Superman's Wife, Lois Lane: Scourge of the Puer Aeternus Fanboy

Come September, Lois Lane and Clark Kent will no longer be married. Nope, they're not getting a divorce, but rather they were never married in the history of the upcoming reboot.

Many are disappointed. Some, however, are rejoicing. So, it's as good a time as any to examine the topic of why some fans of the Man of Steel just aren't fans of the love of his life.

Why is it that so many people do not like the Lois Lane character and disliked her marriage to Clark Kent?

I've seen quotes by people who say that it "restrains" Superman. Others say that it undermines the previous "two-person love-triangle" dynamic.

First, I'll look at the argument that it "restrains" Superman.

I've always felt that this reaction is from people who do not like the idea of Superman having a realistic and mature romantic human relationship with another person because it means he must show accountability and mutualism to another person, which, in their opinion, undermines the freedom and "power fantasy" aspects of the character.

In my humble opinion, this is sort of an immature and naive way to look at it. I think that, as an adult, it would stunt Clark Kent's progression for him to never have a mature and realistic romantic relationship with a woman he has loved for so long. I feel that the people who dislike the marriage for these specific reasons have a young, cynical view of marriage as "giving up fun and freedom and compromising one's way of life in return for accountability and dependency". It reminds me of the Charlie Harper character on Two-and-a-Half Men.

These are typically the same people who seem to dislike Lois Lane because she is an assertive female character, and use words such as "bitch" to describe her. I think that some people feel that such an assertive woman threatens Superman, who is supposed to be incredibly strong-willed. These people believe that a strong-willed man cannot be mutually accountable to an equally strong-willed woman. These people seem to want a "damsel in distress" Lois who pines for the powerful Superman and is more submissive and passive to his strength.

Of course, these are generalizations and not everyone who dislikes the marriage is like this. There are indeed many who disliked the Lane-Kent marriage who don't dislike the Lane character.

Now, there are people who prefer the "love triangle" between Superman, Lois and Clark.

I think it is understandable, because people who become familiar with what they consider "iconic" will not want to let go of it. Every comic book fan has that problem with at least a few timeless characters of the mainstream publications. With the DC Relaunch coming up, I'm getting a very poignant case of this.

However, I simply don't think that it is possible to maintain the love triangle forever. It would be emotionally static to have Lois pining after Superman and Clark pining after Lois with no moving forward forever. As a mature person, Clark would have to finally muster the courage to make his feelings known to Lois. I mean, he's not a middle school student who has a crush on a classmate. He's a grown ass man and he can't just admire Lois from a distance, waiting for something to happen but never taking action.

Similarly, it is important to depict Lois eventually having feelings for Clark, as over time it would be evident that Clark has most of the personality traits Superman has, but only keeps them hidden under a facade. Lois is smart enough to see through facades after time. Not only this, but having Lois fall in love with Clark would cement that Lois is not superficial and does not only love Superman for his powers. She rather loves his spirit, and it is logical that she would fall in love with Clark Kent as he has the exact same spirit as Superman.

That's just my take on it. I feel that the marriage is important and necessary to the Superman mythos, but it has not been depicted as forcefully as it could be because writers never really deal with it. It would make Superman very relatable to adults if his married life and the challenges that come with it were more heavily emphasized, as all married people have to deal with balancing their marriage and the rest of their lives and/or careers. Writers instead tend to ignore fleshing out the marriage and just have Lois slap Clark on the bum before he goes out to fight crime.

I think that Superman comics would be a whole lot more mature, relevant and relatable if the marriage was looked at in-depth. However, in the youth-oriented media, I think that people are afraid of maturity as they see it as hampering fun and dynamism.

Of course, I don't believe that every mature person must get married. Marriage is not for everyone. In fact, I'm sort of a counter-culturist myself and I think that people tend to place too much importance on man-constructed social institutions such as marriage. But I still believe that this fear of Superman's marriage is typically people projecting their own fears of commitment on to a character who has chosen to commit.

Personally, DC's decision to do away with the marriage brings back vague memories of a past Marvel Comics storyline that wasn't very well received...

I have asked Superman fans directly what they think about this subject. To see the responses, take a look at the below links.

