Fcuk the NDP

[mtkb]

My Elitist comment more refers to private schools such as Southridge etc. And no I don't think religious schools should be subsidized, you want your child to be taught your particular religion in school you can pay for it, all of it. That's my view, I'm allowed to have one and trust me there are a lot of people that feel that way. I personally rather see the money go to the public school system and yes I realize its not that simple to solve all these funding issues.

Are openly gay children allowed or encouraged to be in EVERY religious private school? Are they taught that its okay? I know at pacific academy homosexual parents are told not to apply as its considered a sin. Sorry I don't support this line of thinking and don't want a dime of my money heading in that direction. Maybe you support that, I don't.

I don't want to get into a religious debate and spin in circles but that should clear up one issue of my view that is cut and dry.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail recently (rather than the BC Catholic) suggesting that going to a religious school actually inoculates the attendees against the given religion. They didn't share the data they had to back that claim up, but having gone through the system it certainly rings true to me. No sex before marriage? Uh, sure. Gay is bad? Yeah... lots of awesome people out there who are homosexual. Church every Sunday? Not during football season. Oh and I'm good to do whatever I want so long as I manage to confess to it all before I croak? Awesome!

Taking religion isn't the boogeyman many secular parents make it out to be. The position comes from a profound ignorance of what those schools are all about. And as far as funding goes, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure my parents paid the same taxes as people who sent their kids to public school...

 

[Sniffer]

According to what i read today the stand off has nothing to do with money, benefits etc, it is all about the Court case...here is what was written by a BC Lawyer

You want to know why the BCTF and the Liberals are in a current stalemate in their negotiations. It's pretty simple, but I can't believe it took me until now to figure it out. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
Everything goes back to Justice Griffin's ruling by the BC Supreme Court. As many of you know, Justice Griffin ruled against the BC Liberals and found them guilty of illegally tearing up a legally-binding, negotiated contract (a contract which had class size and composition language in it). The Liberals were also found to have negotiated in bad faith, having goaded the BCTF into a strike position.
Because the ruling is currently under appeal, the Liberals have been able to avoid re-instating the classroom size and composition language into the present contract. But this is the BIG CRUX, and this is why we are in a current stalemate: if the Liberals legislate teachers back to work, they will confirm to the courts that they are once again unable to negotiate a contract with teachers. The Griffin ruling will therefore remain as the most 'current' language in the contract. But, and this is a big but, if the BCTF 'accepts' the current offer on the table (an offer that does not have any class size or composition guarantees), then the Griffin ruling (moving forward) will be seen as null and void. In other words, a 'negotiated' agreement will be viewed as the most present and legal contract moving forward.
And that is why we are at a current stalemate in bargaining. If the BCTF accepts anything 'less' than what the courts have already awarded them (but actually don't yet have because of the appeal), then they will have to accept these terms moving forward. It will invariably trump the Griffin ruling and any hopes of re-establishing classroom size and composition to past levels. Why would the BCTF accept anything less than what the courts have told them is legally theirs?In my opinion, the BCTF have no choice but to NOT accept the current Liberal offer, an offer that is not even close to what Justice Griffin has already awarded them. As a result, it is absolutely crucial that the BCTF out-wait the Liberals and stay on strike. And yet, on the flip-side this is extremely difficult for teaching professionals who both want to start school on time AND earn their first pay cheque in 10 weeks.
The only hope, then, is that the people of this province do not allow the Liberals to keep schools closed through September. Because, in all honesty, they are NOT acting on behalf of our children, they are merely taking a political stance that (yes, I agree) would allow them to continue their fiscal austerity when it comes to funding education. And, to a certain degree, this was their campaign promise. And the people of BC did vote them in.
The BCTF simply can't fold on this one. The courts have spoken. They won fair and square in the courts. Only an appeal keeps them away from this. The BCTF (teachers) are simply standing up for what the courts have legally awarded them.
It is a historical moment in BC regarding how education is funded. While we all want our children in school, hopefully the above has helped to explain why we are at a current stalemate. Accepting a deal that is anything less at this moment in time just doesn’t make sense. The Liberals hold the cards in terms of starving teachers out; the teachers hold the biggest card, however: the Griffin ruling.

 

[johnnybluenose]

Most of my most hippy-dippy morally void and faith/God-opposed friends and acquaintances were brought up in Religious Houses and/or Religious Schools. So there's that... as mtkb said... I'd say as much of that had to do with Parenting Style as it did Doctrine and Relgious Rules around whatever faith was being practiced.

You think the crap that Trinity Western University is going through with respect to their Law School would be suffered by a Muslim Private University? I think not... it would become a racism and cultural thing versus a freedom of religion vs human rights thing, I'm not a lawyer so I'll leave the finer details of that up to our resident expert mtkb.

The problem and thus the answer isn't "Should private schools receive any government funding?" it should be "Can the government afford to fund these ~80k students without partial subsidization by parents, churches/mosques/temples, & scholarships in the independent system"

You throw 80k kids into the BCEd system and the only happy people are the Vancouver Regional Construction Association (yay new schools!) and the BC Teachers Federation, because some of the 40,000 unemployed teachers will not have a class to teach, in their Closed Shop, and thus they will generate more dues in order to fight anything tooth and nail the government of the day is doing. Because they're dicks.

 

[mtkb]

The TWU issue is all about the oath that students are forced to take. Essentially swearing allegiance to no sex before marriage and the sanctity of marriage being between a woman and a man goes beyond simply attending a religious school.

