|
Civil Rights in Public Education www.CRIPEweb.org |
|
Research Note #1
A brief
account of how and why we have a
Roman
Catholic separate school system
Any discussion of the separate school issue and what to do about
it to-day must take into account the origin of separate schools, over 150
years ago.
In 1841, when Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec)
were joined together in a legislative union known as the United Province of
Canada, the Day Act provided that "any number of Inhabitants of any Township
or Parish professing a religious faith different from that of the majority
of Inhabitants of such Township or Parish" may "dissent from the
regulations" and set up their own school.
At a time when religious intolerance was widespread, provision
for a religious minority to "dissent from the regulations" and therefore
from the religious majority, was a solution that suited the time.
The intent, then, of the original legislation, was to establish
social harmony by allowing antagonistic faith groups to separate in
different schools. The original intent was not to elevate any one faith
group into a position of privilege.
Despite the above, subsequent legislation made it easier to
establish separate schools for Roman
Catholics but more difficult to
establish them for others.
One piece of such legislation, the Tache Act of 1855, applied
only to Ontario,
but was introduced into the Legislature by a member from
Quebec,
and was passed on the strength of
Quebec votes.
Similarly, the Scott Act of 1863, which turned out to be the
basis of today's separate schools, applied only to
Ontario,
but was presented each
year for four years before it finally passed - again because of a solid
Quebec (Roman Catholic) vote. The vote was 76 to 31 for the Scott Act, but
the Ontario vote was 31 to 21 against.
These two acts demonstrate that Roman Catholic legislators of the United
Province of Canada, being a majority, voted into law, a privilege, for the
Roman Catholic citizens of Upper Canada (Ontario).
In the early years, the
Legislature was held alternately in Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower
Canada (Quebec) during the winter months. Many legislators were
farmers, and when the Ontario legislators met in Quebec, and the session ran
into spring, many returned home to tend to their land before the
legislative session was over. It was not unheard of for legislation to be
introduced late in the session when a number of Ontario members had left
for home, legislation which Ontario legislators may oppose.
In a flurry of activity prior to
Confederation, both the Quebec Protestants and the Ontario Roman Catholics
tried to improve their respective school provisions, which failed. It was
instead agreed that the settlement of 1863 should be embodied in the new
federal constitution of the Canadian provinces. Thus, section 93 of the
British North America Act ensured that any change to the school provisions
must be made with the approval of the federal government which ensured that
school privileges could not be removed prematurely, nor in a frivolous
manner.
MINORITY RIGHTS
Some writers refer to the laws which govern Roman Catholic
separate schools as "minority rights." It stretches the imagination to view
the largest religious organization in the province as a "minority." The
"minorities" are more properly Hindus, Jews, Serbian Orthodox, Muslim,
Anglican, etc. and they, as religious minorities, have no rights.
Politically, a "right" is an entitlement enjoyed by all
citizens as outlined in charters of rights. A "privilege" is an advantage
(or immunity) enjoyed by an individual citizen or group of citizens.
These “minority rights" (as some call them) are really
privileges, they are advantages or immunities enjoyed by a group.
MAJORITY PRIVILEGE
Publicly-funded separate schools for Roman Catholic citizens
represent a privilege given to the largest religious organization in
Ontario — the majority.
When talking about publicly-funded Roman Catholic separate
schools, we are not talking about minority rights, we are talking about
majority privilege.
No charter
of rights would ever grant a privilege.
Privileges
are anathema to rights.
|