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?messageID=2006629676&#2006629676
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=377158

The War on Drugs is a Failure. Time to Legalize all drugs.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy has announced that the "War on Drugs", a 40-year-old campaign by the United States to crackdown on drug trafficking and use, is a failure. Drug use still remains a prevalent problem, and the policy of the United States and the other participating nations involved in the War on Drugs has caused "devastating consequences".

However, nations such as Canada, the United States and Mexico staunchly refuse to reform failing drug legislation. Justice Canada spokeswoman Carole Saindon has stated, “Making drugs more available – as this report suggests – will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe." She does not give an explanation or reasonable rebuttal to the conclusions of the Commission's findings.

Existing drug laws have caused more problems than they have solved. There are various reasons why the government should consider legalization of both hard and soft drugs.

Reduction of Organized Crime

The War on Drugs is a prohibition. When the law makes a commodity illegal, they put the trade of that commodity in the hands of criminals. In the 1920's, the criminalization of alcohol gave birth to some that nation's most violent and organized criminals, such as Al Capone, Lester Gillis and Andy Wright.

Criminalization does not eradicate a commodity. The users will still find a way to purchase it. The only difference is that now those purchasers will be supporting gang warfare. The money used in drug purchasing aids violence and and murder in places such as Mexico, Columbia and West Africa. And it is not only the drug traffickers who who are harmed by this. Law enforcement and innocent bystanders are often caught in the crossfire. While drug users and the dealers who stand on the street corner may not always be physically dangerous by themselves, they are underlings in a wider pyramid who support the more dangerous people and organizations at the top.
Decriminalizing drugs will cut off the support systems of these criminals. When a product is legalized, private enterprise will always move in to profit off of it, and these businesses are accountable to the government for their business practices. You don't see Wal-Mart and Target employees drive-by shooting each other.

The government's current drug policy is playing into the hands of the criminal enterprise, who wouldn't be able to survive if drugs were sold by reputable businesses and monitored by the government. Crime rates would go down if drugs were decriminalized.

Drug Use and Rehabilitation
 
Contrary to popular belief, drug use has actually been seen to go down when it is decriminalized. Both Portugal and the Netherlands have seen decreases in drug use since decriminalization, as well as increases in rehabilitation rates.  Portugal saw a 63% increase in drug users who sought treatment. Drug addicts are more likely to seek help if they know that they will not be persecuted as criminals. People with addictions are ill. They require medical help to return to health, not punishment and jail sentences.

Not only did hard drug use go down, but soft drug use, as well. Non-addictive drugs such as cannabis saw reductions in use. Some have attributed this to the social taboo of marijuana and LSD. As soon as they are no longer illegal, they are no longer rebellious and therefore no longer perceived as "cool" among youth.

Drug addicts would be safer from harm if drugs were decriminalized. The Netherlands government gives out free heroin to addicts and supervises them in order to ensure that they do not harm themselves while high. This also ensures that drugs are not cut with other harmful substances.

It is a misconception that legalizing drugs would be equal to condoning them. On the contrary. No one is saying that drugs are good for you. The message would still be sent that narcotics are harmful. Only now we'd have a more effective way of fighting them.

Cost and Economics

Decriminalizing drugs would actually save money. The cost of the War on Drugs is far greater than the cost of setting up social services for the rehabilitation of addicts.

A study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron revealed that legalizing drugs would save the United States $44.1 billion a year from law enforcement savings and $32.7 billion in tax revenue, for a combined figure of $76.8 billion a year. Taxing marijuana would alone inject $6.7 billion into the U.S. economy.

If drugs were decriminalized, less money would go to catching small-time dealers and keeping ill addicts in jail. More money would go to getting people off of drugs and targeting drug sources. Extra money could also go to solving deficit problems, infrastructure, and social services for citizens.

Current drug policies in the West only contribute to the poverty cycle. People from lower financial classes are more likely to turn to drugs or drug trafficking to support themselves. Penalties for this often include removal of education opportunities and criminal records that make it difficult to find a job, leaving the drug trade as their only option.


Obstructions to Drug Policy Reform


The reasons for Western government not yet taking action on reforming their drug policies likely has to do with public perception. So much energy has been put into the War on Drugs from the start that ending it now would "look bad" on the current politicians.

Many South American nations were economically coerced by the United States government to partake in the War on Drugs. Mexico would not be able to legalize drugs without risking sanctions by the more powerful United States.