For me, the problem is reconciling that oath with a TWU trained lawyer having to fight for every client they have, regardless of what their personal views are. I'd love to see a TWU grad take on the Little Sisters Bookstore as a client the next time their door gets kicked in. Their only choice would be to repudiate the TWU oath out of necessity, which raises a different and obvious issue.

I would also love to sit in on the Charter course at TWU when they lecture on the equality provisions found in s. 15 .... sexual orientation being a recognized ground and all...

I have very grave concerns about a TWU grad being able to act for their clients in the way required by our profession, and wouldn't in a fit consider hiring anyone from such a law school...

 

[utah]

I have played with a few TWU guys over the years....
From my experience I think they would be just fine.

 

[freddy]

I have played with a few TWU guys over the years....
From my experience I think they would be just fine.

Played with . . . as in how priests play with them? I know they think it is fine.

 

[mtkb]

fair enough, but very few of them would ever get articles in this province... the lawyers voted 3200 to 900 to ask the benchers to reconsider their acceptance of the law school... to get 4000 lawyers out to debate and vote on anything (given that the total number of billable hours being accrued is 0) is telling of how strongly we all feel about making sure TWU does not get a law school...

 

[Sir M]

Great let's get more lawyers involved.

That will help.

 

[johnnybluenose]

So a qualified but practicing orthodox jew or muslim would not make a good lawyer also?

 

[Regs]

"The B.C. Liberal government gave some weak excuses, but not a single legitimate reason for saying no,” said Iker. “If it’s a matter of policy, then change it. You are the government after all."

Hey Jimbo, the government is trying to change policy but you'll have none of it (E80).

What a colossal waste of time today's "big announcement" was

 

[Konk]

Hey Jimbo, the government is trying to change policy but you'll have none of it (E80).

What a colossal waste of time today's "big announcement" was

The government is trying to get around previous court decisions (which went against them) with clause E80. They also just rejected binding arbitration. I don't think they are interested in resolving this anytime soon.

 

[johnnybluenose]

What utter and complete shite @Konk

The CS/CC being entered into the CBA in '98 (IIRC) and "Stripped" in '02 by Ms. Clark was a poison pill sunk into that CBA by the NDP who knew full well they were headed for a 3-4 term minimum time out by the BC Electorate. Campbell and Clark had no choice but to change the laws that running a deficit was illegal and then strip those clauses from contracts because the NDP, as the most pro-union party ever (The unions put them there) couldn't make peace with CUPE, TF etc and NO GOVT would be able to balance a budget if they gave unions remotely close to what they asked for. They did and here we are.

I'm not one for referendums (referenda?) but laws are laws, If I were in the Liberals right now I'd be beating the drum that what the TF wants is not sustainable nor affordable without either a tax increase or cutting of services elsewhere. If we believe Mike DeJong he says the average British Columbian will have an increase of $200 per family on their civic property taxes per year, not to mention BC Income Tax hikes. Or.... Open the Shop, somehow someway (The Courts are just going to continuously uphold the previous decisions of bargaining in bad faith and illegal rights stripping) the laws need to change or the TF Monopoly has to end... or we hike taxes, because the TF thinks they know how to better spend your tax money than the people you elect do...because they're a union. And that's what unions do.

Not sure how old you are Konk, but perhaps you don't remember the pre-NDP Economy and Business scene in BC and what it looked like under NDP rule, and what it looks like now. We are among the best Tax Jurisdictions for Corporations in the world (Meaning it attracts all those "green" companies to start up and/or move here, you know those firms that the TF thinks we should be working with to continue the economy with instead of P&P, Forestry, Mining and O&G) We have the lowest overall per capita income taxes in Canada, meaning some services have costs and/or are pay-per-use instead of entitled meaning families have choice. The TF is a union, not a think tank, not some bastion of Children-at-heart, and certainly not an authority on economics & tax policy.

 

[johnnybluenose]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...roval-of-binding-arbitration/article20480478/

Some real good quotes here by Iker.
on the TF voting whether or not to approve binding arbitration:

“Again, it’s us proposing solutions. We think it’s the fastest, easiest solution right now,” union president Jim Iker told reporters on Monday, as the strike marched into its second week of delaying the school year.

He neglects to say how that impacts BC's Budget and Tax payers across the province, he also neglects to mention the knock-on from Me-too clauses the Nurses CBA will have, and the nurses are nuts to begin bargaining till the TF are done.

Iker called the government’s refusal over the weekend to accept the resolution “a political knee-jerk reaction.”

Yeah, because being bankrupt, like the TF Strike Pay fund, is of major political significance (tongue planted firmly in cheek in case you're missing it)

 

[STD]

(tongue planted firmly in cheek in case you're missing it)

Christi thanks you for it and asks if you wouldn't mind getting the other cheek.

 

[Regs]

Better her's than Iker's!

Ewwww....

 

[mtkb]

on the issue of lawyers, anyone that swears an oath contrary to what is required to practice law is, inter alia, unfit to practice.

on the issue of the teachers, I see no reason why both sides couldn't craft an agreement that was subject to the ultimate resolution of the court case... that is, of course, if both sides wanted a resolution...

 

[Regs]

Good read on some of the history of this "conflict":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...bcs-teachers-and-governments/article20285359/

 

[Sir M]

Inter Alia...did they merge?

 

[bandcamp]

Inter Alia...did they merge?

Not bad M

 

[johnnybluenose]

So they have a tentative deal. Vince Ready to the rescue again.

http://o.canada.com/news/b-c-teachers-employers-reach-tentative-deal

A deal is a deal, but who blinked?

Ratification vote Thursday, school likes like it will be open Monday.