, be knowledgeable about your religion (incidentally not necessarily your parent’s one) and have more knowledge about religions in general. This seems a reasonable finding: a Christian will know quite a lot about Judaism for instance. But this does not mean that being forced as a child to be exposed to more religions (especially in a relativistic course) will make you more of a believer of your parent’s religion. And this is what was at stake in this court case. In fact, one could use the same poll to say that the parents were right: it is best for children to first become grounded in a given religion, this is apparently the best way to be interested in other religions as an adult.

P. Andries

---

1. See http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=6208552

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.

Teacher and principal: "ERC courses are considered irrelevant by most students and teachers whom I know."

Extracts from a letter published in The Gazette :

The recent unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision confirming the compulsory attendance of all students in Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture course came as a surprise to me. I had assumed that parents’ rights to introduce the concept of religion to their children would remain superior to the state’s inclination to do so.

Previous moral and religious courses gave parents the right to choose a variation of the course (morality without religion) that contained no direct reference to or instruction about religion. This parental right has been unilaterally removed as a result of the requirement by Quebec’s Education Ministry that all children attend ERC courses throughout elementary school and for four of the five high-school years. Surely there is a better use of all this academic time than ERC.

I find it unfortunate that the highest court in the land examined this case from such a narrow perspective: whether or not Catholic parents had the right to have their children exempted from this course. The parents were concerned that the ERC course was interfering with their children’s indoctrination into the Catholic religion.

But why should specific information about competing beliefs be taught in elementary schools? And why should schools suggest that any of these religions is worthy of blind belief, much less all of them?

These ERC courses are considered irrelevant by most students and teachers whom I know. Most teachers do not want to teach religion, for personal and professional reasons, and feel unprepared to do so. They might be religious and fear that they will not be able to maintain objectivity. Or they might be agnostic and fear that they might not be able to stifle their obvious doubt at some of the beliefs that some religions promote.

I know this: they all worry that something they say or do may bring the wrath of parents, or administrators, upon them. Witness the unfortunate music teacher publicly chastised recently by both the Quebec minister of education and the minister of culture because he had removed a reference to god from one of Edith Piaf’s songs.

Detailed teaching of religions should be removed from elementary schools, because it is not an age-appropriate topic. References to religions, on the other hand, should be acceptable at any time, whether in history, English, music or any other course in which they occur as a natural part of the lesson.

The ethics part of the ERC course could easily become part of each school’s anti-bullying program. With great fanfare the Quebec government recently introduced a law that now obliges schools to have anti-bullying programs (therein downloading yet another responsibility to schools without providing any extra funding).

Most anti-bullying programs are excellent, and do more than just preach. They teach social skills that can help all children. Teachers need only one day of training to become familiar with the theory and practice of these programs. Teachers are provided with lesson plans that can be easily adapted to their classroom situations.

[...]

The amount of time and money that is presently devoted to the teaching of religion could and should be channelled into new and more sophisticated anti-bullying programs at both the elementary- and secondary-school levels.

It is not so much the proselytizing of the ERC course that I object to; it is the waste of teaching and learning time that occurs when bureaucrats in their bunkers in Quebec City see themselves as the arbiters of a new kind of theocracy.


Ronald Ewing of Ulverton is a retired teacher and principal who worked for 30 years for the Eastern Townships School Board.

---

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)