The Harper Government in Canada is pushing to regulate drugs even further, no longer allowing people who need cannabis for medicinal purposes to grow their own crop. They also intend on making jail sentences tougher across the board. This is the wrong action to take, and it will only result in further dire socio-economic consequences. There are too many reasons to end the war on drugs and not enough to continue it, but the anti-progressive propaganda is intent on hiding that fact from the masses.

Harper Begins is Majority Reign June 2, 2011. Canada Made the Wrong Choice.

The election was a month ago, but the Conservative Party of Canada officially begin their majority government tomorrow, when parliament reopens.

There are just too many reasons why voting in the Conservatives once again was the wrong choice, let alone giving them the majority. Here, let's put them is paragraph form.

Transparency Denied.

Under Stephen Harper's rule, the government now has the ability to hand-pick the journalists that they will speak to and just what questions they will be allowed to ask. Harper has also picked a select few party members who are allowed to speak to the media.

The media is no longer allowed to participate in scrums, which are a period after cabinet meetings in which reporters ask cabinet members candid questions. Harper refuses to let any of his MPs speak to the media unless he has okayed their rehearsed speeches.

"The reality is that every new government wants to keep a tight lid on its messages and this one in particular because it had the previous example of Mr. Martin who had so many priorities that they all turned to mush in the minds of the Canadian people," Harper stated back in 2006. So, pretty much, he thinks that the media shouldn't report on what the government is doing because Canadians are too stupid to understand it. Which I would disagree with, had Canadians not been stupid enough to re-elect Harper.

In 2007, the Toronto Star uncovered a $2 000 000 plot of the Conservative Government's to create a government directed media center benignly codenamed the "Shoe Store Project". The project was quickly scrapped as soon as Canadians caught wind of it. Even without the Shoe Store project, the fact that the Conservative Party tightly muzzles the press means that we still have our own MiniTrue, anyway.
Further adding to the list of Harper's Orwellian deeds is him throwing out rally attendees who were believed to be associated with Opposition members. And by associated, I mean that they've been in the same room before.

Senate Reform... JK JK LOL LOL LOL

“As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform – on their way to the top. The promises are usually made in Western Canada. And these statements of intent are usually warmly received by party activists, editorial writers and ordinary people. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government’s agenda. Nothing ever gets done.  And the status quo goes on.”

Believe it or not, the above quote is by Stephen Harper. From 2006. Harper has been in power for over five years now. And you know that thing called the Senate? It still hasn't reformed.

Harper is doing the exact same thing the Liberals before him did. Stacking the Senate with his partisan devotees to suit his needs, even when it goes against what the majority of Canadians want. What's worse is that he explicitly said that he would not do this. Acting against democracy is one thing. But doing that and lying about it?

People Don't Like How I'm Doing My Job? Okay, Time For a Vacation Then.

Each time Harper has faced severe backlash over his actions in Parliament, he has responded with proroguing parliament.  The first such time was after the vote of non-confidence. The second such time was after Harper faced criticism over the Afghan Detainee issue in which he promised the Afghanistan Government that he'd build them a new prison for the ethical treatment of prisoners... and never did it. 

If people don't like how you're doing things, just don't show up.

Ten Massive Leaps Backward for Climate Change Awareness and Sustainable Development!

 Uma Thurman isn't the only one out to kill bill (well you come up with a better pun, why don't you, Mr. smart-Mouth?) In 2010, the Conservative-stacked Senate killed Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which was meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, despite scientific experts saying that the bill was needed to help curb climate change.

Harper has previously stated that he would never let the Senate (which he promised to reform, remember?) go against the wishes of the majority of the elected House of Commons (which more closely represents Canadians than the appointed Senate), and he has done just that.

The Senate waited 193 days for a day when 15 Liberal Senators were absent, called the vote without notice and without debate, and killed the bill with 11 votes. 

We used to be an environmental leader, but we went to the UN negotiations without anything to show.

The Harper Government has not renewed funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science. Rather, it provides subsidies for oil companies, against the advice of Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the International Energy Agency.

Harper's Administration has also shown itself to be anti-scientific. Although peer-reviewed scientific research has show dangerous amounts of highly toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the Athabasca River Delta due to the activities of upstream bitumen mines and factories. The government, however, has downplayed this as being "natural" and has even claimed that levels are decreasing. That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say that the levels of toxin exceed three times the level that is known for causing liver cancer in fish. Levels are increasing and correlating with the level of annual bitumen production.

