…who pulls his son from a school run by fools.
What is the *matter* with Canadians that they put up with this sort of gelatinous totalitarianism?
“Gelatinous totalitarianism”! Snork!
Hm. I’m obviously in favor of pulling kids out of insane school environments, which certainly applies here. On the other hand, this young man is no longer a kid—and he’s clearly got the conviction and confidence to think for himself and buck the system. Based on the facts in evidence, his presence in the school seems to me to be more likely to effect positive change at the school (by example to the other students; by confronting the Man) than to effect negative change in himself.
The school was apparently to hold “discussions” about “finding the balance between exercising one’s religious freedom, and respecting others’ rights not to be criticized for their beliefs.” The principal expressed “disappointment” that the boy wouldn’t be “part of these conversations.” I think his presence in those “conversations” would have been a good thing, and I don’t see that it would be likely to have harmed him.
The father’s reasoning seems to be that the “discussion” detracts from academics and shouldn’t be happening at all. Well, maybe. Even so, I think back to that point in my life, and I’m pretty sure I would have preferred to stay and fight rather than retreat.
I wouldn’t want my son to attend the heavy handed re-education program that they were intending to put him through. They would weigh him down with peer pressure and the prospect of total social rejection until he screamed, “I love you, Big Brother!” on bended knee. It’s way too much pressure. Let them have their emergency brainwashing forums without him… save his soul.
This kid is almost an adult. If it were my son, I’d hope he could take it. I know I could have when I was that age. Heck, I would have REVELED in it. So would my 13-year-old son.
In Canada, I believe, the phrase is “poutineous totalitarianism”.
It happened the way such things always do: measures were put in place to protect people who were seen as honestly needing it — mostly immigrants who did on occasion run into genuine bigotry that made it difficult for them to find homes and jobs — and then once the people wielding those measures got a taste of the power involved, they began making it available for people who wanted to validate their egos and lifestyles rather than their livelihoods. (I myself do not believe that any such right as “the freedom not to be criticized for your beliefs” exists.)
In short, we picked up the Ring from a desire to do good.
And of course there’d be government officials involved in the ‘discussions’. This is Canada. They haven’t had freedom of speech for years. Just ask Mark Steyn.
Doesn’t the superintendent’s name sound like the exact one Dickens would have given her, had he invented her?
Are we jumping to conclusions here? I live in Alberta and my children have all gone to Catholic schools, where they have a dress code that includes cautions about what statements are worn on shirts.
I am not clear, from the article, on what is the background of the conflict, so I would be careful in concluding that there re-education programs are considered for implementation, just like I would be careful to conclude that further discussions may have proved useful.
However, I do ask myself how I would respond if it happened to my son here, or if a student at my son’s school sported a shirt claiming “a life for Jesus is a life wasted”. What would a prudent and constructive approach be? I like the pastor’s initiative to have 100 other students wear the shirt, but is it a good idea that promotes the Gospel?
Well, technically, we didn’t ‘put up with it’! There was a great loud hue and cry, the school backed down, but tried to save face with their ‘voluntary forums’ and the boy and his family said ‘No thanks.’
Unrelated ‘hue and cry’? ‘Hew and cry’? Hugh and Kerry’? None of these look right, somehow…
Would you be rallying if the kid wore a Che Guevara t-shirt or a shirt with Wiccan stuff on it?
I have this gut feeling that the kid wouldn’t have gotten into trouble, instead being praised for “diversity” or some other inane expression.
Solution: dye the shirt brown.
If this happened because he was wearing one of these, there would be riots to protest for his free speech rights. However it is more likely that he would never have been disciplined for wearing it in the first place. Free speech avenue only runs one-way here in Canada.
He’s dangerous…I wish he was in America so we could use a drone on him…