Setting policy on the backs of teens
SOD'S OPERA / It's still possible to avoid a wrenching legal battle
Marcus McCann / Toronto / Friday, March 18, 2011
Share |

It is cruel to ask 16-year-olds to carry the weight of a multiyear court case on their backs. It is doubly cruel because it need not be so.

And yet, it could all end up in court.
 
Leanne Iskander and Taechun Menns are astonishing people, for any age. They — along with as many as 30 others — are part of a gay-straight alliance (GSA) at St Joseph’s Catholic Secondary School in Mississauga, Ontario. The problem is, their school principal, Frances Jacques, told them they can’t have a GSA.
 
So, for the time being, they’re doing what teenagers do best — meeting at the mall. That’s right: like generations that came before them, they’re not taking no for an answer.
 
Jacques’ statement to Iskander, that “a GSA is premature for your age,” is cribbed from a homophobic teaching manual authored by Ontario bishops in 2003. By edict from the Catholic bishops, clubs that use the word gay are to be discouraged, since gay sex is “deficient” and gay students are called to a life of abstinence.
 
A couple of weeks ago, gay Liberal MPP Glen Murray got jammed up over the Catholic GSA question on Twitter. In response, Murray challenged those who were upset to find a test case. Iskander, Menns and their hapless principal have provided just such a case.
 
The question is, what now? The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says that forbidding students from forming a GSA is unconstitutional. Should that case be made before the courts, with St Joseph’s at the centre?
 
Well, the short answer is no.
 
The provincial Liberals, under Dalton “the education premier” McGuinty, can and should intervene. They should start — today, preferably — by making known their displeasure about the treatment of gay teens by Ontario’s Catholic schools. Condemn the caveman teaching materials supplied by the bishops. Discipline the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board.
 
Then there’s Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky, who, knowingly or not, has become the Minister of Bigotry. Dombrowsky stayed silent when Halton Catholic schools tried to stitch a GSA ban into its board policy. This time around, she ought to speak up. Otherwise, she’s siding with the bullies over the students.
 
Then there’s the school’s principal, Frances Jacques, who owes an apology to her students. It’s the Christian thing to do. And if she won’t, then the Dufferin-Peel board’s director of education, John Kostoff, should.
 
This winter, Xtra was told repeatedly that there is no “official” ban on GSAs in the province’s Catholic schools. If that’s the case, McGuinty, Dombrowsky, Kostoff or principal Jacques can turn this around.
 
The Ontario election — Oct 6 — looms. Some have questioned whether it makes sense to press this issue before the election. Others — the party faithful — say the Liberals are afraid to meddle with Catholic schools before the election but will take care of it in 2012 or 2013, once they secure a third mandate.
 
There is, I’m afraid, no reason to believe this is true.
 
The bishop’s guidelines have been in place since 2003, when the Liberals were first elected. A comprehensive curriculum update failed to comment on it. Two elections were fought on education, and the GSA ban was never mentioned. Why should we believe that the third time’s the charm?
 
In fact, after word broke that the Mississauga GSA had been denied, Murray continued to insist that “there are GSAs in many schools,” including Catholic schools. It shows that he and his party would rather obfuscate than deal with it, at least in the short term.
 
A couple of weeks ago, Brenda Cossman — the law professor who heads the University of Toronto’s sexual diversity studies program — weighed in, challenging Murray. She referenced a gay teacher who was fired for being gay and a high school student who wanted to take his boyfriend to the prom. Both fought protracted legal battles.
 
“Do we really need to drag another [Delwin] Vriend or Mark Hall through this?” she wrote.
 
The point is, we don’t need to.
 
There is a whole chain of people — starting with the principal and going all the way up to the premier — who could avoid dragging these teens through the courts.
 
I suspect Iskander, a cool-headed and articulate advocate, would be up to the task.
 
And Iskander will have help if she wants it, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Egale, Queer Ontario and Xtra — not to mention Cossman and half the Twitterverse.
 