It was discovered by Mike De Souza that the government conveniently left out oilsands data from a national inventory on greenhouse gas emissions recently submitted to the United Nations. After being pressed for the information, Environment Canada revealed that the oilsands were responsible for 6.5% of Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions, up from 5% in 2008. That's more than the greenhouse gas emissions released by all the cars in Canada put together. Statistics point to this number rising to 12% by 2020.

Harper has continually stressed that the oil industry is "clean" and the future of Canada's economy. Scientists tell us that not investing in green energy will prove detrimental to both the environment and the economy.

Okay, I am as tired of typing as you are of reading, but that doesn't mean that I've run out of reasons why Harper should not have been re-elected. Stay tuned for part two tomorrow. Right now I've got to go to bed.

I shouldn't think about the Conservative Party directly before going to bed. I shall surely have nightmares of being taken to Room 101 for dissenting. Ciao.

A Brand New DC Universe. Is it Necessary?

By now, everyone and their pet salamanders has heard that the DC Universe will be rebooting come September. This will be the first company-wide mass retcon since 1985's Crisis on Infinite Earths. Of course, Zero Hour of 1994 and Infinite Crisis of 2005 also shook things up, but nowhere near this scale.
Accompanying this new DC Universe is a new release model. Digital comics are going to be released the same day as their print counterparts.

It's a lot to take in, yes. Lets try to break it down to smaller, digestible pieces.

Is a reboot necessary?

I definitely applaud DC trying to reach a wider audience with the digital model. Comic books are a niche industry enjoyed by a very small but loyal audience. There are many people not yet part of that audience who would like to be. All they need is to feel that these comics are accessible to them, which is difficult when they are only sold at comic specialty shops and are reliant on a fair amount of history and back story.

However, I do not feel that a reboot is required to make comic books more accessible. Rather, it alienates loyal fans and could possible put off new ones as well. I am a lot younger and newer to comic books than most of my fellow comic book fans. When I started my journey into sequential art and its shared universes, I did it because I wanted to see these characters as they are naturally. Creating a new version of a character puts off new readers, because you are getting rid of the very thing they came to see and replacing it with something else that they may feel does not quite represent the true essence of the character.

I started reading Wonder Woman collected editions shortly before JMS changed her status quo with a time-altering story. I immediately wanted to steer clear of the "new" Wonder Woman, because I came to Wonder Woman comics precisely because I wanted to see the Amazon princess who was given gifts by the Green Pantheon in order to aid the outside world. That is what I knew about her. That is what I wanted to read. Anything else, to me at least, just wasn't Wonder Woman.

People often think that it's the sentimental long-time reader who doesn't want iconic elements to be changed. This isn't always true. Many of the complaints come from people who are new to the comic or maybe wish to "get into" it but haven't gotten the chance yet.

The very allure of comic books is their rich histories of intertwined stories. Damaging that damages their main attraction.

A better way to gain new readers and keep comic books accessible does not require reboots or retcons. It lies simply in making periodic "jump-on points", in which new story arcs begin with enough internal clues to fill in new readers on what they need to know. For example, someone who has never put a Green Lantern comic to his or her face could easily pick up Sinestro Corps War, because the story restates the history of its characters along the way, eliminating the need for the reader to go back and read years of Green Lantern material. The story tells us that Hal Jordan was the first Green Lantern of Earth, that he was once possessed by the Parallax, and that Sinestro was a Green Lantern who turned evil and became and enemy of the Corps. In fact, the Green Lantern series picked up loads of new readers with this storyline. All without rebooting anything.

It seems to be the oddest time to decide to reboot. I was sure that DC was already on its way to a new status quo what with the reformation of the Justice League International, the return of Bruce Wayne as Batman, the new creative directions on both of Superman's titles, the end of the War of the Green Lanterns, and the conclusion of Brightest Day. It looked to me like this was all part of some plan for the development of the DC Universe. Rather, that DC Universe is getting axed right away in favor of the new one.

Are negative reactions to the "Reboot" just readers who are afraid of change?

It's not that I don't want characters to change; I do. The change is just more meaningful when done as character development due to situations that make characters look at the world differently then when it is done by a writer hitting an "undo" or "redo" button.

