Liberal MP Mario Silva argues against Catholic public schools

At least that's the way I interpret this:

...institutionalized religious discrimination cannot be condoned or tolerated in this day and age.

Discriminatory practices, whether they are directed at Roman Catholics or anyone else, are simply incompatible with any nation that ascribes to itself the fundamental values of equality that we hold in such high regard.

Justin Trudeau is right about segregated schools

The National Post takes Justin Trudeau to task for his recent criticism of segregated schools, suggesting he read the charter of rights.

...Justin Trudeau's Friday outburst at a meeting of New Brunswick academics raises a more bizarre possibility: that even a child of the Charter's chief architect may not know what is actually in the document.

How else can one explain the incredible timing of Mr. Trudeau's rumination? If you had to choose a venue in which to suggest that the existence of separate anglophone and francophone school systems was obsolete, divisive and costly, you'd be halfcrazy to even put New Brunswick on the list. It's a place where the surviving linguistic minority was not only conquered, but terrorized and dispersed. It's the only province where linguistic equality and linguistically separate school systems are guaranteed explicitly in the Charter -- a document that devotes more of its length to language rights than it does to due process or voting.

Yet despite Trudeau's apparent ignorance of the charter's provisions on linguistic school boards in New Brunswick, fundamentally he is right. Whatever it says in the charter, segregating public school students on the basis of language is as objectionable as segregating students by race.

You can teach French in English schools and English in French schools, but most kids will finish their schooling functionally unilingual without sufficient exposure to native speakers of the language they are trying to learn. Consequently, most of the money we spend in this country on English and French second-language training is wasted.

Why not put the French and English kids together in the same school and teach them to become proficient in both French and English as Trudeau suggests?

In the rain with Trudeau and the Queen 25 years ago

It was raining that day on Parliament Hill when I and countless other proud Canadians stood in the rain to witness Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II sign the Constitution. Canada had at long last broken free of its colonial status.

Thrown into the bargain was a controversial Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although one of Trudeau's few real achievements, the charter has, nonetheless, been a disappointment. Intended to enshrine individual rights in the constitution, the charter has in many ways come up short.

First, the existence of that pesky notwithstanding clause means that governments can always override the charter if they see fit. While the argument for parliament supremacy is compelling, it is little consolation for non-francophones living in Quebec where the provincial government has repeatedly used the notwithstanding clause to circumscribe minority linguistic rights. We should not be surprised that majorities sometimes act like majorities. That's why we have a charter. Too bad that when it really counts, the rights of minorities can still be sacrificed.

Second, the charter has proven to be quite a malleable instrument in the hands of activist lawyers and judges, and has been used in ways that parliament never imagined, let alone intended. A constitution is a living document, the interpretation of which will evolve over time to reflect changes in broader society. Yet it is a fine balance between reflecting societal change and inducing it. I would argue that rather than being pulled by those changes, the charter has often been doing the pushing.

Finally, many people mistakenly believe the charter is about individual rights. It is not. We are not all equal before the law. In many cases, group rights trump individual rights. Consequently, if you are an aboriginal, a catholic or a francophone, to take three examples, you may have "rights" that the rest of us don't. In effect, individual freedom still sits at the back of the bus.

All the same, I think Canada is better off with an imperfect charter of rights and freedoms than without. For that, Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party deserve our appreciation. But please, spare me the mock indignation of Paul Martin and others that our rights are somehow threatened by a Conservative government. The charter is there to protect the rights of all Canadians, not just the favoured causes of the left. Until it does, do not be surprised that some of us do not hold it up on a pedestal.