NADIA GUO
<News Editor>
Following the passage of Bill 13 in the Ontario legislature, which effectively became The Accepting Schools Act (or better known as the anti-bullying act), Steve Tourloukis, a dentist and father of two, raised concerns about his children being “indoctrinated” about issues like same-sex marriage in ways contrary to his faith.
“My children are my own. I own them. They don’t belong to the school board,” Tourloukis was quoted to have said in a press release.
The Hamilton-Wentworth district school board rejected Tourloukis’s request that he receive notification whenever ‘sensitive’ issues arose. He said that such issues he’d prefer to teach his children by the way of a Christian perspective. This would include situations when other students’ coming from same-sex families or who are gay themselves want to engage in classroom dialogue about being part of an LGBTQ community, or any portrayal of “homosexual/bisexual conduct and relationships and/or transgenderism as natural, healthy, or acceptable.”
John Malloy, director for the Hamilton school board notes that when religious accommodation is given in schools, it’s significant that it does not harm others in the classroom at the same time, including gay students who “have a right to be accepted.”
In response, Tourloukis is taking the school district in which his children attend class to court, arguing that the board already grants this type of religious accommodation for Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, Malloy told Ontario Today that he “has had no evidence that that’s the case.”
Nevertheless, Tourloukis insists that his Charter rights have been breached. Presumably, he is referring to s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees “freedom of conscience and religion.”
Tourloukis is backed in his lawsuit by an organization called the Public Education Advocates for Christian Equity (PEACE), which drafted a stock letter entitled “Remain in the Public System, and Actively Represent Christ,” is available for download on their website (http://www.peacehamilton.com/pdf/CT-Remain.pdf). The letter is intended for parents who share Tourloukis’ concerns about the content of school curricula and classroom discussions, and for them to relay to schools such concerns by checking off topics they’d like to exempt their children from hearing about.
Topics include positive portrayals of homosexual conduct mentioned above, along with “Environmental Worship,” and “Providing a false sense of security with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.”
To get some more insight on the constitutional issues behind this upcoming case, I asked our very own Professor Marilyn Pilkington about her stance:
“In my view, it seems unlikely that a court would hold that learning about equality and respect for others in a diverse and multicultural society is an infringement of freedom of religion as long as religious texts are not used. Certainly, even if one believes that it is wrong to behave in certain ways, one’s belief does not justify bullying others who have a different code.
Even if a court found that religious freedom was infringed, it is likely that the infringement would be upheld pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter. The fact that the curriculum requirements are designed to promote equality rights, which are guaranteed in s. 15 of the Charter, and address the serious phenomenon of bullying, would give added weight to justify any limit on religious freedom. The SCC has held, in the past, that religious groups are not entitled to public funding to support their own schools. Although this may be a limit on their freedom of religion, it supports a public school system in which students from diverse backgrounds work and learn together and are exposed to the public values of our constitutional and human rights requirements.”
Professor Benjamin Berger also offered his opinion on this matter, and mentioned a similar case that was recently dealt with by the Supreme Court this year. In S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, the issue was over an Ethics and Religious Culture course that had become mandatory in Quebec schools, which two parents wanted their children exempted from. The parents’ appeal was dismissed by a unanimous decision on the basis that they did not have evidence that the course was in fact infringing on their ability to pass on their faith to their children.
The Court stated, “Exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion of L and J. Furthermore, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society. The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education.”
In light of this decision, it seems like counsel for Tourloukis is going to need some new and convincing lines of attack to win this one.
His hearing was set for September 20th at a civil court in Hamilton, but delayed to provide the school board more time to respond.