Change is good. Grant Morrison has shown that by re-invigorating the Batman franchise. Batman now has a completely new method of fighting crime, and long time readers as well as new ones are on board with this. But he did this with believable storytelling, not magic timeline alterations.

DC is definitely sending mixed messages about whether they are embracing change or trying to bring the DC Universe back to its most recognizable form. They kill off characters and replace them with new legacy characters, telling us all to "let go" of things while simultaneously bringing back Barry Allen, who had been dead for 20 years, so that they can return their Flash stories to the Silver Age model. Rumor's also going around that come the September reboot, Barbara Gordon will be back under the cowl of Batgirl. If she is indeed taking the mantle back after years, these are just more mixed messages.


Finally-- Jim Lee's costume redesigns.

While we still lack info on just how much will be retconned and revamped for the reboot, we have do know this: everybody's got a new costume.

I don't mind Aquaman's or Batman's new costumes, especially because I wasn't a fan of David Finch's Batsuit redesign. Hal Jordan also looks fine, except for the fact that he is curiously missing his ring.

Now Wonder Woman's and Superman's costumes... are another story.
When Jim Lee redesigned Wonder Woman's costume for JMS's Odyssey storyline, I naturally assumed that it was a temporary deal and that Wonder Woman would go back to normal shortly after. Wonder Woman's costume is changing, but it will change to a worse version of the Odyssey costume. The Odyssey costume wasn't bad at all, once that cheesy jacket was gotten rid of. Not as aesthetically pleasing as the classic duds, but it was okay. They new costume has eliminated the redeeming qualities of the Odyssey costume, leaving it pretty tough to look at.
As for Superman's costume, the high collar doesn't work with the cape latches at all. And the lack of red briefs makes the costume look incomplete.

The problem with Lee's redesigns is the lines. So much ribbing, details, seams and stitches. These kinds of lines look fine under artists who are inclined to use them, like Jim Lee, Lee Bermejo and David Finch. Making the lines part of the official character design, though, forces those details on other artists who wouldn't otherwise draw them in. It is much easier on everyone to leave the costumes plain, and allow the artists who do like all the lines the artistic license to draw them in, and those who don't like them the freedom to keep it simple.

Personally, I find that Lee's designs invoke Rob Liefelds pouch-soaked designs and the general aesthetic of Image comics rather than something I'd expect from DC. Might as well put a scar over everyone's left eye as well and have them all carry really big guns.

The problem with a company-wide redesign is that it gives a few of DC Comics' employees a monopoly on the new direction of every single character in the DC Universe. As much as I love Geoff Johns, he has shown that he is more proficient at writing some characters rather than others. Johns' Green Lantern? Great! But, I'm not sure that I want to see a Wonder Woman or Green Arrow that is recreated in Johns' and Lee's vision.

That's my impression of the move so far. It's subject to change, but so far, I have mixed feelings. Now all that remains is to see exactly what details of the world's greatest superheroes are going to change. Green Lantern and Batman are probably safe, being in the hands of fan-favorites Geoff Johns and Grant Morrison. Everyone else is vulnerable to massive change.

Behold My Magic Ball.

Right now, I am holding a ball. It is a rather interesting ball. Some may even call it a magic ball.

If you were to be able to see me right now, you might say, "you are not holding a ball, your hands are empty". That is because this is an invisible ball, and you cannot see it with your bare eyes.

You may reach into my hands, feel nothing but air, and ask me, "if you are indeed holding an invisible ball, why can't I feel it? Why is my hand going right through it?"
You being unfamiliar with the ball, I'd have to explain to you that this ball cannot be felt due to the strange properties of its atoms.

This ball also cannot be detected by radar, because radio waves go right through it rather than bouncing off. It cannot be detected by infrared, X-ray, ultraviolet, gamma or microwave detecting devices for similar reasons. No known wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum has interacted with this ball in a way that anyone on Earth can observe with current technology.

The unknown substance or substances that the ball is made of do not seem to react with any other known substance.

My magic ball is odourless. Even as I bounce it against my wall, it is soundless. It has no discernible taste.

It is highly compressible and can become a point mass if placed in an area of limited space.

Nonetheless, the ball exists. While I cannot prove it, I am sure of it. If you beg to differ on the subject of the existence of my magic ball, that is perfectly fine, but remember, unless you find a way to disprove the existence of my magic ball, my belief that the ball exists is just as valid as your belief that it doesn't and both of our beliefs have the same level of plausibility.

