All posts by Chris Tindal

TVO Battle Blog: Religious School Funding

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “An Ipsos-Reid survey released on September 10 reported that 62% of Ontarians are against religious school funding. Did John Tory make a mistake politically by promising to fund faith-based schools?” (400 word limit)

Currently, Ontario uses public money to fund the schools of one denomination of one religion (Catholicism) to the exclusion of all others. On two separate occasions the United Nations has censured Ontario for this clear discrimination on the basis of religion. There are historical reasons why this may have made sense back at the time of confederation, but surely we can agree today that the status quo is unfair and unacceptable.

Given that, I personally concluded several years ago that there were only two options: we must either fund all religious schools or none. And there, in a nutshell, we have the positions of the Conservatives and the Greens, respectively. The fact that the Liberal party and the NDP argue that our government should continue to discriminate on the basis of religion is beyond my comprehension (particularly the cynical Liberal position, which is to pretend to oppose the funding of religious schools, when what they’re actually opposing is the equal funding of all religions).

On this specific issue, therefore, I don’t have much of a desire to criticize the Tory position too strongly, since at least it advocates for fairness. I do not believe, however, that their solution is workable or acceptable to most Ontarians. The Liberals are at least right when they say that the money to fund religious schools would inevitably have to be diverted from public schools, and I’m not sure I want my government getting into the business of deciding which religions are “legitimate” enough to deserve school funding. Did John Tory “make a mistake politically?” Maybe. More importantly, I think he’s mistaken in thinking that his solution is the best for Ontario.

The Green Party position [pdf], on the other hand, is to create one publicly funded school system, where children of all religions and creeds can learn together, and from each other. It is the most realistic and sensible position, and enjoys the support of most Ontarians. We can do it without opening up the constitution, just as other provinces have already done. In addition to resolving the current inequality, this will also eliminate duplications in administration, facilities and transportation between the Catholic and public school boards, getting more out of every education dollar. For me, it’s the obvious choice.

Gulf War Song

Yesterday evening, Tuesday, September 11th 2007, my brother Alex, my buddy Steve and I drove up to Barrie to play a show for Georgian College students at their campus bar, The Last Class, where Steve and I performed weekly for several years. At the end of our three-hour set, thinking about the thousands who lost their lives six years ago and the projected one million-plus who have lost their lives since in Afghanistan and Iraq, we spontaneously decided to close by singing Gulf War Song by David Matheson of Moxy Fruvous. I was pleasantly surprised to see more than one person in the audience singing along. The song was first recorded in 1992 by the Thornhill, Ontario-based band, but remains powerful, moving, and relevant. The below video is provided primarily for the audio–the images are hit and miss, IMO.

We got a call to write a song about the war in the Gulf
But we shouldn’t hurt anyone’s feelings
So we tried, then gave up, ’cause there was no such song
But the trying was very revealing
What makes a person so poisonous righteous
That they’d think less of anyone who just disagreed?
She’s just a pacifist, he’s just a patriot
If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?

Fighters for liberty, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don’t tell me I can’t fight, ’cause I’ll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me

So we read and we watched all the specially selected news
And we learned so much more ’bout the good guys
Won’t you stand by the flag? Was the question unasked
Won’t you join in and fight with the allies?
What could we say…we’re only 25 years old?
With 25 sweet summers, and hot fires in the cold
This kind of life makes that violence unthinkable
We’d like to play hockey, have kids and grow old

Fighters for Texaco, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don’t tell me I can’t fight ’cause I’ll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we

He’s just a peacenik and she’s just a warhawk
That’s where the beach was, that’s where the sea
What could we say…we’re only 25 years old?
And history seems to agree
that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we

Is that how it always will be?

Friday Funny: Nuclear Edition

From federal Green Party riding executive Patrick Metzger, via Torontoist:

The Ontario government will spend around $27 billion on nuclear power between now and 2025 in a bid to keep the lights on in the province. If history is any indicator, the nuke plans will be characterized by inefficiencies, unanticipated delays,and massive cost overruns, but will at least ensure that future generations have access to a secure supply of radioactive waste.

What They Knew Could Hurt Them

The line from the Conservatives is that taking enough action on the climate crisis to avert catastrophe would damage the economy (as if that’s a real choice). Then, two months ago, we found out that their own experts told them that the Green Party’s climate plan would have a negligible effect on the economy, and that they tried to keep that report secret. Today, we find out that their own experts were also telling them that their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through tax rebates/feebates for new car purchases would be extremely inefficient with taxpayer dollars.

The Globe and Mail reports that a September 2006 report informed the government of the following:

The key findings from the working group are that the cost per tonne of GHGs reduced is high for all options; ranging from $150 per tonne for a permanent incentive that rewards very fuel-efficient vehicles without distinguishing between technology or class; to $2,350 per tonne, for example, for an incentive that differentiates between passenger vehicles and light trucks and expires after four years.

The second option–at a cost of $2,350 per tonne–is more or less what the government introduced in the last budget, and has since been a resounding failure. So, not only did they know that our plan (which, remember, is a tax shift of only $50 per tonne) would succeed in reducing emissions while not harming the economy, they also knew that their plan would be shockingly wasteful and produce mediocre results at best.

At first, I’m tempted to conclude that this government is trying to create economic damage with their climate inaction plan in order to prove themselves right, or even that they’re somewhat sociopathic. But then I’m reminded that I should never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.