Posted on 05/10/2002 3:50:09 PM PDT by Clive
Superior Court judges are appointed by the Federal government which means that most of them were appointed by a Liberal government.
This ruling, if it stands, nullifies the protection afforded to Catholic schools under the British North America Act (Now incorporated into the Constitution Acts 1867-1982) because it means that the courts can over-ride any decision based on religion.
Catholic schools in Ontario are now fully funded from tax dollars. When the Ontario government moved from partial funding to full funding, a friend phoned me and said "isn't it great, now we get full funding" to which I replied to the effect that it was merely the first step in a process which will eliminate Catholic schools.
Two of the Catholic schools having the best scholastic reputation (both boys' schools) apparently came to the same conclusion. Soon after full funding was introduced, they both withdrew from the Separate School system and reverted to their former status as private schools.
Now the separate school system is in the process of converting the boys' and girls' schools still in the system into co-educational schools.
So why is Cardinal Law in trouble, again?
Sounds like the golden rule... he who has the gold makes the rules. Bad choice.
They blew it and this case right here is the price that they must now pay.
VERMONT
I fully expect that he will, as an NDP candidate and a protoge of Svend Robinson.
I suspect that he is only Catholic to the extent that he can use the status to do some first class ordure stirring.
I'd love to see them enforce that. What are they going to do -- make them unlock the doors?
This putz sounds a lot like Walker D. Miller of the U.S. 10th Circuit in Denver. Did Canada allow Clinton to appoint Canadian judges too?
In fact the law is that Catholic education enjoys protection in English Canada and Protestant Education enjoys protection within French Canada.
This is built into the British North America Act 1867 which is the founding statute that created Canada and it was carried forth into the Constitution Acts 1867-1982. As such it is part of the Constitution of Canada.
A protected religious right is meaningless if the courts can supplant their own moral standards for the standards of the church whose rights are ostensibly protected.
There is no statute in Ontario that governs who must be allowed to attend a high school prom.
It is not Holy Mother Church that is breaking the law, it is this judge who is breaking a solemn covenant which was one of the conditions precedent to the colonies agreeing to join in a Confederation.
The School Board will, of course, appeal and this case is probbly on the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where I would fully expect Quebec to join as amicus curiæ to protect the several rights and prerogatives that were a condition precedent to it joining Confederation.
The same sort of sophistry that is used in your argument is the sort that has been used in the United States to gut the right of citizens to keep and carry arms under the United States Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.