If you develop a new method of detection and still cannot detect my ball, then it is possible that your invention is simply not advanced enough for the task.

I will spend the next few hours playing with my magic ball.



Now, most reasonable people would tell me that my claims of a magic undetectable ball are ludicrous and would not believe them. Even if they could not disprove the existence of the ball because of my numerous  ad hoc qualifications, the onus would not be on them to disprove my ball, but rather on me to prove it because I am the one who made the claim.

As Bertrand Russell illustrated with his hypothetical teapot, the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the new positive claim and not whoever is refuting it, because any claim could shield itself from repudiation by being careful to add enough ad hoc hypotheses.

If not for this, if I were to maintain that leprechauns indeed do exist, I could come up with countless reasons why we have not seen evidence of them. Leprechauns are much smarter than humans and can avoid detection. Leprechauns simply do not want to be found by us, so we will never find them. To this date, there hasn't been conclusive evidence that leprechauns do not exist.

Using enough ad hoc hypothesis would render my leprechaun claim unfalsifiable and unverifiable. In terms of reasoning and logic, unsupported unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims are generally not considered valid or scientific because they are impossible to test or observe.

When asked by theists why I do not hold their beliefs in a deity, I usually respond that there is simply not enough proof of the existence of any sort of god to convince me. Too many times, they will respond with "Well, you don't have any proof that there is no god, so your position isn't any more justified than mine."

But claims of the existence of a deity are impossible to disprove. There is no onus on me to disprove them in order to justify my position. It is on the theists to provide evidence for their position, which they are yet to do.

If I tell them that I cannot see god, they say, "well, of course not, he doesn't have a physical body!" If I tell them that my prayers go unanswered, they will respond, "that's because God has a reason for not answering your prayers right away!" An ad hoc hypothesis for every argument.

If belief in a deity is considered just as valid as non-belief, then belief in my magic ball is as valid as non-belief.

More Equal Than Others: The Catholic School System in Canada.

            Like many developed Western nations, one of Canada’s core political values is religious freedom. However, the extent of Canada’s religious freedom and equality is vague, as Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while allowing freedom of conscience and religious practice, does not explicitly state that the church must be separated from the state in the same manor that the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution does.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Fundamental Freedoms)

 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

   The omission of such a clause has allowed since 1620 the public funding of the Roman Separate Catholic School District in Canada.
                Historically, the way the separate school system worked was this way: in provinces that had a Catholic majority, people of the Protestant faith had the right to set up a separate school district. In provinces of a Protestant majority, Catholics could set up a publicly funded separate school system. No other faiths have this right.

                Why are these two religions the only ones with the right to establish separate schools in Canada? The answer lies in the European colonization of Canada. The early settlers were predominantly Christian. The Seven Years War (1756-1753) ended with the British Army and Navy’s victory over the French army at Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759), leading to the Treaty of Paris (1763). As the British feared a French insurrection, they granted the French settlers a set of special rights in order to appease them. One such right is the ability to establish separate Catholic schools, the preferred Christian denomination of the French, despite the predominant denomination of the victorious British being Protestantism.

                Protestant schools had been replaced by the secular public school system since the 1960s. This leaves the Roman Catholic School system as the only publicly funded faith school system still active in Canada.

                During the 1990s, many provinces abolished publicly funded faith schools. Today, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are the only provinces that continue the practice.

Why publicly funded faith schools should be abolished:

Equal Rights- In a nation that affirms equal rights and freedom of conscience, it is socially and morally unjust to allow public funding for some religious institutions and not others.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees free exercise of religion but stops short of promising disestablishment, it is impossible to have true freedom of exercise without disestablishment. No group can truly be considered free when they lack the rights of another group.
               

In 1996 (Adler v. Ontario), Susie Adler took up the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, demanding that Ontario recognize Jewish Canadians’ right to receive a publicly funded faith school board and have equal legal rights to Roman Catholics. The Court ruled against her. This only re-cemented that the Canadian government does not value cultural equality,

The Roman Catholic School System is also legally allowed to openly discriminate against non-Catholics. Non-Catholics students must receive special permission to enroll in a Catholic school. Teachers and instructors must be practicing Catholics in order to teach in the Catholic School District and must present a faith letter signed by a Parish Priest, a “Declaration of Faith and the Practice of the Ministry of Teaching in a Catholic School” (also signed by a Parish Priest), and a certificate of Baptism into the Catholic Church in order to be eligible for the job. This is clearly in violation of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, “Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.”