Share |


Reader Comments


 
a solution for Catholic schools
Here is a way out of this without fighting it out in the courts, the catholic school boards could just insist that their view that gays and lesbians live a sex free life be a part of the charter of any Catholic school GSA. That way the Catholics can tell their gay and lesbian students what their church expects of them and then the GSA could go ahead holding business as normal. After all GSAs are not sex clubs there will be no gay or lesbian sex going on in them so this way the Catholics get their message across while the gay and lesbian students get the support they need. Of course I don't really believe that this has anything at all to do with Catholic doctrine, except that's what the administrators are hiding their homophobia behind, so I don't expect instructing members of GSA in the Catholic church's expectations of them will suffice for them since their goal seems to be nothing more than keeping gays and lesbians out of sight and to deny their existence. Why else would they make the utterly laughable claim that teenagers don't have a sexual orientation yet? Sadly I think its going to change only when we have a provincial gov't with the balls to tell the Catholic schools that they either abide by the Charter or they lose their funding.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
03/18/11 8:11 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Agreeing with Rich, more or less
If the Catholic school boards are only supposed to "discourage" GSAs, then there really shouldn't be a problem here. Principle: "We'd really rather you didn't form a GSA." Students: "Okay, we understand that and we understand why. We'd like to anyway." There, problem solved. The school has discouraged it and taught them Catholic values. If the principle comes back and says "No, you can't," then they she's the one who can take the blame when it comes time. Alternately, the students could find another name, like "Queer", "Homo", "Rainbow", or whatever other euphemism gets past the restriction. If they really want to make their point, there's always the "Fags, Dykes, On The Fence, Trannies, and Breeders Alliance"...after proposing something as all-around offensive as that, the principle should be THRILLED to let them have just a GSA alliance. :)
Robert Morley, Ottawa Ontario
03/19/11 2:22 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Let's not allow ourselves to be stuck
A couple of thoughts. First around the Catholic issue about not accepting same sex, sex. Well seems to me they also do not allow/accept out of marriage sex so really there is no problem with a group meeting since, as was already pointed out, no one is having sex in the school at the club meetings. Second is the realty that there really is no reason to call it a gay straight alliance. I'm guessing there are dykes, people who are bisexual, crossdressers, people born with transsexualism(who could be straight/lesbian/gay/bi etc), people born with an intersex condition, those who are gender queer etc who also might be attending, or wanting to, these groups. The greater queer community isn't just represented by one term but by many so how about using one that actually shows the great diversity.
Little ole me, Toronto Ontario
03/19/11 11:51 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
...
Cases like this only show that the Catholic school system should be dismantled. Since the public system isn't exactly a beehive of Protestant ideology and belief and since the separate system was created when Catholics were a minority, to protect their religion and ways... it must be dismantled and amalgamated into one system, free of religious doctrine and dogma. The use of Government resouces to fund this system cannot continue especially when an increasing majority of both Catholics and Protestants are fast becomming the fuel behind extremely partisan politics in Canada. History tells us when a political movement attempts to court either or both little if anything is spared in the drive for ideological purity.
Andrew McInally, Mississauga Ontario
03/19/11 12:47 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Gah!
I can't believe I spelled it "principle" three times in a row! Guess it's been too long since I've been in school. :) I have to agree with Andrew, though. The Catholics no longer represent a sufficient minority to warrant their own school system. Jewish, Islamic, Pagan, whatever...those might still be appropriate for private schools, but Catholics are part of the tapestry that makes up the majority at this point and the only thing that does is to encourage separatism, and perhaps a little elitism as well.
Robert Morley, Ottawa Ontario
03/19/11 4:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
..
I'm fine with private schools. Private meaning no public funding, no indorsement or anything of that nature. Provide them with the curriculum and have a system to ensure it's being taught. There is a major issue of disproportionate funding going to the Catholic system from public sources and private donations over the public. And the fact that little coordination between the two systems causes resouces to be diminished. And on the "eliteism" comment Robert, I too find that within the Catholic system. A sense of moral and ethical superiority instilled into these kids when very little of it shows in their maturity level, attitudes and actions. Mcguinty should have taken notice of the 2007 election, not as a rejection of just Islamic or Jewish or Sikh school funding but of all faith-based funding including the current separate system.
Andrew McInally, Mississauga Ontario
03/19/11 5:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.