               Multiculturalism- As the purpose of the Roman Separate Catholic School System is to separate students of Catholic faith from others, attendees of Catholic schools do not learn to cooperate and interact with people of other cultures the same way attendees of public schools do. As students tend to meet most of their friends through school, a student who attends a Catholic school is less likely to befriend people of other religions than a student who attends a secular school is. This is adverse to Canada’s official policy of multiculturalism. Young people accustomed to the homogenous environment of a Catholic school will have greater difficulties integrating into Canada’s cultural mosaic.

Year Seven Religious Material

               Indoctrination- Students who attend a Catholic school are instructed to worship in the Catholic faith in their curriculum. Taxpayer money is being allocated to an organization that teaches students a mixture of fact and dogma. Activities such as prayer and mass are compulsory. Students who do not complete the religion course are forbidden from attending their own graduation ceremony. Information taught in the religion courses is often biased, incomplete, and without objectivity



                Students who attend Catholic schools are at risk of not enjoying the same wealth of health education secular students enjoy. For example, the sex education is presented from an “abstinence only” standpoint, completely ignoring safe sex precautions. Contraceptives such as condoms are only mentioned in the context of their failure or incompatibility with Catholic teachings. Studies show that young people who are not informed about safe sex are at higher risk of contracting STIs and conceiving at a young age.

Excerpt from a Religion 20 Instruction Book

                The Calgary Catholic School Board opted out of vaccinating fifth grade students with the HPV vaccine, fearing that it would “encourage promiscuity”, despite the fact that sexual intercourse is not the only channel of contracting HPV. As a result, less than 20% of female Catholic School students received the vaccine, while over 70% of female secular school students were vaccinated. This may be due to the high cost of the vaccine, which amounts to $150 dollars if not received through the school. Bishop Frederick Henry stated that the Calgary Catholic School Board’s decision was meant to put the decision in the hands of parents rather than the school. However, in secular schools, the vaccine still required parental consent to be administered.

                Students who attend Catholic Schools are also discouraged from expressing views contrary to those of the Catholic Church’s. In 2011, seven students were suspended from their Catholic school in Thunder Bay, Ontario, after wearing “pro-choice” shirts and pins during a school-organized “pro-life” event.

                Unnecessary expenditure- The two-school system costs more to sustain than a one-school system would. Resources are thinned out in order to support two parallel systems. A common sight in cities such as Calgary is two schools located within a short proximity of each other. The funding of separate staff, resources and facilities creates an unnecessary lag on the education system and makes it less efficient.

Why has the separate school system been allowed to continue?

                While the matter has been taken up to the Supreme Court of Canada many times, the Supreme Court cannot abolish the system because the right to separate schools is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867 and is reaffirmed in Section Twenty-Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada still has not moved away from the archaic model of religious education established by the early pioneers.

What is being done to solve the issue?

                The United Nations Human Rights Committee has twice found Canada in violation of human rights protocols for its permission of separate faith schools and has urged Canada to "eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

                The One School System Network, a coalition of teachers, civil rights activists, and secularist and religious groups have rallied to put an end to the public funding of separate religious schools.

                Former education minister of Alberta David King is a prominent voice in advocating the end of public funding to faith schools in Alberta. You can sign his petition at http://www.separateschooleducation.ca/petition.php.

What is the best way to solve this issue?

                In order to promote complete religious equality, either all faith schools must be publicly funded or none of them can be. As it would be infeasible and economically disastrous to create a separate school board for each faith, privatizing all faith schools is the ideal decision.

                Parents should have the right to educate their children in their faiths, but this should not be done through public funding. Parents have the responsibility to handle such matters by themselves.
                Canada needs to affirm the separation of church and state by adding a disestablishment clause to the Charter. This will put to rest further issues of religious inequality once and for all.

 

Links

 http://www.separateschooleducation.ca/

http://separateschooleducation.ca/blog/

http://www.canadasdirtylittlesecret.com/

http://boingboing.net/2011/03/17/public-catholic-scho.html